Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
Excellent, im glad that came through, because these topics really are important, and important conversations without depth and nuance cease to be important I think, and conversations can easily devolve…anyway!
I think I can best respond to your points by myself raising two points.
First, instead of imagining our choices as able to fall into two buckets, namely “good choices” and “evil choices”, I want us to forget the buckets and picture all these choices occurring on a spectrum. On the far left side of the spectrum is THE MOST EVIL CHOICE YOU ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MAKE and on the far right side of the spectrum is THE MOST GOOD CHOICE YOU ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MAKE. I believe this addresses a couple of your points just off the bat, namely your points about
creating a universe with the potential for good choices but with our potential for evil or morally harmful choices prevented
limitations on any given person’s capacity to choose evil (or good for that matter)
For point 1), let’s imagine a universe where, according to the spectrum of choice I described, everything to the left of “I don’t care” is a choice precluded from us. So let’s say… you’re walking down the street and see someone living rough (i.e. homeless). In our (real, current, physical) world, you could shoot him, spit on him, ignore him, give him a sandwich, or invite him to stay in your guest room while he gets back on his feet. Now let’s go to the universe where God has precluded all the “evil” choices from being made, everything more evil than “I don’t care about that guy.”… well, doesn’t that just shift the definition of “evil choices”? Now, “ignore him” is the most evil thing we can do, and it’s still evil (just less so than shooting him) and we can still choose it.
So all that is to say, even with “narrowed choices” as long as our free will exists, we are always able to choose an option from the “evil” side of the spectrum. So yes the President has a wider spectrum of choices (he can actually launch nukes, or mobilize 1,000,000 soldiers to build infrastructure projects), but, and this brings me to my next point (in response to what you raised) regarding limitations on our capacity to choose evil. We can’t just use our Will to conjure a nuke and detonate it. We can’t just use our Will to conjure $1,000,000 and use it for “good”.
Could you imagine how broken the world would be if every person got their own personal Death Note (a magic book where you write someone’s name and it causes them to die)? Could you imagine a school classroom where every student believed themselves to be the teacher? It wouldn’t work! No lessons would be learned! Imagine the horrors of a world where nothing could die. Jeffery Epstein would be 2,000 years old and even more capable of evil than already possible. His victims would suffer an eternity.
I think, and I readily admit this is all in the realm of thought, as “evidence” and “proof” are almost tangential to this conversation, that this system we are in, where we are limited in our capacity to choose good and evil, and limited in our lifespans and every other metric of import, this is “the best” option of the bunch, given the (assumed/implied) purpose of existence as a “classroom” or arena for learning these massive lessons
Cheers man thanks for the reply!
Ignoring the man does not make him the victim of your choices, as murdering him does. It simply means you're not intervening into his situation either way. The evil that is allowed now can force others to bear the brunt of the consequences, and I'd argue is in a lot of cases even necessary due to the system of reality we exist in. To me this is a huge distinction. I've mentioned this has been abstracted away by human dominance, but in the past when resources were limited it would be necessary to kill, either indirectly by taking the available resources, or directly by killing the competition to ensure you and your people got the resources. It's hard to see that as the most ideal classroom.
You posit that a world where everyone is super powerful would be chaos, I have previously posed the solution that we all live in our own reality where we have godlike power, if this life is to be a test. Even if we discount that possibility, it's not hard to believe existence would have reached an equilibrium. Technology has allowed us to kill people so much more efficiently than ever but there are also more people than ever, so we're not in this posited state of mega chaos despite guns, tanks, nukes, bombers, etc.
