Free will in heaven?

[akaDaScribe]

Ah, ok. Well I’m morally opposed to your request. I will not be participating. I will point out evil where it appears in fiction people take seriously as a moral guide.

Too bad. It is not often that someone takes you up on such a tall request, but I guess it really doesn't mean much to you whether there is a God or not. Thank you for being honest with me.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

As far as I can tell, most Christians believe in free will. They also believe that one cannot sin in heaven. How would you reconcile those beliefs?

Good question, and trouble for the indeterminist, but for the compatibilist such as me, well, the nature of the will makes all the difference in the world. Even God cannot sin, to do so, would be contrary to His nature, a self-contradiction, logically impossible. So Christians in Heaven will not to sin because Christians in Heaven will be completely free of the fleshly desires which spring from human nature in desires of the flesh.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Ah, ok. Well I’m morally opposed to your request. I will not be participating. I will point out evil where it appears in fiction people take seriously as a moral guide.

Further, I find it absurd that this would be a part of the process for demonstrating something’s existence. What else do we demonstrate in this way?

Well, If you wanted to meet someone important and someone was trying to make it happen for you, but you kept bad mouthing the important person, I'm not sure how you think that would increase your chances of meeting the important person.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, If you wanted to meet someone important and someone was trying to make it happen for you, but you kept bad mouthing the important person, I'm not sure how you think that would increase your chances of meeting the important person.

I can’t imagine wanting to meet a person I thought so little of.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I can’t imagine wanting to meet a person I thought so little of.

Exactly.

 

[Silmarien]

Alright, before we get into the "how" of holding values, I should pin down what I mean by that. When I say I hold a value, it's another way of saying I value something. To value something is to believe in its importance to your own personal needs and/or desires. So when I say that we both hold certain values, I'm saying we both find certain things important to our own personal needs and desires.
As far as I can tell, there are a handful of things that are universally valued. These things would correspond with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and it's here that moral axioms are implicitly captured. Human flourishing is used as the axiomatic goal of moral systems because as humans, we all value flourishing over suffering, and it is easier to flourish as a cooperative group with a code of conduct than alone in the anarchical wilderness.

At this point, either you agree that the goal of morality is to facilitate human flourishing and we can proceed to evaluate God's ways accordingly, or your moral system is grounded in something else, which as you said, adds another level of complication to our discussion. If your moral system is grounded in something else, I don't know how it helps me obtain the things I need or desire, so I don't know of what value it is to me.

I actually think this is a fantastic starting point for a discussion on Old Testament morality (which I think is atrocious if not allegorized), though I suspect that there's going to be considerable disagreement over what constitutes flourishing in the first place. You're more materialistically oriented and I would assume more likely to focus upon pleasure and comfort in the utilitarian sense, which is obviously not going to fly with everyone.

I am not sure if you could defend the morality of the Old Testament with flourishing used as a starting place, but it would be interesting to see if it can be done.

 

[gaara4158]

I actually think this is a fantastic starting point for a discussion on Old Testament morality (which I think is atrocious if not allegorized), though I suspect that there's going to be considerable disagreement over what constitutes flourishing in the first place. You're more materialistically oriented and I would assume more likely to focus upon pleasure and comfort in the utilitarian sense, which is obviously not going to fly with everyone.

I am not sure if you could defend the morality of the Old Testament with flourishing used as a starting place, but it would be interesting to see if it can be done.

Yes, and the inevitable disagreement over what constitutes flourishing is why I’m so staunchly against calling this kind of morality “objective.”

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, and the inevitable disagreement over what constitutes flourishing is why I’m so staunchly against calling this kind of morality “objective.”

Oh, I think it is, though. When dealing with non-human animals, it's considerably easier to determine when something is flourishing and when it isn't--if a wolf pack is a bad wolf pack, for example, it's going to be starving to death. For humans, things get more complicated, but I think the general principles still apply. An oppressive totalitarian regime is going to be a fragile government, full of internal and external problems. It may seem good for the people on top, but its effectively the equivalent of that starving wolf pack, and its days are always going to be numbered.

