"Free Will" vs "Free Choice" vs "Predestination"

[bhsmte]

That is why I say it is kind. It is kind to give someone ice cream if they are craving it, even though we know it has a detrimental impact on their health. I don't agree it is good to do that. Isn't it better to help the person address their addiction to food, so they can enjoy ice cream in a healthy way?

You are not reading what I am saying.

Who said anything about someone else giving a person ice cream, or someone else giving another person a belief they hold onto despite evidence against it?

People eat ice cream ON THEIR OWN and people hold onto beliefs for psychological reasons ON THEIR OWN.

I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

 

[oi_antz]

That is why I say it is kind. It is kind to give someone ice cream if they are craving it, even though we know it has a detrimental impact on their health. I don't agree it is good to do that. Isn't it better to help the person address their addiction to food, so they can enjoy ice cream in a healthy way?

You are not reading what I am saying.

Who said anything about someone else giving a person ice cream, or someone else giving another person a belief they hold onto despite evidence against it?

People eat ice cream ON THEIR OWN and people hold onto beliefs for psychological reasons ON THEIR OWN.

I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

Take it back to where we began:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806365-11/#post65115405

It was said that we might as well just believe what we prefer, and I asked why it is good to believe what we prefer instead of challenging our beliefs to make sure we are correct. I got the impression that you were trying to explain why it is good to encourage delusion in this way, and all I can see is you have explained why it feels nice. But I have a theory that all our problems are caused by untruth, and that is the basis of my perspective. This is why I am asking why it is good.

 

[Radagast]

I have recently been shown that my understanding of the term "free will" is different to the dictionary definition and general use of the term.

People who use the term mean many different things, actually. See here.

You're also using the phrase "God's will" with at least two different meanings.

 

[durangodawood]

...This topic is not discussing temporal vs eternal, it is discussing human will and the reliability of God's vision of the future. There is information to consider about these things that is not sheer speculation. I don't know why you have turned it into temporal vs eternal, maybe that has become a distraction.

Because thats the essence of the "conflict" between God's proposed perfect-knowledge, and freedom of action in our world.

 

[bhsmte]

Take it back to where we began:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806365-11/#post65115405

It was said that we might as well just believe what we prefer, and I asked why it is good to believe what we prefer instead of challenging our beliefs to make sure we are correct. I got the impression that you were trying to explain why it is good to encourage delusion in this way, and all I can see is you have explained why it feels nice. But I have a theory that all our problems are caused by untruth, and that is the basis of my perspective. This is why I am asking why it is good.

I believe I have explained why people believe in things either without evidence or with evidence that goes against their belief. This phenomenon is common among many people.

If you want to understand better, we are talking about psychology here and some reading on psychology of belief, etc. may interest you, because you will learn more on how some people create very strong defense mechanisms; denial, confirmation bias, etc. to protect their beliefs.

 

[oi_antz]

People who use the term mean many different things, actually. See here.

You're also using the phrase "God's will" with at least two different meanings.

Thanks, that is a very interesting article. I need to study it to properly absorb it, as I don't have the training to help me contextualize and properly understand it on the first read. Can you define the different ways I have spoken of God's will?

Because thats the essence of the "conflict" between God's proposed perfect-knowledge, and freedom of action in our world.

OK, but what you are doing is getting into generalizations instead of specifics. I will not see much value in that.

I believe I have explained why people believe in things either without evidence or with evidence that goes against their belief. This phenomenon is common among many people.

If you want to understand better, we are talking about psychology here and some reading on psychology of belief, etc. may interest you, because you will learn more on how some people create very strong defense mechanisms; denial, confirmation bias, etc. to protect their beliefs.

Yes, I do understand that part. What I don't understand is why it is suggested that it is good to encourage the protection of untrue beliefs instead of encouraging beliefs that are true instead.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks, that is a very interesting article. I need to study it to properly absorb it, as I don't have the training to help me contextualize and properly understand it on the first read. Can you define the different ways I have spoken of God's will?

OK, but what you are doing is getting into generalizations instead of specifics. I will not see much value in that.

Yes, I do understand that part. What I don't understand is why it is suggested that it is good to encourage the protection of untrue beliefs instead of encouraging beliefs that are true instead.

Who is encouraging the protection of untrue beliefs?

People who believe in things despite evidence against the same, usually don't need encouragement from someone else to protect their belief, because the belief is tied to a personal psychological need and not tied to what others have to say.

Bottom line, if someone needs badly enough to believe in something, they will find a way to rationalize the belief and then protect it.

 

[oi_antz]

Who is encouraging the protection of untrue beliefs?

People who believe in things despite evidence against the same, usually don't need encouragement from someone else to protect their belief, because the belief is tied to a personal psychological need and not tied to what others have to say.

Bottom line, if someone needs badly enough to believe in something, they will find a way to rationalize the belief and then protect it.

I'm sorry bhsmte, I don't see the point of arguing about this. What you have said here is agreeable, I just didn't see why you would have suggested it is good to believe what we prefer. Maybe that isn't what you intended to say when you initially made your comment.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry bhsmte, I don't see the point of arguing about this. What you have said here is agreeable, I just didn't see why you would have suggested it is good to believe what we prefer. Maybe that isn't what you intended to say when you initially made your comment.

If your goal in life is to be in the best touch with reality as possible, than no, it is not good to believe what you prefer. Some people don't have this goal, they have a goal of comfort and to them, it is good to be COMFORTABLE and truths, can make them uncomfortable.

This is my last post on this matter, but I will leave with these analogies:

-Do people smoke despite knowing it is bad for them?
-Do people eat fatty foods despite knowing it is bad for them?

The answer is yes, and this is the same principle people use when they believe in something that either lacks evidence or has evidence against the belief, they do it anyway. Why? because of PHSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, and in SOME PEOPLE, these psychological needs are so strong, and provide so much comfort, that they will rationalize their behavior and use defense mechanisms to defend their belief.

To these people, it would be much more PAINFUL to acknowledge reality, than to give up their belief, because the belief fills a need and makes them feel good. In these cases, the individual person decides what is good and to them, the belief is good for them.

 

[lesliedellow]

Maybe David Hume on the subject of free will would be of interest:

Hume on Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)