A rather interesting, funny yet confusing riddle from Raymond Smullyan.
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is God a Taoist?!?
- Thread starter WARCOCK
- Start date
- Status
wandering goat
Member
That was a cool read. I'll have to send it to my practising religious friend (who is also on an amusing tirade against logic, so I wonder how this'll work out.) One point that doesn't make sense to me, even though it doesn't matter one bit in the end: When he creates his alternate universe as an example, why is a being without free will automatically delegated to sin? If say, God was the one who created the being's destiny, why should he cause him to sin in the first place?
"why is a being without free will automatically delegated to sin?"
Well from what i can understand, using this person as a frame of reference. He already cannot resist to sin with his free will. So naturally he would be inclined to perform sinful acts instinctively. But then this is but my interpretation.
Well from what i can understand, using this person as a frame of reference. He already cannot resist to sin with his free will. So naturally he would be inclined to perform sinful acts instinctively. But then this is but my interpretation.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I agree, far too long to say what he wanted to say. I also hope he doesnt see this writing as any sort of an argument to prove something, because it's just as much of an assertion as anything else. One cannot prove the nature of God, they can only state what they believe the nature of God is, and that is all that he did here with all conclusions following afterward.
An issue I see is that he is ignoring God's ability to be beyond our logic. When God goes to create something, He isn't bound by logical problems as we would, because He would have been the one to define the logic by which it's made. To use the same analogy the author used, it works in the same way as the laws of gravity in the physical nature of things.
From this assumption, he comes to a right understanding about a compatibilism in the results of our will and God's/nature, but to resolve the conflict between them in their processes of reaching that result, he decides to simply do away with the conflict and change his understanding of the nature of God. If you go by scripture, there is a clear answer in Isaiah...
Isaiah 55
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Working backwards we see a few things:
1) God's decree has absolute certainty of success among a world of wills.
2) This doesn't work out logically by our understanding.
3) His understanding is beyond ours.
4) His is also entirely different, not merely on a higher plane.
I can't say I fully understand how it works, but as far as I can tell there is a compatibilism. Our wills are a force independent from Himself in initiative and responsibility that, while independent, do not deviate from His own (sovereign will and decree naturally being distinct from moral disposition). So where we see cause and effect, it's more like two causes to one effect.
However, this would still place our abilities within the limits of the nature by which we were created, just as the author of this article wrote, but it wouldn't place God's own being as that nature. The nature is another thing He defined, and He is not limited by it as we are, even though our conceptions of Him do have those limitations as they go through our mental process.
For instance, our conception of morality and justice would be defined by Him, but we still hold responsibility over our cause and it's effects--it was not forced on us despite being indistinct from His own plan. So we see in Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 the worst of acts haing been predestined but those who did them being no less responsible. We receive the nature of morality/justice he defined for us, but our actions within it are not limited by Him and do not limit Him.
He can decree that things will come to pass while allowing those involved to act freely by their own will, so it's possible for something to happen because of Him but not by Him. In the process of receiving Him this is described as a plant (Isaiah 61:11, Mark 4:26-29)--do the elements make the plant grow or does the plant grow itself by receiving the elements? Yes. In our logic this must be for Him to sustain all existence while being morally distinct.
An issue I see is that he is ignoring God's ability to be beyond our logic. When God goes to create something, He isn't bound by logical problems as we would, because He would have been the one to define the logic by which it's made. To use the same analogy the author used, it works in the same way as the laws of gravity in the physical nature of things.
From this assumption, he comes to a right understanding about a compatibilism in the results of our will and God's/nature, but to resolve the conflict between them in their processes of reaching that result, he decides to simply do away with the conflict and change his understanding of the nature of God. If you go by scripture, there is a clear answer in Isaiah...
Isaiah 55
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Working backwards we see a few things:
1) God's decree has absolute certainty of success among a world of wills.
2) This doesn't work out logically by our understanding.
3) His understanding is beyond ours.
4) His is also entirely different, not merely on a higher plane.
I can't say I fully understand how it works, but as far as I can tell there is a compatibilism. Our wills are a force independent from Himself in initiative and responsibility that, while independent, do not deviate from His own (sovereign will and decree naturally being distinct from moral disposition). So where we see cause and effect, it's more like two causes to one effect.