Objective morality doesn't require that everyone "flourish" in exactly the same way. If one person finds purpose in music and another one hates it, that's not a problem. Or for a more relevant scenario: two people working themselves to death and foregoing other aspects of life. I would say that the one who does it out of passion for his or her work is in a different place morally than the one who does it out of love for money and social standing. People in the second category tend to either wake up and realize that their priorities are all messed up, or they start looking rather like our current president.

An interesting moral philosopher for you--one whom I like--would be Philippa Foot. She was an atheist trying to naturalize a somewhat Catholic ethics, and might be a useful counterpart to the Sam Harrises of the world.

 

[akaDaScribe]

No this doesn't make sense, and it doesn't address my helium point. Let me give you the short answer and then the long answer.

You seem to be hinting at two sorts of equations:

10·x÷x=10 for all nonzero x

√100=10

The first equation is true. It's pretty much that simple and there's nothing more to say, really. The second equation is true. The fact that √100=-10 as well does not change this. I'm not sure what equation you have in mind that would show that 10 is "kind of 10 but not really."

Here's the formal answer:

Mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. (As an aside, nothing can actually be proven from assumptions and definitions... but that's an issue for another day.) And while mathematics is a language, it differs from common language.

In common language, all words are defined in terms of other words. This technically leaves everything undefined, and there is no way to avoid this issue (hence my nihilism). Mathematics deals with this problem in its own way: instead of having everything circularly defined, mathematical symbols are defined in terms of undefined, primitive symbols.

For example, consider the ordered pair (0, 1). First, let's define an ordered pair (a, b) in terms of the set: (a, b)={a, {a, b}}. An ordered triple (a, b, c) would be {a, {a, b}, {a, b, c}}. So you can see how an ordered n-tuple would be constructed.

But what about 0 and 1? How are they defined?

We define the natural numbers as follows:

0={}=Ø
1={Ø}
2={Ø, {Ø}}

and so on.

Simply put, anything that is actually "10" will be encoded into a set like this with 10 elements. If there is a variable present, then whatever we're discussing is not 10.

But what is a variable and what is Ø? These are primitive symbols. They have no actual meaning. Intuitively we understand the notion of the variable and of the set: that the first is a placeholder for some number and that the second is a collection of things. But a placeholder for a number doesn't mean much until we know what a number is, and a number is defined in terms of sets. A set is a collection of elements. What's an element, though? An element is a member of a set. To avoid this circularity, sets are left undefined and element are defined as members of sets.

So the reality is that it's worse than what I told you above. I said that mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. But the definitions themselves are ultimately undefined. So really, mathematics is nothing but assumptions, meaningless symbols, and "conclusions" that "follow." Mathematics is literally just the pushing of symbols... and yet the world of mathematics is rich with more wonders than we can imagine.

But even still, 10=10.




Data is ultimately meaningless as I showed above, but even if we were to ignore that, it's still the case that data which characterizes me completely isn't actually me. Similarly, consider a definition of a ball that completely characterizes what a ball is. Is this definition a ball? No. It's just a definition. Data is not physical reality.

Well, except data might be physical reality. I would say that we probably do exist in a simulation, and that we are probably lines of code. But then what you'd really be describing is metadata, and not the data that is me. Metadata is not the same as the data it's describing.

In any case, the fact that you could run the code that characterizes me while I sit there and watch it all happening pretty much disproves your idea.






Not that I saw.

I'm going to open a new thread about what we are talking about and similar things. I have a feeling the conversation is about to go all over the place, which is fine, and interesting, but I don't want to screw up this thread. I'm just trying to figure out where to put it lol.

 

[gaara4158]

Oh, I think it is, though. When dealing with non-human animals, it's considerably easier to determine when something is flourishing and when it isn't--if a wolf pack is a bad wolf pack, for example, it's going to be starving to death. For humans, things get more complicated, but I think the general principles still apply. An oppressive totalitarian regime is going to be a fragile government, full of internal and external problems. It may seem good for the people on top, but its effectively the equivalent of that starving wolf pack, and its days are always going to be numbered.

