Response to Tektonics - Part X
What follows is round 10 with my debate with JP Holding:
JPH> Find me a single example of an aware human being who did not commit wrong
JPH> when given the freedom to do so.
What? I’ve had many opportunities to do wrong and didn’t do so. I assume you really meant sometime in our life. But, given that there are at least some times that wrong is not done when free will to do so proves that free will is not fundamentally incompatible. It is your burden to prove they are fundamentally incompatible and you can’t because they aren’t.
When I used to go to church, the pastor at my church was very fond of this scripture: “Allow the little children to come unto me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Ironically, at least for most people, most of the wrongs we do are as children! When we are born, all we are aware of is our own needs and wants. It is part of growing up that we learn that others have needs and wants. Children are inherently selfish, which is “bad”. But, God wants “good”. And yet the Kingdom of God is for children?
What I’m saying is, you are probably right that at least almost everybody has done something “wrong” as people are selfish. But we are born that way. Whose fault is that? And, frankly, it isn't terribly surprising either. Part of growing up is learning that other people have needs and wants. But ultimately, nobody is intimately aware of our own needs and wants except ourselves. The only thoughts we hear are our own. That's just the way it is--at least the way we are designed. And we didn't design ourselves.
JPH: Human experience gives us all the proof we need. [...] The burden lying against
JPH: you beats harshly against your own front door.
Well, I’ve already shown that it is not, free will does not always result in “wrong”. You will say that human experience shows that it always eventually does result in some wrong. But human experience doesn’t tell us what is possible or impossible for an omnipotent being to create. You can point all day to things in our human experience and that still doesn’t prove anything about what is possible for omnipotence.
JPH: How can you indeed say that adequate information for a salvational decision has
JPH: not been, or will not be, provided to everyone? Maybe you would call that a
JPH: "different salvation method" but I would not.
Well I suppose that before I can comment appropriately, I need to know for certain what you believe is the requirements for salvation. But if you give a different answer for
1. People exposed to Christianity daily.
2. People exposed to Christianity occasionally.
3. People exposed to Christianity in a harsh light, such as people who grow up in a fundamentalist Islamic home in a fundamentalist Islamic country.
4. People exposed to Christianity very rarely.
5. People who never heard of Christianity.
6. People born before Christ ever lived.
If you don’t give the same answer for all those different people, then yeah I certainly would say it is a different salvation method. You might try to say the different methods are “equivalent” and perhaps say they give the same results. But if you do so you’d be making an unfalsifiable claim. If you have a different answer for each of these groups then you have a different answer and a different salvation method. Simple as that.
PJ: Hmm. So, you are agnostic as to whether fetuses have souls?
JPH: don't see how you get that from what I said.
I seem to have misinterpreted. Just to be clear, you do indeed believe fetuses have souls? When is a soul “handed out” by God–at conception?
JPH: I'd say far more than 2% anyway. Infant mortality was much higher in the ancient
JPH: world, and still is in modern Third World countries; make it more like 50%.
I figured my 2% was on the low side, but figured I’d be better to under-estimate than over-estimate. Your 50% figure sounds on the high side to me, but I acknowledge your number is probably closer to right than mine–I confessed to pulling the number “out of my butt” so to speak. But, aren’t you helping me? Isn’t the higher the number of people that live without a significant contiguous reality the less likely that anybody could really need one?
JPH: There is simply not enough information for you to pose this as some sort of
JPH: definitive problem.
I concede I cannot prove it is a problem. You cannot prove it is not a problem. But it looks to be a rather straight-forward conclusion that if 50% of all people (your number) don’t need a significant contiguous reality then 100% shouldn’t either. You may say that is an unfalsifiable assertion, fine. I will simply say that you haven’t given me good reason to believe it is not a problem.
JPH: You're asking for, e.g., something that prevents that sort of thing from being a
JPH: bother; but presumably such would be a desirable thing if someone was
JPH: screaming in your ear about a fire. Now you're getting into a world in which there
JPH: is even more "magic" afoot and even more violation of basic free will with
JPH: amazing bendings of rules and common experience.
