Leftists think they are above God, and they do not approve of free will for others.
Posted on 07/18/2015 11:38:12 AM PDT by Zeneta
Are you reading this because you chose to?
Or are you doing so as a result of forces beyond your control?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130924-how-belief-in-free-will-shapes-us
After thousands of years of philosophy, theology, argument and meditation on the riddle of free will, I'm not about to solve it for you in this column (sorry). But what I can do is tell you about some thought-provoking experiments by psychologists, which suggest that, regardless of whether we have free will or not, whether we believe we do can have a profound impact on how we behave.
The issue is simple: we all make choices, but could those choices be made otherwise? From a religious perspective it might seem as if a divine being knows all, including knowing in advance what you will choose (so your choices could not be otherwise). Or we can take a physics-based perspective. Everything in the universe has physical causes, and as you are part of the universe, your choices must be caused (so your choices could not be otherwise). In either case, our experience of choosing collides with our faith in a world which makes sense because things have causes.
Snip..
You might find that determinists, who believe free will is an illusion and that we are all cogs in a godless universe, behave worse than those who believe we are free to make choices. But you wouldn't know whether this was simply because people who like to cheat and lie become determinists (the "Yes, I lied, but I couldn't help it" excuse).
What we really need is a way of changing people’s beliefs about free will, so that we can track the effects of doing so on their behaviour. Fortunately, in recent years researchers have developed a standard method of doing this. It involves asking subjects to read sections from Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis.
snip
And the results are striking. One study reported that participants who had their belief in free will diminished were more likely to cheat in a maths test. In another, US psychologists reported that people who read Crick’s thoughts on free will said they were less likely to help others.
snip
I have questions for the Calvinist that would suggest that GOD has a plan for me?
I and we can clearly screw up those plans.
Moreover, the idea that more and more people think we are the product of matter and motion, and as a result their actions are to be accepted as "out of their control", inevitable, preordained and therefore beyond judgement.
I'm confident that most Conservatives reject the "Matrix".
My concern is that we are seeing a growing number of people that not only fail to consider these concepts, but are happy in their acceptance of indifference.
Basic liberal argument to excuse evil
I see this mindset becoming increasingly more accepted.
And they fall back to “Science” to justify their positions.
Leftists think they are above God, and they do not approve of free will for others.
Absolutely we have free will. Including the ability to LEARN not to just react to stimuli. But to be thoughtful, calculating, and mature in how we react.
“And the results are striking. One study reported that participants who had their belief in free will diminished were more likely to cheat in a maths test. In another, US psychologists reported that people who read Crick’s thoughts on free will said they were less likely to help others.”
This article says nothing about whether the people testing believed in God. I bet that there wouldn’t be much change if people believed that a god was watching them. So there’s more variables to consider.
>>It’s my belief that there has been a 100 plus years of efforts among the evolutionists, Scientists and any number of new age religions and educators to convince people that they have NO FREE WILL.
>>I have questions for the Calvinist that would suggest that GOD has a plan for me?
No real Calvinist would say that there is no free will. Those are words put in our mouths by Arminians who believe that God is impotent and desperately needs THEIR input on things.
What a Calvinist say is that humans, in our natural state, are sinners who cannot understand God without God’s help. The Arminians agree with us there because they believe in Prevenient Grace, which precedes all justification, salvation, and sanctification.
We say that God chooses who will receive that grace to help us understand who he is and to give us the desire to seek him.
They say that even though God has called you, and given you grace to know him, he can still fail and you can decide “Nah. Not interested.”
Think about that. You allegedly know and understand the omnipotent CREATOR of the universe, who can do anything and know everything, and you just dismiss him and say, “Not interested.” Arminians think pretty highly of themselves, don’t they?
Meanwhile, the Calvinist admits that God is sovereign and great beyond our imagination and that when he calls, we come. Period.
Free will can be summed up as this: when Alice reached a fork in the road, she didn’t know which road to take. She saw the Cheshire Cat and asked him, “Which road is the right road?”
He replied, “Where are you trying to go?”
“I don’t know,” she answered.
“Then it really doesn’t matter which way you go, does it?”