Objective morality doesn't require that everyone "flourish" in exactly the same way. If one person finds purpose in music and another one hates it, that's not a problem. Or for a more relevant scenario: two people working themselves to death and foregoing other aspects of life. I would say that the one who does it out of passion for his or her work is in a different place morally than the one who does it out of love for money and social standing. People in the second category tend to either wake up and realize that their priorities are all messed up, or they start looking rather like our current president.

An interesting moral philosopher for you--one whom I like--would be Philippa Foot. She was an atheist trying to naturalize a somewhat Catholic ethics, and might be a useful counterpart to the Sam Harrises of the world.

You have a knack for writing posts that are nearly impossible to disagree with, you know that? In this case, I don’t think you’ve necessarily contradicted me. I don’t think objective morality requires everyone to flourish in the same way, but I do think to make objective moral proclamations requires full knowledge of all variables that would factor into every decision you make. You couldn’t claim it was objectively wrong to do something unless you knew the net effect on human flourishing it would have. Technically that hypothetical data set exists, but as humans without access to it, the best we can do is make reasoned arguments as to why certain actions are likely either right or wrong, and I would consider those subjective opinions. Even if objective morality exists, we can’t have an objective moral system for this reason.

 

[Silmarien]

You have a knack for writing posts that are nearly impossible to disagree with, you know that?

I try my best.

I don’t think objective morality requires everyone to flourish in the same way, but I do think to make objective moral proclamations requires full knowledge of all variables that would factor into every decision you make. You couldn’t claim it was objectively wrong to do something unless you knew the net effect on human flourishing it would have.

Well, this is only true if we think morality is something that is determined by net effects. I would deny this--I think utilitarianism is very useful at the social level, but that the balancing act that a society has to carry out is always going to lead to moral insufficiencies.

I assume you've seen Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods? It's a decent popular example of the sort of case that really interests me: the supposedly just society built upon suffering. In this case, Lovecraftian monsters will rise up and kill everyone if they don't get their regular human sacrifice. A utilitarian concept of morality would do the cost-benefit analysis, see the suffering and death of the chosen victims as a necessary price to pay for the survival of the human species, and declare the ritual morally just.

In my eyes, this is why utilitarianism fails miserably as a system of morality. Because while it might be justified to consider such a ritual a necessary evil, that does not turn it into a good. Even if the net effects are positive, sacrificing a few for the survival and comfort of the many is still morally outrageous, and when a society doesn't recognize this, the number of necessary evils it racks up tends to grow. (I am not sure that what is going on in this particular example can be reduced to flourishing, since if we are going to join Whedon and ask whether a particular society even deserves to survive, we're operating at a different level.)

When I think of flourishing, though, I think of it at the personal level instead of the societal one. What are the psychological effects of living what we would consider a poor life rather than a good one? I think that some of what goes on at the subjective level is a poor indication that the value judgment is subjective rather than objection: a person may be convinced that a particular bad habit is no big deal, but we are masters of self-deception. The coward who convinces himself that he would have been a hero given the right circumstances is still a coward in the end, and a dishonest one at that.

I share your suspicion of full-fledged systems of morality, however. I think there are certain aspects of it that are objective (particularly the condemnation of hypocrisy), but beyond that, it certainly doesn't seem to be an exact art.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I'm going to open a new thread about what we are talking about and similar things. I have a feeling the conversation is about to go all over the place, which is fine, and interesting, but I don't want to screw up this thread. I'm just trying to figure out where to put it lol.

This is the new thread
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-real.8078462/

 

[gaara4158]

Well, this is only true if we think morality is something that is determined by net effects. I would deny this--I think utilitarianism is very useful at the social level, but that the balancing act that a society has to carry out is always going to lead to moral insufficiencies.