The way it really works is, our subconscious acts as a first-level filter. We won’t even notice, for example, an air conditioner running because our subconscious has been trained that hum is normal and not to bother the conscious with it. Of course some people are annoyed by the hum of something like an air-conditioner. For some reason, their subconscious hasn’t learned well that should be ignored.
Also, this filter of our subconscious seems to adjust itself depending on how busy the conscious is. If we are deep in thought, something that we might notice otherwise will get filtered out. Additionally, our subconscious is trained to take higher notice on things our conscious finds important. That is how sometimes we can hear our name spoken out of an otherwise unintelligible din. I know I’m being very simplistic, but that is basically how it works. So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m referring to things that make it through the first-level subconscious filter--things that we take sufficient note of that we at least hear the words or see some action and take some conscious note of event. I’m also referring to things that below physical pain level. If I screamed in your ear sufficiently loud I would damage your hearing. So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking about influence within the range of being at least noticed, but below physical pain or injury level, okay?
With any form of influence within that range, at least short term, I think people can consciously choose to ignore the influence, at least to any discernable degree. I could yell “Fire!” and you might decide that I’m mistaken or otherwise being stupid and there is no fire and go about your business. Or I might barely whisper “fire” and if you heard me at all, you might decide that maybe there is a fire and you want to investigate it.
But, while I believe that people can choose to ignore influence with the defined range to any discernable degree on a short-term basis, but all influence within that degree becomes part of our experience. I don’t believe there is any dividing line between any influence in that defined range as being a violation of free will and something else not. Ultimately humans are influencable creatures. Ask anybody in advertising. If you see Coke advertised enough, there is a high probability that you will buy a Coke. I don’t have to scream “Buy Coke!” in your ear. I can simply show enough people enjoying a bottle of Coke and there is a reasonably high degree of probability that you will buy a Coke.
Perhaps I can be enough of a pest, I might hang around outside your office and yell “Buy Coke” and maybe you might make a deal and say, “dang it Paul, I’ll buy a Coke if you just go away.” But if I worked for the Coca-Cola company such overt influence might work short term–you might buy a Coke to shut me up. But it might also make you say, “I’ll never buy a Coke again!” after I finally leave. If my goal as a Coke salesman is to influence you to be a long-term customer, subtle, yet pervasive influence is more likely to meet my goal. The point I’m getting at is that may indeed be true that the more subtle influence, the stuff you say God can do without violating free will is actually more effective long-term in influencing behavior! And I don't think I'm making an unfalsifiable claim, I believe my claim is born out by the advertising industry every day.
But, bottom line is, as I said, within the defined range of influence, I don’t believe there is any dividing line between that which is a violation of free will and that which is not. Or if there is a dividing line, it is up to you to show it.
JPH: My point was more than there is at least a reason beyond any
JPH: considerations of what is or is not holy, which should have sparked
JPH: an initial reading at least;
The problem is, there is essentially a limitless number of things that one can say has enough inherent value to be read or seen or experienced, etc. A Buddhist can say that even if I'm not a Buddhist, the Buddhist Sutra has been of influence on millions of people for thousands of years and that in and of itself should be sufficient grounds to read it. And if I go to an Indian reservation, they would probably say that their culture has sufficient inherent value that I should consider it worth study. I live on what was their land, the least I could do would be to learn about the people whose land my forefathers took, no? The point being, I simply cannot study everything that has value enough to be studied. That is simply a limitation of being human.
But, even so, at least for myself, the purported value of the Bible was sufficient for me to spark an initial reading--at least for the parts that I could stay awake for. As I noted earlier, I confess to not getting through much of the OT. But I did read all of Genesis, and then at least some selected portions of the other books of the OT. And I did read most of the NT, including all of the Gospels. And it still looks to me like a hodge-podge of some history, some fiction, some mythology. But it certainly doesn't look divine to me. No, I'll never be an expert on the Bible and I could be completely wrong. But I have spent sufficient effort that I think that if it was divine I should know it.