However, this would still place our abilities within the limits of the nature by which we were created, just as the author of this article wrote, but it wouldn't place God's own being as that nature. The nature is another thing He defined, and He is not limited by it as we are, even though our conceptions of Him do have those limitations as they go through our mental process.
For instance, our conception of morality and justice would be defined by Him, but we still hold responsibility over our cause and it's effects--it was not forced on us despite being indistinct from His own plan. So we see in Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 the worst of acts haing been predestined but those who did them being no less responsible. We receive the nature of morality/justice he defined for us, but our actions within it are not limited by Him and do not limit Him.
He can decree that things will come to pass while allowing those involved to act freely by their own will, so it's possible for something to happen because of Him but not by Him. In the process of receiving Him this is described as a plant (Isaiah 61:11, Mark 4:26-29)--do the elements make the plant grow or does the plant grow itself by receiving the elements? Yes. In our logic this must be for Him to sustain all existence while being morally distinct.
I don't get it... what was that trying to prove and how was it trying to prove it?
Among other things, it asserts that
the bad thing about sin is that it hurts others; many other things hurt people, including doing the right thing. Under this taoist God, is that considered sinning? Moreover, complex actions can lead to saving some people from harm while harming others. Is that sin?
There's the idea that we go through salvation through a process of reincarnation; how does that fit into this whole thing?
And where do they get off asserting that people without freewill are more likely to cause harm than without? To reduce suffering is the reason for freewill is what is said in that piece...
But without freewill, then what is there left to determine our actions but a higher being?
It would follow a being concerned with reducing suffering would simply give us only good actions.
also, why is it not possible to have a being that senses, that is fooled into believing it has sentience, when in reality it doesn't? At the same time, couldn't that describe people? That we believe strongly we have freewill and sentience, but that we don't?
I mean... think about it... in what sense do we have freewill? Our wills are limited by situational factors... such as the knowledge we have... if we're unaware of how to drive a car, even if we choose to take action, what action can we take to drive the car? In certain situations, there will be a large pressure to do something; such as driving the car to work in the morning (if your work starts in the morning). But even if you resist going to work, is that of your choosing? Do you simply will not to go to work? Or is it the result of a series of thoughts that lead you to resist going to work? What of that string of thoughts? Where did they come from? From a spiral of other thoughts, all controlled by a host of many other factors, including your knowledge base in order to generate such a string of thoughts that eventually lead up to the thought to decide not to drive to work...
Among other things, it asserts that
the bad thing about sin is that it hurts others; many other things hurt people, including doing the right thing. Under this taoist God, is that considered sinning? Moreover, complex actions can lead to saving some people from harm while harming others. Is that sin?
There's the idea that we go through salvation through a process of reincarnation; how does that fit into this whole thing?
And where do they get off asserting that people without freewill are more likely to cause harm than without? To reduce suffering is the reason for freewill is what is said in that piece...
But without freewill, then what is there left to determine our actions but a higher being?
It would follow a being concerned with reducing suffering would simply give us only good actions.
also, why is it not possible to have a being that senses, that is fooled into believing it has sentience, when in reality it doesn't? At the same time, couldn't that describe people? That we believe strongly we have freewill and sentience, but that we don't?
I mean... think about it... in what sense do we have freewill? Our wills are limited by situational factors... such as the knowledge we have... if we're unaware of how to drive a car, even if we choose to take action, what action can we take to drive the car? In certain situations, there will be a large pressure to do something; such as driving the car to work in the morning (if your work starts in the morning). But even if you resist going to work, is that of your choosing? Do you simply will not to go to work? Or is it the result of a series of thoughts that lead you to resist going to work? What of that string of thoughts? Where did they come from? From a spiral of other thoughts, all controlled by a host of many other factors, including your knowledge base in order to generate such a string of thoughts that eventually lead up to the thought to decide not to drive to work...
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
This could be helpful to many...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Info and links to more info there, it'll get you started and refer to various philosophers and works to get you going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Info and links to more info there, it'll get you started and refer to various philosophers and works to get you going.
Dice said:
Even without looking at other philosophers, from what I've said, it can be seen that there's a large constraint to the notion of free will that we have. That is, even with free will, there is a large effect of nature on our actions.
