Might be interested in this: Experimental Theology: The Theology of Calvin and Hobbes: Table of Contents
2 Likes
As a less hypothetical example, why do militant atheistic determinists argue their case? Isn’t someone’s belief in free will an inevitable result of the way their brains are structured, ultimately just a bunch of chemical reactions, if their position is true?
If someone happens to be predestined to be Arminian, I don’t worry about it.
4 Likes
Good one. 
I have a question extracted from yours…
1 Like
It seems to me that they see that as a strong argument for their case(atheism). In fact, only few months ago I use to think that too. Looks like they don’t realise some Christians are OK with determinism. If only they knew @Terry_Sampson
A question I would have is “if there is no free will, why our brains are soo hard wired to give us such a strong impression of it? What would be the point of it? And I don’t find the answer” it’s a revolutionary blip" satisfying, you could say that about everything.
2 Likes
Many people have freedom of choice about many things. But not all people have the same freedom of choice for all the same things.
I only have recently encountered the notion that freedom of choice equals fully conscious freedom of choice, and I am not sure why anyone would insist on this. Because of such a notion some people think that if any part of the choosing process is not fully conscious then there is no freedom of choice. I think that conclusion is a bit bizarre.
Frankly I think the majority of our thinking is not conscious but under the hood in the operation of the brain or of the unconscious mind – that this is even required for conscious thought to be possible in first place.
2 Likes
Interesting questions.
No one has challenged my previous proposal regarding free will:
A mischievous Determinist might respond to your questions by saying: “In fact, our brains aren’t hardwired to give us the impression of it. Our brains are hardwired to believe, as Determinists do, that for every event there’s a cause and, when no cause can be identified, step up to the plate and claim that you are the cause. And that’s the point of asserting free will: it answers the innate human need to identify an event’s cause.” 
To count coup, of course.
" Among the Plains Indians, counting coup is the warrior tradition of winning prestige against an enemy in battle. It is one of the traditional ways of showing bravery in the face of an enemy. It is a way of shaming them, and hopefully getting them to admit defeat, without having to kill them. These victories may then be remembered, recorded, and recounted as part of the community’s oral, written, or pictorial histories.
Counting Coup
1 Like
Ah, thank you. My tongue was planted in my cheek, of course, because, fatuously, if everything is predetermined, arguing won’t change anything. 
And I am so shamed. 
1 Like
First, I have no idea what ex nihilo is supposed to mean in this context. I already said I consider free will as that which happens inside your mind and your mind is not nothing so I can’t see how is it possible to be ex nihilo…
But anyway, who said free will had to be perfect?
I fully acknowledge that our will is limited, some people don’t seem to have any whatsoever… I just don’t buy this argument that it has to be 100% perfect, guaranteed, unrestricted or nothing at all.
It means the same thing in any context. One second, you don’t have an intention, and the next second, you do. It comes out of nowhere, … in your mind.
If God puts the intention there, then it’s not free will, is it? It’s God’s will. If the Devil puts it there, it’s the Devil’s will. If neither God nor the Devil put the intention in your mind, then where did it come from? That the intention is in your mind is a given. What’s its source? Until you come up with a source for it, it’s “ex nihilo”; … just like the heavens and the earth in some people’s version of Genesis 1:1. One instant they don’t exist; the next second, they do. Where’d they come from? Mainstream science says: from a singularity; other folks say "God created them out of nothing.
What’s imperfect free will? 1/2 deterministic and 1/2 free will or a free will intention that you don’t like and don’t want to do? Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays are your free will days; the rest of the week you’re on vacation?
I’m a Determinist: everyday, I’m “determined”. I don’t have a “free will” day or a vacation day.
Then creation ex-nihilo means that the universe just popped into existence by itself without a cause, purpose, plan, or intention?
Sounds like what theists are so often claiming that atheists believe.
So you are equating free will with something being random or without cause?
Of course I don’t think that is what ex-nihilo means. When we talk of God creating ex-nihilo it only means God’s action and power is sufficient and no other pre-existent stuff was needed. As for free will choices, they always have a pre-existing context of circumstances. We human beings are not like God in this way at all never having existed apart from anything else. So I don’t think the term ex-nihilo is applicable.