I assume you've seen Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods? It's a decent popular example of the sort of case that really interests me: the supposedly just society built upon suffering. In this case, Lovecraftian monsters will rise up and kill everyone if they don't get their regular human sacrifice. A utilitarian concept of morality would do the cost-benefit analysis, see the suffering and death of the chosen victims as a necessary price to pay for the survival of the human species, and declare the ritual morally just.

In my eyes, this is why utilitarianism fails miserably as a system of morality. Because while it might be justified to consider such a ritual a necessary evil, that does not turn it into a good. Even if the net effects are positive, sacrificing a few for the survival and comfort of the many is still morally outrageous, and when a society doesn't recognize this, the number of necessary evils it racks up tends to grow. (I am not sure that what is going on in this particular example can be reduced to flourishing, since if we are going to join Whedon and ask whether a particular society even deserves to survive, we're operating at a different level.)

That would assume that there truly is any "benefit" to living in such a society. The problem with sacrificing the few for the survival of the many is that it specifically undercuts the goal of individual safety that a good moral system would be trying to achieve. The masses may be trading immediate certain death by demons for a more postponed one, but no one is truly spared. Instead of dying today, someone else dies for you and you get to live another day hoping it's not you or your loved one getting sacrificed tomorrow. Unless the monsters can be vanquished, in which case the most moral course of action would be for the society to concentrate all its efforts on that, I might argue that it would be more moral for that society to allow the monsters to end its miserable existence than to continue appeasing them. But again, I don't see any objective way to evaluate cost vs. benefit in a situation like this. If anything, this make me less certain that an objective moral standard is even hypothetically possible.

When I think of flourishing, though, I think of it at the personal level instead of the societal one. What are the psychological effects of living what we would consider a poor life rather than a good one? I think that some of what goes on at the subjective level is a poor indication that the value judgment is subjective rather than objection: a person may be convinced that a particular bad habit is no big deal, but we are masters of self-deception. The coward who convinces himself that he would have been a hero given the right circumstances is still a coward in the end, and a dishonest one at that.

It's almost paradoxical, isn't it? Flourishing can only be reported subjectively and yet it can be reported incorrectly. A person with a bad habit may disregard its negative effects, but is their failure to correct it due to a lack of self-control, or is it a conscious decision trading long-term well-being for immediate pleasure? It's possible they themselves don't know for sure. There is a difference, after all, between living and merely surviving.

I share your suspicion of full-fledged systems of morality, however. I think there are certain aspects of it that are objective (particularly the condemnation of hypocrisy), but beyond that, it certainly doesn't seem to be an exact art.

Agreed. Interestingly, the condemnation of hypocrisy is almost always going to be an act of hypocrisy in itself, since nearly everyone has failed to practice what they preach at some point in life

 

[Silmarien]

That would assume that there truly is any "benefit" to living in such a society. The problem with sacrificing the few for the survival of the many is that it specifically undercuts the goal of individual safety that a good moral system would be trying to achieve. The masses may be trading immediate certain death by demons for a more postponed one, but no one is truly spared. Instead of dying today, someone else dies for you and you get to live another day hoping it's not you or your loved one getting sacrificed tomorrow. Unless the monsters can be vanquished, in which case the most moral course of action would be for the society to concentrate all its efforts on that, I might argue that it would be more moral for that society to allow the monsters to end its miserable existence than to continue appeasing them. But again, I don't see any objective way to evaluate cost vs. benefit in a situation like this. If anything, this make me less certain that an objective moral standard is even hypothetically possible.

Why does an objective moral standard require a cost benefit analysis? My argument is that we need to look beyond utilitarianism if we want to talk about the grounds of ethics--if we only care about not sacrificing people to demons today because it might be us or someone we know tomorrow, we've really gutted what we mean by morality. (Though I should specify that in the movie in question, the ritual was a secret--it's basically our world being kept alive by ritual sacrifice without the public's knowledge.)

It's almost paradoxical, isn't it? Flourishing can only be reported subjectively and yet it can be reported incorrectly. A person with a bad habit may disregard its negative effects, but is their failure to correct it due to a lack of self-control, or is it a conscious decision trading long-term well-being for immediate pleasure? It's possible they themselves don't know for sure. There is a difference, after all, between living and merely surviving.

