Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[drumdude]

Who/what are humans accountable to? I’m looking for the most base and fundamental level, not a middle man.

That’s going to vary from person to person. At least as far as their own ideas/perception goes. But that’s not to say that we might all be accountable to our creator. That’s some thing that becomes a matter of faith in the eyes of the beholder.

Not matter who or what a person is accountable to, even if it’s their dog, choosing altruistic behavior rather than purposefully wanting to do harm or develop narcissistic behaviors is an act of free will.

In my book, anyway.

Regards,
MG

I'm interested in you/the Mormon view of who you're accountable to. In my reading of Mormon theology, the Universe itself is the moral arbiter, not God. That's a bit similar to the atheist position, in my opinion.

[MG 2.0]

It would be interesting to know whether or not, generally speaking, there is any correlation between progressive liberal politics (secularism more or less being a part of that…) and the concept of free will.

I suppose that would be a different question to parse out.

Are those that are conservative in their politics also more likely to believe in and/or accept that human beings have free will and that it is a gift from an all knowing creator?

Regards,
MG

MG, liberal people believe in freedom. The most usable definition of free will is the ability to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, foundational ideas of liberal politics.

There are conservative people who believe these things as well but there are also conservative people who think humans are so corrupt that police power must be extended and strengthened to prevent corruption. There are conservative who believe that a majority of people cannot be trusted so must be looked over and controlled by those chosen people who know what is right. (I suspect that Trump knows he lost the election considering who voted for Biden but he strongly believes that he knows what is best better than the people voting )

Many evangelicals on the political right believe that the God given freedom was so corrupted by sin that there is no freedom of the will just bondage of the will. LDS enthusiasm for free will is not shared by many on the right.But some will share it , at least sometimes.

Those politically on the left generally have a better view of human nature, that it has negatives but is capable of descisions moveing in a positive way because of free will. (a will capable of learning and improving)

I know I’m generalizing somewhat. I suppose the truth, as seems to be par for the course, is typically somewhere in the middle ground. People as a whole… secular progressive liberals, conservative leaning independents, ultra right populists, moderate democrats, etc…shouldn’t be pigeonholed into a certain caricature by the other groups that might not run in tandem to those political parties or persuasion.

I suppose the question I’m interested in is whether or not, generally speaking, you might find one political persuasion of practice/belief to also have a parallel/corollary with one’s religious belief. And THEN, if there might be connection/relationship between those parallels/corollaries and beliefs in regards to free will.

But that might all be a stretch to even consider because of the uniqueness of each person even if they may make general claims as being this or that in regards to political beliefs.

It would be interesting to know, for example on a board like this one, whether those that question free will being ‘a thing’ are more conservative or progressive liberal in their political beliefs.

But as has been said, one can…in certain instances…be conservative and take positions that are more deterministic. One can be uber liberal and believe in radical free will.

So huckleberry and Morley, I take your point.

As a moderate leaning independent, sometimes Republican, with some positions that may be aligned at times with certain democratic positions…and a believer in free will being a gift from and all knowing creator…I look at the graphic posted by Morley a bit differently, but not altogether differently, than I did even in recent history. My positions politically have gone back and forth throughout my life. Republican and Democratic positions have flipped one party back and forth and back again over the years.

The last few years have been another period of time where I’ve had to reevaluate where I stand on one thing or another. I don’t find myself taking a hard position in some respects, but find that I do in others.

I’m one of those folks that finds myself concerned about the direction of the country but feel as though extremist positions on both ends of the political spectrum have welded too much power and are polarizing our country to the point that we need to have some smart, level headed people, step forward and straighten things out.

Way off the beaten track, but I felt I needed to bring things back to an even keel in regards to where I’m coming from.

I’m not a far right extremist, by any measurement. And as I say that, I’m still on board with most of what I said in the other thread being referred to. But with a softening in some respects to respect those of moderate sensibilities no matter where they might find themselves in the political spectrum.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

That’s going to vary from person to person. At least as far as their own ideas/perception goes. But that’s not to say that we might all be accountable to our creator. That’s some thing that becomes a matter of faith in the eyes of the beholder.

Not matter who or what a person is accountable to, even if it’s their dog, choosing altruistic behavior rather than purposefully wanting to do harm or develop narcissistic behaviors is an act of free will.

In my book, anyway.

Regards,
MG

I'm interested in you/the Mormon view of who you're accountable to. In my reading of Mormon theology, the Universe itself is the moral arbiter, not God. That's a bit similar to the atheist position, in my opinion.

I think it’s both, if by “the Universe itself”, you mean ‘you’ and your place in the cosmos. After all, Mormonism teaches that we’ve always been free agents, being able to make choices within whatever sphere of operation we’ve found ourselves in. That, for our purposes, could be synonymous with ‘the universe’ although who knows? If there is an inter dimensional aspect to it, we have something else going on here/there that is beyond anyone’s pay grade.

I place God in the scheme of things as being the Great Arbitrator. The Chief Operating Officer. Our Father in Heaven. Jesus being His right hand man who provided a mechanism (for lack of a better word) by which our will is magnified and built upon in the hereafter through the Atonement. All limitations that were existent upon free will in this sphere of operation will be dispelled and the ‘will’ of each individual that has lived on the planet (and those that didn’t get that opportunity) will be recognized and built upon and enhanced through gifts from the Father in the post mortal existence/glories.

The apparent exceptions and anomalies that are inherent to a plan where agency is primary in scope, will be ‘covered’ and corrected through that Atonement.