We come to a fork in the road. Some don’t know where they are going, so they have the free will to choose either road. Others know their destination, so one road is wrong and the other road is right. Sure, you can take the wrong road, but eventually, you will have to stop and turn back so you can take the right one.
Also, the person who proudly has all that free will reaches the fork and looks left and looks right, and decides, “I choose to go UP.” Well, you can’t because of gravity. So, your free will is limited by your surroundings too.
I used to be an Arminian/Wesleyan who hated the idea of Calvinism because it diminished MY greatness. Then, one day I discovered how great God is and I had questions. My pastors and people I looked up to gave answers that talked in circles. Then, I asked an actual Calvinist to see what he believed (instead of hearing the Arminian version of what he believed) and it all made sense.
I agree.
However, you do understand that the so called “scientific” community has advanced a number of theories that have taken hold in which we are without free will.
Sorry if I seem obtuse, but what is your question? I am a Calvinist on call but I do not understand what you are asking or objecting to.
Is morality subjective or objective?
Yeah... the scientific community has advanced a number of theories that I reject. This is just one of them.
I’m no expert, but as someone that continues to seek truth, I’m perplexed with a doctrine that will only provide you with access to Gods plan for you if you fall in line.
Can a Calvinist be forgiven for their failures?
But one must define morality first to see what those large parts that are absolute and relative. It is important to note that morality can be very different from culture to culture...One culture can believe that adultery is moral and murder is immoral, while another culture may view both adultery and murder as immoral.
Is a morality based on the Ten Commandments Absolute or Relative and does it make a difference if you are a Christian or not? If one is a true Christian, then these must be absolute.
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
One could argue that the last four are far more absolute, and the first six may be relative.
We all know that in every culture, murder is bad (and I recognize that how murder is defined is important)...in any scenario worldwide across cultures, the wanton killing of other human beings for no justifiable reason (and yes, again, the definition of "justification" would have a huge impact on this discussion) would be considered immoral. I cannot think of any culture where one member of a people/tribe/society can snuff another person, any person (of their same people/tribe/society randomly for no reason, and not provoke.
Same with stealing. People from every point in history, and every place in time who were thieves are considered immoral by the societies they live in, so it is more absolute (objective) than relative (subjective)
But there are other facets that do cleave sharply across cultures and religions.
As for free will:
PRIEST: "Choice! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self interest, fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice."
(I just saw this movie again last night, so...it stuck in my brain! Basically, if deprived of your free will, can you be moral?
Personally I reject the strict interpretation of classic physics that suggests that every thought and action is the only possible result of what preceded it all the way back to the beginning of existence. I also reject the theory that life is the product of the physical world. Quantum physics suggests that the opposite may be true: the physical world is a product of our thought. Einstein rejected that idea, saying: “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”
The Aspect Experiment based on Bells Inequality Theorem supports the idea that the physical world IS the product of our thought. Unfortunately, some people misinterpret this to believe that merely thinking about something can cause it to manifest into our reality. To them I say, merely thinking about the moon does not bring it into our existence. You have to take the action of actually looking at it. In other words, you can’t make the world a better place by merely thinking good thoughts, you have to take action.
We refer to those people as "Liberals".
Of course the fact that they profess to be materialistic determinists does not prevent leftists from wanting to punish people who disagree with them — of course I guess they have no choice in wanting to punish those who disagree with them even though that urge is inconsistent with their professed stance on free will, and didn’t chose to be leftists either.
What you describe is works-righteousness not Calvinism or reformed doctrine.
In the reformed faith, Calvinism, one performs works of righteousness (falls in line)only after they have been effectually called by God and He has changed their heart; denoted by the terns born again or converted. Calvinism emphasizes that God effectually calls all His elect for the purpose of His own glory. Men freely choose, but they can only choose to serve God if He has enlightened them by the work of the Holy Spirit, and that the reprobate, those not chosen by God, will choose to not follow the general call to repentance. There is of course much more to the doctrine but that is an accurate summary.
You will first need to define “morality”.
I think it was Aristotle who said... “You can settle any argument in 10 minutes or less if you first define the terms.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.