Oh, I'm not sure we're entirely in the realm of the subjective here. At least not hopelessly so. I think psychology can play a role in determining what seems to be good for us and what doesn't. And I would say that regardless of whether someone is continuing with a bad habit due to a lack of self-control or a conscious preference for immediate pleasure, what they're doing is still going to have a negative effect. It is still bad.

Agreed. Interestingly, the condemnation of hypocrisy is almost always going to be an act of hypocrisy in itself, since nearly everyone has failed to practice what they preach at some point in life

Oh, I don't mean condemnation as in walking around preaching to people. I just mean recognizing that hypocrisy is a moral wrong--I don't think there's an additional act of hypocrisy in recognizing what you're doing is bad even while you're doing it. Anyone who walks around acting as if they're morally perfect is almost certainly going to be a hypocrite, but I wouldn't say this makes hypocrisy itself a contradiction in terms.

 

[zippy2006]

As far as I can tell, most Christians believe in free will. They also believe that one cannot sin in heaven. How would you reconcile those beliefs?

Answered here.

 

[Chriliman]

After 100 billion years in heaven, will you prefer to visit this universe again to remind yourself of what it's like to suffer? I think not.

Religion was invented to explain why we exist, yet your religion, if true, renders our existence on earth completely meaningless.

The ratio of finite to infinite is zero. The infinitude of heaven makes this life absolutely pointless.

Good point, but an infinitude of existence with no loving immortal conscious beings is infinitely more pointless than an infinitude of existence with loving immortal conscious beings.

 

[HitchSlap]

Good point, but an infinitude of existence with no loving immortal conscious beings is infinitely more pointless than an infinitude of existence with loving immortal conscious beings.

I'm not sure I see a "point" to either.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not sure I see a "point" to either.

When all mortal conscious beings have died, the infinitude of meaningless existence will continue, rendering our existence infinitely pointless by comparison, unless...

You’re smart, I know you get it.

 

[HitchSlap]

When all mortal conscious beings have died, the infinitude of meaningless existence will continue, rendering our existence infinitely pointless by comparison, unless...

You’re smart, I know you get it.

There's only one existence... but you're smart, I know you understand.

 

[gaara4158]

Why does an objective moral standard require a cost benefit analysis? My argument is that we need to look beyond utilitarianism if we want to talk about the grounds of ethics--if we only care about not sacrificing people to demons today because it might be us or someone we know tomorrow, we've really gutted what we mean by morality. (Though I should specify that in the movie in question, the ritual was a secret--it's basically our world being kept alive by ritual sacrifice without the public's knowledge.)

I guess I would have to ask what it is you mean by morality, then. I agree that an objective cost-benefit analysis shouldn’t be all we care about in morality, but I do think it’s enough to condemn the kind of suffering-based society you described. Half of morality is self-interest, which is where utilitarianism comes in, and the other half is empathy, which “greases the wheels” of cooperation, so to speak. But if we’re going to talk about an objective basis for morality, I don’t think emotions can be allowed to play a factor since they are inherently subjective.

Oh, I'm not sure we're entirely in the realm of the subjective here. At least not hopelessly so. I think psychology can play a role in determining what seems to be good for us and what doesn't. And I would say that regardless of whether someone is continuing with a bad habit due to a lack of self-control or a conscious preference for immediate pleasure, what they're doing is still going to have a negative effect. It is still bad.

I would agree that bad habits have negative effects, but what constitutes a negative effect? You could point to shortened lifespans, diseases, social consequences, etc. and those would be very compelling arguments, but I would find it very difficult to establish those as objectively “bad” things. They’re things we don’t want, that contribute to other things we don’t want, but that’s all subjective preference.

I should note that I’m not arguing for a need for objective morality to establish good reasons to act morally, but rather that I can’t see a way to establish a truly objective basis for morality. I’ve flirted with utilitarianism as a hypothetical solution, but I’m becoming dissuaded even from that.