1 Like
To me the key word is intention. Do we have to act on it? Are we God’s(or devil’s) puppets on a string? No, I don’t think so. And isn’t the case of devil putting ideas in your head a temptation? And we know that some do indeed resist many temptations. Although nowadays it’s more case of marketeers putting ideas in your head rather than devil…
I agree with above post @mitchellmckain
Also, I don’t quite get why some find it important that it should be “ex nihilo”, even if it was somehow completely random the materialist could always turn around and say it was generated by some chemicals in the brain or electric activity and that’s the cause, but I’m really struggling to see the importance of it.
Actually, that’s pretty much my own view on the matter. And that gets me out of the corner when it comes to being inconsistent, which is what you’re accusing both sides of😉
you have an interesting point of view, Terry. how do you combine determinism and Christianity?
(a) Sorry, I don’t care a fig what he thinks. He’s on my “Ignore” list, … forever. So if you want to agree with something he said, you’re going to have to specify what it is that you agree with. However, before you do, read (b).
(b) “I don’t quite get why some find it important that it should be “ex nihilo”, … but I’m really struggling to see the importance of it.” Well, we sure can’t have that, can we? Here, let’s take out our erasers and go back through everything I’ve said about “Free willingness and free choice”, okay? Next, let’s erase everything I’ve said and assume that I have no light to shed on the matter.
Now, you say you believe in free will and free choice, right? So, given your dissatisfaction with what I have said about it and my readiness and willingness to declare my ignorance about it, I welcome your definition of what they are, whether they are synonymous or not, regardless whether you quote someone else or construct it yourself. And when you’re satisfied with your definition, perhaps you will tell me how your version of it improves and has improved your life and understanding? [Note: If and when you do, I hope you’ll understand why I can’t defend you from the curmudgeons who may appear and nit-pick your definition to bits.]
(c) So, you’re a blend of determinist and free-willer, eh? Isn’t that more determinist than you used to be?
Superglue and duct tape.
Assuming you can’t/won’t see his posts here it is
"So you are equating free will with something being random or without cause?
Of course I don’t think that is what ex-nihilo means. When we talk of God creating ex-nihilo it only means God’s action and power is sufficient and no other pre-existent stuff was needed. As for free will choices, they always have a pre-existing context of circumstances. We human beings are not like God in this way at all never having existed apart from anything else. So I don’t think the term ex-nihilo is applicable."
I won’t play this game
I lean towards free will, yes, but not so free choice.
I already said what I think what they are, and so far no one here told me that it was wrong, or they had different idea.
I can’t see why my opinion about free will should improve my life? It’s just an opinion(if being on the fence as I am can even be an opinion) and I’m not particularly precious about it, everyone’s welcome to disagree.
Yes, I have changed my mind about this few months ago. Who knows? If I continue on this slippery slope, I may end up like you.
Good for you, Marta. That is all it is: an opinion about something of no consequence.
Rather than accept either choice I’d prefer to say we are participants in our own behavior, neither absolute masters nor mindless zombies. That actually makes better sense of our experience.
2 Likes
So much for what he thinks. Big deal. He thinks several things which are false, a couple of things which are incoherent, and historically has said that he doesn’t understand things that I’ve said.
However, since you say that you agree with him, let’s assume for the moment that his words are yours.
- You say: “So you are equating free will with something being random or without cause?”
- Terry says: "The hell I am. I specifically said:
Somebody stopped reading after my period and incorrectly concluded that I was equating free will with something being random or without cause, when the proper way to read my words is to continue reading what I wrote, which was:
If you ignore the whole second quote, you’ll end up concluding that I equate Free will with being random or without cause. But if you continue reading to the end of my second quote, you’ll realize that I did no such thing. Carve this in your memory and correct inept readers when you meet them: Terry Sampson says “true randomness” and “uncaused events” are utter nonsense. Terry does happen to believe that mainstream science’s opinion, i.e. everything came from a singularity only, is nonsense, too.