I think "this is best" is the simple answer and is in some ways necessary to believe in order to believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. But I find, without being able to really expand on this, for it to be unsatisfying intellectually. I'm sure before agriculture people, without being about to conceive of alternatives, thought finding berries in the woods was best. I believe this line of thinking ends up at "God works in mysterious ways", which is fine but as I said, I find to be unsatisfying when trying to reason this out. Either way, appreciate you
Oh and, regarding your point here:
Doesn’t that make him the victim of our choices still? To make it explicit, imagine he isn’t homeless, but choking to death on a sandwich… now your inaction has a very clear and unambiguous negative result… I believe the choice to not choose (or to choose to ignore) is still a choice
No, it doesn't. You can say not acting was the wrong thing to do, and I'd agree, but the man is still only victimized by his own choices, mistakes, etc in that case. He is in no way being victimized by the choice not to save him, he is simply not being saved. Taking the idea that not taking action is victimizing to people who would benefit from that action to its logical conclusion - this means if you are not spending all time you have looking for people to help, you are victimizing every single person that you have the physical capability to help in some way. Seems ludicrous
You introduce this word, victimize, and I would probably agree with what you’re saying but reframe it to be more relavent to the overall point: let’s imagine a world in which you can’t victimize other people (which is basically the world i was describing in my last comment, where our spectrum of available choices has constraints on it) - I’d say don’t worry about “logical conclusions” because those so often stray into hypothetica and absurdism when the topic is as ephemeral as “free will” - we all acknowledge God, if he exists, is beyond mere human comprehension, so let us confine ourselves to the realm of human comprehension, ya know?
So, a world where we still have “free will”, but it is constrained such that we cannot “victimize” others.
Can we not still victimize ourselves? Falling into drug abuse or other forms of self-abuse? Would those not be moral failures/failures of the “tests” of life/“evil”?
And do we not still “fail the test of life” when we allow our brother to victimize himself (aka suffer the results of their own actions aka choke to death when we could have helped them?). Even if we aren’t the one directly victimizing someone, I believe we still fail a moral test when we allow ourselves to ignore or brush aside the suffering of others as “unimportant” or “their own fault” (even when those things might be, to whatever extent, “true”, they don’t tell the whole story so-to-speak)
To refer back to your point about “logical conclusions”, did we not already establish that we have limitations on our actions? We can’t summon infinity bajillion dollars and solve world hunger, but we sure as hell can donate a weekend or three a year to the soup kitchen, no? We can’t all be Jesus, but we can sure try harder to act like him when presented with the opportunity, I think.
Like our cultural wisdom says, “to whom much is given, much is expected”. To my view, that one thought covers much of the breadth of the, shall we say, “issues” you’ve been pointing out. What do you think?
Likewise :)
Really? Don’t we compete over resources even in our cushy modern system? There can only be one Valedictorian in a class after all. And besides that, isn’t adversity a prerequisite to achievement? Without the existence of “evil”, (it seems to me that) “good” becomes meaningless. All that is, in that scenario, is good. Nothing can be chosen, nothing can be corrected… here is a powerful message on the topic you may be familiar with:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mZOM6hOnEBE
And here are two little short fiction pieces which may or may not resonate with you but which have certainly influenced my thinking on the subject:
Pleased to Meet You
https://communities.win/c/Manna/p/19BZpZpE27/but-imagine-the-abomination-of-a/c
"What is the Darkness?"
You open your eyes and gaze at your hands, seeking an answer to your question.
Searing glow from a tyrant light above you annihilates all shadow from the plain of sand you stand upon in a world full of L I G H T.
The last thing you perceive is a blazing outline of alabaster fingers gripping your wrist in a tight fist, before photokeratitis takes your sight.
The roar of the wind fills your ears.
Whatever has seized you is shaking you. You perceive shouting over the rush of air, but you can't make out the words. You lean closer to your hands, to whatever's clasping them, shaking them.
The shouting grows eager.
You can smell it now; whatever has seized you. Ancient. Rotting. Powerful.
Its grip is strong—as strong as yours, the heat of the Light coursing through it.
It can smell the Light on you, too. It knows you are just like it.
It has lived forever. A gift from your shared parent. Forever is too long.
You think you know what it's saying now.
It begs for death.
Your vision gradually returns…
A harsh glare blooms from the heavens above.
Your soul is weary.
Your feet find purchase in shifting sands.
Your cloak billows in the wind, yet something clings to it, weighing it down.
https://communities.win/c/Manna/p/1ARK0KPi2H/coda--a-world-b-e-t-w-e-e-n-ligh/c
Just so you know, im not approaching this conversation from the stand point of “the Bible is literally true and you must believe it.”, im simply using it as our shared cultural reference point for “God”. I think things are a lot more complicated than most Christians want to acknowledge, but at the same time, it is an excellent, perhaps the best we have, foundation to work from and build on