If you take the true atheist position, however, there is no ‘fail safe’ plan to bring souls to a place where their will is recognized and rewarded in their further endeavors. Because we cease to exist, period. And if we continue to exist there is nothing in place to correct or being back into alignment the chaos and dissolution that are the results of this life’s realities.

Obviously, I am stating a position that is based on a hoped for belief in an afterlife where we will progress and recognize each other as independent entities and God as our Father who will reward us with justice and mercy.

Other philosophical views will see things such as an afterlife and eternal progress/reward through other lenses.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So would a being who created us be aware of what our instinctive responses are more than we are?

We don't attach accountability to babies and toddlers either because I think there is a sense that they don't have choice, they live instinctively. And I do think this makes sense but we aren't able to know if toddlers have a sense of choice because we can't communicate with them in a way that we could see that. They kind of do what we make allow them to do in a way. I mean little toddlers that are basically still babies.

I think you e hit on something there. It might be that part of our ‘probation’ is interconnected with our natural impulses of behavior/action accumulated over eons of time and are then recognized more or less as instinctive behaviors in some respects.

May have something to do with our placement when born into this temporal reality??

You have some real interesting twists and turns on things. A bit off the beaten track.

Thanks for your contributions.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I'm interested in you/the Mormon view of who you're accountable to. In my reading of Mormon theology, the Universe itself is the moral arbiter, not God. That's a bit similar to the atheist position, in my opinion.

I think it’s both, if by “the Universe itself”, you mean ‘you’ and your place in the cosmos. After all, Mormonism teaches that we’ve always been free agents, being able to make choices within whatever sphere of operation we’ve found ourselves in. That, for our purposes, could be synonymous with ‘the universe’ although who knows? If there is an inter dimensional aspect to it, we have something else going on here/there that is beyond anyone’s pay grade.

I place God in the scheme of things as being the Great Arbitrator. The Chief Operating Officer. Our Father in Heaven. Jesus being His right hand man who provided a mechanism (for lack of a better word) by which our will is magnified and built upon in the hereafter through the Atonement. All limitations that were existent upon free will in this sphere of operation will be dispelled and the ‘will’ of each individual that has lived on the planet (and those that didn’t get that opportunity) will be recognized and built upon and enhanced through gifts from the Father in the post mortal existence/glories.

The apparent exceptions and anomalies that are inherent to a plan where agency is primary in scope, will be ‘covered’ and corrected through that Atonement.

If you take the true atheist position, however, there is no ‘fail safe’ plan to bring souls to a place where their will is recognized and rewarded in their further endeavors. Because we cease to exist, period. And if we continue to exist there is nothing in place to correct or being back into alignment the chaos and dissolution that are the results of this life’s realities.

Obviously, I am stating a position that is based on a hoped for belief in an afterlife where we will progress and recognize each other as independent entities and God as our Father who will reward us with justice and mercy.

Other philosophical views will see things such as an afterlife and eternal progress/reward through other lenses.

Regards,
MG

That’s an interesting perspective that I’ll have to re-read a few times and mull over.

[MG 2.0]

It seems that we human beings tend to think that others' misfortunes came about because they were negligent in how they exercised their free will in making poor decisions--so they're just getting what they deserve. On the other hand, our own misfortunes are because of matters beyond our control--because there were unavoidable circumstances that kept us from our potential. In other words, they had free will and screwed up, while our own screwups could not have been prevented.

A bit of a generalization.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

It seems that we human beings tend to think that others' misfortunes came about because they were negligent in how they exercised their free will in making poor decisions--so they're just getting what they deserve. On the other hand, our own misfortunes are because of matters beyond our control--because there were unavoidable circumstances that kept us from our potential. In other words, they had free will and screwed up, while our own screwups could not have been prevented.

A bit of a generalization.

Absolutely. Good observation. I'll bet that the hint that it was intended as a generalization was probably the way it starts out: "It seems that we human beings tend to..."

It's also a bit cynical, don't you think?

[MG 2.0]

A bit of a generalization.

Absolutely. Good observation. I'll bet that the hint that it was intended as a generalization was probably the way it starts out: "It seems that we human beings tend to…”

Yes it was!

In discussions such as the one we’ve been having it is worth pointing out, as you have, that generalizations are OK to make, of course with the caveat that a particular point isn’t necessarily being made as a result of that generalization.

Generalizations don’t prove anything other than under a certain set of circumstances and within certain parameters something might be true.

When discussing free will this might matter.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

A bit of a generalization.

Absolutely. Good observation. I'll bet that the hint that it was intended as a generalization was probably the way it starts out: "It seems that we human beings tend to..."

It's also a bit cynical, don't you think?

Chuckle

Morley , I suspect with Beckman up you are not wearing your rose colored glasses.

I think sometimes Christians can overdo the people are corrupt idea resulting in a devaluation of people. Yet I am unable to reject Beckman's, The Night. It is like a small tattoo on my heal. Or perhaps a flea which I cannot loose.

[Morley]

Chuckle

Morley , I suspect with Beckman up you are not wearing your rose colored glasses.

I think sometimes Christians can overdo the people are corrupt idea resulting in a devaluation of people. Yet I am unable to reject Beckman's, The Night. It is like a small tattoo on my heal. Or perhaps a flea which I cannot loose.

Ha! I’ve never thought you had much in common with Esther Greenwood, Huck, but it’s sometimes hard to rid of the feeling that something is profoundly wrong with us. I think that The Night is certainly Beckmann at his darkest. Thanks for the reference.