- You say: “Of course I don’t think that is what ex-nihilo means.”
- Terry says: “Gee, … neither do I.”
- You say: “When we talk of God creating ex-nihilo it only means God’s action and power is sufficient and no other pre-existent stuff was needed. As for free will choices, they always have a pre-existing context of circumstances. We human beings are not like God in this way at all never having existed apart from anything else. So I don’t think the term ex-nihilo is applicable.”
- I say: "Golly, free will choices always have a pre-existing context of circumstances? Neat! So you believe that free will choices are never random and never uncaused, right? If so, then I agree with you 100%!!! IMO, only the insane believe otherwise, whether they claim to be Christian or not.
- As for whether or not God’s action and power is sufficient and no other pre-existing stuff was needed in order for His actions to be “ex nihilo”, I agree with you again, … 100% [although, in fact, it’s my personal opinion that the Cosmos is boundless and had no beginning]. Whether you want to accept and believe it or not, I really do have a rudimentary understanding of what “ex nihilo” means. Now, as I said, in my second quote, inexplicably ignored by some: "If God puts the intention there, then it’s not free will, is it? It’s God’s will. If the Devil puts it there, it’s the Devil’s will. If neither God nor the Devil put the intention in your mind, then where did it come from? That the intention is in your mind is a given. What’s its source? Until you come up with a source for it, it’s “ex nihilo”.
If you want to claim credit for the free will intention and choice, then have at it. Claim the credit, … and deem yourself–as the Serpent promised Eve–"like God, knowing good and evil.”
- You say: “So I don’t think the term ex-nihilo is applicable.”
- And I say: “The term ‘ex nihilo’ is inapplicable only if you ignore most of what I said. Say that again and I’ll reluctantly have to add you to my “Ignore” list for unwillingness to give my words fair hearing.”
Why not? … because it’s silly to criticize something that doesn’t exist anymore? Take heart,
the only thing sillier is to criticize something that was never said in the first place which, unfortunately, happens from time to time around here.
Seriously, …
- In my OP of What is luck that all our swains commend her?, I noted that: “Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens–well-known atheists–have affirmed their belief in Determinism and rejection of Free Will.”
- I also mentioned that Sam Harris has written an essay/book called “Free Will”, in which he claimed that the only reason that he was not a vile criminal is “Luck”.
- I am a Determinist and was introduced to that position by the writings of a now-deceased agnostic atheist in 2004. I was then, am now, and will remain until my death a “crucified, dead, resurrected, and ascended Jesus Christ” Christian. My introduction to determinism strengthened my Christian faith because it enabled me to see that Jesus’ resurrection and ascension were actual, physical, substantial, material, and real possibilities. Believing those things to be true without a recognition and acknowledgement of their possibility is, IMO, a major challenge that many seem unable to overcome. Once one recognizes and accepts their possibility, IMO, their probability becomes less “if-fy”.
- As a Determinist, I am not a fan of nor respecter of “free will” in this world.
- When I read Sam Harris’ claim that he doesn’t think much of “free will” either, I was amused because he, an atheist, and I, a Determinist, share distaste for it. But Harris replaced “Free Will” with “Luck” and said that “Luck” plays an important role in Determinism. I ridiculed his confidence in “Luck”.
- In that same thread, MarkD astutely observed that: “To believe we are billiard balls doomed to a lucky or unlucky path would be debilitating. The other formulation doesn’t suffer from the same ill effect unless ones theological understanding leads one to feel the same fatalism by leading one to adopt a self abnegating posture toward God.”
- I responded: “Right! And “hope” is the stuff that prevents fatalism. In my case, it’s not unfounded hope based solely on Bible verses, but hope encouraged by Bible verses vindicated by and founded on those who have loved me more than I deserved and when I deserved nothing. Am I a swirling mass of dust moving through this world? I believe I am, but my experiences and my theology tell me: the transformation process is not over until the transformation is finished, at which time, I shall see the One who called me into being and transformation, face to face.”
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.