And if you play the numbers game, that in any given situation, although we think we should do the right thing, that there's a large chance that we'll do the wrong thing, simply based on the pressures and the likelihood of succumbing to those pressures.
More to the point, I'm a lazy man... if you can so confidently differ me to others without acknowledging the ideas and arguments I've put forth, then surely you must have an answer to the problems I present to you, in all the searching on the issue you've done.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I refer to others because it's not as though it is a science where knowledge can be mastered, it's a philosophical subejct so it's all based on theory and as such there are many positions to be considered and little to immediately declare one right and the others wrong.
So one could answer your issues in various ways with much complexity for each one and I prefer not to write out all that when it has already been done by others in greater detail and accuracy than I would likely be able to. More to the point, I'm a lazy man and would rather not spend the time deciding how best to express what you would rather not spend the time researching.
But, since you asked, I'll oblige... at least a little...
Limit of the will is to be differeniated from limit of ability. The will has to do with the causative function of decision, the initiative to do something, not the actual ability to carry it out. However, you are right that the will is limited by context. For instance, I can't decide to go somewhere unless I know it exists, but I could creatviely decide to go in one of the various directions I haven't previously and find out what is there.
To say that the will is limited by it's own desire is a little strange, as desire is an initiative of the will itself (note: this is my own position), though some level of desire can also spring from biological factors. Yes, there can be many factors that go into why we would decide something, but the memory of our preference isn't necessarily a master but an aid.
We reflect on our previous experiences--in this situation when we havent gone to work and when we have--and then in memory of how we preferred those situations, pros and cons, how we think this would turn out based on those factors, we decide if not going to work is what we would want. The past, however, does not always determine the decisions of the will.
When given a decision between multiple things in a matter of such complexity of result that we would be ignorant of the possible results even in our foresight, it is possible for us to make a decision without having any idea as to how it may turn out so as to affect our decision based on preference to prior things such as comfort and survival--a seemingly random decision.
In creativity a certain amount of will can be seen, such as when a child decides what to draw and how to draw it. Previous experience would likely make them desire to draw a family member, but they may do something they hadn't previously seen and draw them purple for seemingly no reason at all.
As I said, it's important not to count desire as an internal factor apart from the will but rather a part of it, a will can be free to do one thing or another with a few constants within it, such as the desire to survive. In a situation where survival is guaranteed that constant may do nothing to determine the decision, but in others it could come into play.
It's also flawed reasoning to view likelyhood of a decision as an outside influence, as likelyhood is only a projected guess based on analysis of previous free decisions. Likelyhood is something determined by us, not the other way around.
Overall you seem to be just arguing with the concept of a completely autonomously free will rather than the notion that there is a certain degree of freedom to the will at all. In that I'd agree with you, but honestly it would be possible to answer your question in many ways with the different schools of thought, and they are all well defined and presented in the link (and related links) I gave.
Is choosing vanilla icecream over chocolate, because you hate chocolate, a free choice? Sure you could say that I COULD choose, the chocolate to proove free-will.. but then that decision is effected by outside influence, i.e prooving someone wrong about free-will. Free-will is a nice illusion we have, keeps us sane, but its definetly not free.
Dice said:
Hmmm... what I'm trying to get across is that... although we think and it very much seems like at any one point in time that we think we have free will... it would seem upon deeper examination, that there are a mountain of causal chains that make doing something almost inevitable...
such as typing out this message to you; althought it seems as if I have the choice, the factors that push me towards actually typing up inevitably cause me to post the message... that is my personality, my knowledge, the causal actions of you posting in response to me, and my current mindset, which in itself is a function of the electro-chemical balance in the brain, which in turn might be influenced by my diet, and previous electro-chemical/cognitive impulses... all of it gives way to me making this post.
The illusion of freewill almost seems present; I can easily percieve the choice to simply not send this or post this message, but if that is the case, then it would simply be that, that would be a function of other biochemical factors, which gives me an almost... 'ironic impulse' if you will.
The illusion of freewill is present, because even though we might not necessarily have it, due to the deluge of factors both obvious and not so obvious that goes into every action, that doesn't negate the ability of something to collectively working together (i.e. your brain cells and their connections) as to create a sense of localised sensation, including the sensation of thought.
The ability limitations on freewill is simply some of the more obvious and immediately percievable limitations we have on free will.
- Status