JPH: And I do not agree with "instantly" -- that has the sound of one who is wanting
JPH: personalized service and is unwilling to work; and such would not be a desirable
JPH: disciple to begin with.
I thought God was supposed to give everyone "personalized service" as we are each His children and doesn't want a one of His children to perish, no? Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"? And, its not just a matter of being "unwilling to work", its a matter that nobody can learn everything about everything. And people can make honest errors in judgment. An honest error of judgment is not generally considered a crime. Of course if I make an "honest error of judgment" that the money in my local bank belongs in my pocket and rob it, then that is a crime. But it was the acting on my judgment that was the crime. I can conclude all day long that the money in the bank belongs to me and that isn't a crime at all. If the Bible is indeed more than I think it is, it is merely an honest error of judgment.
JPH: I of course argue that He has not been so hidden...but that
JPH: runs into issues from Case For Christ, not CFF.
The problem in my view is that even if CfC is 100% accurate (choke.. cough..) even if it is 100% right, that is still too hidden to be reasonable. Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern that it is indeed accurate? Since history is not my forte, I'll be honest, when I first read CfC, I thought it was much better than CfF. I've now read counter-arguments by Lowder, Doherty and others. No doubt you will say they are biased, and you'd be 100% right, they are biased. Of course so is Strobel and his experts, they are biased too. Ultimately, I'm in not a sufficient expert to defend or deny either position. I can say that now that I've heard some arguments on both sides, the skeptical opinions appear to me to be stronger. But I can concede this could be bias. But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.
JPH: Case for a Creator is out of my league to defend, but I thank you nevertheless. [...]
JPH: I was surprised he wanted to plumb those depths, but he is quite the eager beaver, to his credit.
Being an "eager beaver" is one thing, too bad he writes such lousy books... <g> Seriously, I need to reread your original defense over my critique of Case for Faith. I have revised the critique on my site to some degree to address some of your complaints, the ones where I concede you had some valid criticisms. But I suppose I need to reread and make sure that everything that I feel is legitimate of your complaints is now corrected or clarified. I don't believe you have addressed any of my revisions so far in our debate.
JPH> Find me a single example of an aware human being who did not commit wrong
JPH> when given the freedom to do so.
What? I’ve had many opportunities to do wrong and didn’t do so. I assume you really meant sometime in our life. But, given that there are at least some times that wrong is not done when free will to do so proves that free will is not fundamentally incompatible. It is your burden to prove they are fundamentally incompatible and you can’t because they aren’t.
When I used to go to church, the pastor at my church was very fond of this scripture: “Allow the little children to come unto me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Ironically, at least for most people, most of the wrongs we do are as children! When we are born, all we are aware of is our own needs and wants. It is part of growing up that we learn that others have needs and wants. Children are inherently selfish, which is “bad”. But, God wants “good”. And yet the Kingdom of God is for children?
What I’m saying is, you are probably right that at least almost everybody has done something “wrong” as people are selfish. But we are born that way. Whose fault is that? And, frankly, it isn't terribly surprising either. Part of growing up is learning that other people have needs and wants. But ultimately, nobody is intimately aware of our own needs and wants except ourselves. The only thoughts we hear are our own. That's just the way it is--at least the way we are designed. And we didn't design ourselves.
JPH: Human experience gives us all the proof we need. [...] The burden lying against
JPH: you beats harshly against your own front door.
Well, I’ve already shown that it is not, free will does not always result in “wrong”. You will say that human experience shows that it always eventually does result in some wrong. But human experience doesn’t tell us what is possible or impossible for an omnipotent being to create. You can point all day to things in our human experience and that still doesn’t prove anything about what is possible for omnipotence.
JPH: How can you indeed say that adequate information for a salvational decision has
JPH: not been, or will not be, provided to everyone? Maybe you would call that a
JPH: "different salvation method" but I would not.
Well I suppose that before I can comment appropriately, I need to know for certain what you believe is the requirements for salvation. But if you give a different answer for
1. People exposed to Christianity daily.
2. People exposed to Christianity occasionally.
3. People exposed to Christianity in a harsh light, such as people who grow up in a fundamentalist Islamic home in a fundamentalist Islamic country.
