Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[TomOfSweden]

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Do humans have free will or not?

[anonymouse]

Do humans have free will or not?

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

Actually, the debate about free will goes beyond language. I personally do not have an authorative answer to the question, and will argue either side based on my whim of the moment. From a Christian perspective, I will tell people that if we have free will, then God is not omniscient, nor does predestiantion exist. I have seen so many convoluted arguments and rationalizations that all I can say is, "I don't know."