4. People exposed to Christianity very rarely.
5. People who never heard of Christianity.
6. People born before Christ ever lived.
If you don’t give the same answer for all those different people, then yeah I certainly would say it is a different salvation method. You might try to say the different methods are “equivalent” and perhaps say they give the same results. But if you do so you’d be making an unfalsifiable claim. If you have a different answer for each of these groups then you have a different answer and a different salvation method. Simple as that.
PJ: Hmm. So, you are agnostic as to whether fetuses have souls?
JPH: don't see how you get that from what I said.
I seem to have misinterpreted. Just to be clear, you do indeed believe fetuses have souls? When is a soul “handed out” by God–at conception?
JPH: I'd say far more than 2% anyway. Infant mortality was much higher in the ancient
JPH: world, and still is in modern Third World countries; make it more like 50%.
I figured my 2% was on the low side, but figured I’d be better to under-estimate than over-estimate. Your 50% figure sounds on the high side to me, but I acknowledge your number is probably closer to right than mine–I confessed to pulling the number “out of my butt” so to speak. But, aren’t you helping me? Isn’t the higher the number of people that live without a significant contiguous reality the less likely that anybody could really need one?
JPH: There is simply not enough information for you to pose this as some sort of
JPH: definitive problem.
I concede I cannot prove it is a problem. You cannot prove it is not a problem. But it looks to be a rather straight-forward conclusion that if 50% of all people (your number) don’t need a significant contiguous reality then 100% shouldn’t either. You may say that is an unfalsifiable assertion, fine. I will simply say that you haven’t given me good reason to believe it is not a problem.
JPH: You're asking for, e.g., something that prevents that sort of thing from being a
JPH: bother; but presumably such would be a desirable thing if someone was
JPH: screaming in your ear about a fire. Now you're getting into a world in which there
JPH: is even more "magic" afoot and even more violation of basic free will with
JPH: amazing bendings of rules and common experience.
The way it really works is, our subconscious acts as a first-level filter. We won’t even notice, for example, an air conditioner running because our subconscious has been trained that hum is normal and not to bother the conscious with it. Of course some people are annoyed by the hum of something like an air-conditioner. For some reason, their subconscious hasn’t learned well that should be ignored.
Also, this filter of our subconscious seems to adjust itself depending on how busy the conscious is. If we are deep in thought, something that we might notice otherwise will get filtered out. Additionally, our subconscious is trained to take higher notice on things our conscious finds important. That is how sometimes we can hear our name spoken out of an otherwise unintelligible din. I know I’m being very simplistic, but that is basically how it works. So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m referring to things that make it through the first-level subconscious filter--things that we take sufficient note of that we at least hear the words or see some action and take some conscious note of event. I’m also referring to things that below physical pain level. If I screamed in your ear sufficiently loud I would damage your hearing. So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking about influence within the range of being at least noticed, but below physical pain or injury level, okay?
With any form of influence within that range, at least short term, I think people can consciously choose to ignore the influence, at least to any discernable degree. I could yell “Fire!” and you might decide that I’m mistaken or otherwise being stupid and there is no fire and go about your business. Or I might barely whisper “fire” and if you heard me at all, you might decide that maybe there is a fire and you want to investigate it.
But, while I believe that people can choose to ignore influence with the defined range to any discernable degree on a short-term basis, but all influence within that degree becomes part of our experience. I don’t believe there is any dividing line between any influence in that defined range as being a violation of free will and something else not. Ultimately humans are influencable creatures. Ask anybody in advertising. If you see Coke advertised enough, there is a high probability that you will buy a Coke. I don’t have to scream “Buy Coke!” in your ear. I can simply show enough people enjoying a bottle of Coke and there is a reasonably high degree of probability that you will buy a Coke.
Perhaps I can be enough of a pest, I might hang around outside your office and yell “Buy Coke” and maybe you might make a deal and say, “dang it Paul, I’ll buy a Coke if you just go away.” But if I worked for the Coca-Cola company such overt influence might work short term–you might buy a Coke to shut me up. But it might also make you say, “I’ll never buy a Coke again!” after I finally leave. If my goal as a Coke salesman is to influence you to be a long-term customer, subtle, yet pervasive influence is more likely to meet my goal. The point I’m getting at is that may indeed be true that the more subtle influence, the stuff you say God can do without violating free will is actually more effective long-term in influencing behavior! And I don't think I'm making an unfalsifiable claim, I believe my claim is born out by the advertising industry every day.
But, bottom line is, as I said, within the defined range of influence, I don’t believe there is any dividing line between that which is a violation of free will and that which is not. Or if there is a dividing line, it is up to you to show it.
JPH: My point was more than there is at least a reason beyond any
JPH: considerations of what is or is not holy, which should have sparked
JPH: an initial reading at least;
The problem is, there is essentially a limitless number of things that one can say has enough inherent value to be read or seen or experienced, etc. A Buddhist can say that even if I'm not a Buddhist, the Buddhist Sutra has been of influence on millions of people for thousands of years and that in and of itself should be sufficient grounds to read it. And if I go to an Indian reservation, they would probably say that their culture has sufficient inherent value that I should consider it worth study. I live on what was their land, the least I could do would be to learn about the people whose land my forefathers took, no? The point being, I simply cannot study everything that has value enough to be studied. That is simply a limitation of being human.
But, even so, at least for myself, the purported value of the Bible was sufficient for me to spark an initial reading--at least for the parts that I could stay awake for. As I noted earlier, I confess to not getting through much of the OT. But I did read all of Genesis, and then at least some selected portions of the other books of the OT. And I did read most of the NT, including all of the Gospels. And it still looks to me like a hodge-podge of some history, some fiction, some mythology. But it certainly doesn't look divine to me. No, I'll never be an expert on the Bible and I could be completely wrong. But I have spent sufficient effort that I think that if it was divine I should know it.
JPH: And I do not agree with "instantly" -- that has the sound of one who is wanting
JPH: personalized service and is unwilling to work; and such would not be a desirable
JPH: disciple to begin with.
I thought God was supposed to give everyone "personalized service" as we are each His children and doesn't want a one of His children to perish, no? Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"? And, its not just a matter of being "unwilling to work", its a matter that nobody can learn everything about everything. And people can make honest errors in judgment. An honest error of judgment is not generally considered a crime. Of course if I make an "honest error of judgment" that the money in my local bank belongs in my pocket and rob it, then that is a crime. But it was the acting on my judgment that was the crime. I can conclude all day long that the money in the bank belongs to me and that isn't a crime at all. If the Bible is indeed more than I think it is, it is merely an honest error of judgment.
JPH: I of course argue that He has not been so hidden...but that
JPH: runs into issues from Case For Christ, not CFF.
The problem in my view is that even if CfC is 100% accurate (choke.. cough..) even if it is 100% right, that is still too hidden to be reasonable. Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern that it is indeed accurate? Since history is not my forte, I'll be honest, when I first read CfC, I thought it was much better than CfF. I've now read counter-arguments by Lowder, Doherty and others. No doubt you will say they are biased, and you'd be 100% right, they are biased. Of course so is Strobel and his experts, they are biased too. Ultimately, I'm in not a sufficient expert to defend or deny either position. I can say that now that I've heard some arguments on both sides, the skeptical opinions appear to me to be stronger. But I can concede this could be bias. But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.
JPH: Case for a Creator is out of my league to defend, but I thank you nevertheless. [...]
JPH: I was surprised he wanted to plumb those depths, but he is quite the eager beaver, to his credit.
Being an "eager beaver" is one thing, too bad he writes such lousy books... <g> Seriously, I need to reread your original defense over my critique of Case for Faith. I have revised the critique on my site to some degree to address some of your complaints, the ones where I concede you had some valid criticisms. But I suppose I need to reread and make sure that everything that I feel is legitimate of your complaints is now corrected or clarified. I don't believe you have addressed any of my revisions so far in our debate.