The Seven Deadly Heresies

[Lightbearer]

Who writes the future? Is it god? is it us? is it the actions of men that right it? Or is it some unalterable coarse fixed and written since the infinite beginning of time?

The problem is one of perspective. God has an infinite perspective, therefore the past, present and future is for Him one NOW. From our perspective there are a multitude of paths with various outcomes if it were not so there would be no choice. From God's point of view the future is already here (I do not say I can comprehend this myself) and thus he actually "sees the future" but that does not mean that He caused it to happen.

I see the future as a series of roads, they are pathways that potentially exist according to the actions and desires of both men and god. This means that the future has not yet been written except for the probabilities that potentially exist at any given time. To think of it in our mortal senses, imagine it being like a very complex computer gaming engine. Imagine every single bit of knowledge that exists in the world- every fact as it happens is poured into this complex engine. The thoughts and intentions of men and animals are also poured into this machine. Now, think how easy it would be to see the varying roads of the future being written by the computer engine. What it couldn't do however is make the finite decisions such as a person going to the store and deciding on whether to buy frozen orange juice or already made orange juice, especially if the character chooses a random thought process to decide (like eeny meeny miney mo) what to take to the counter. Now suppose that the person was supposed to pick the frozen because while in that isle that person would run into an old friend which would potentially lead that person to coming back to church. So, the angels start to do their part and prompt the person on how fun it may be to make frozen orange juice or that they really need it or who knows. The angels and god are looking at the different roads that potentially exist and helping us make choices that have the best possible outcomes.

The problem with a computer game is that the computer can only play out the scenarios that are programed into it... so the comparison falls apart because the computer is incapable of intelligent thought (which is why our primeval state is referred to as intelligence (which cannot be created or made.)

As we and god make choices, the future roads become and set of paths become reality based entirely off of choice. Because choice/free will exists, so also must there exist multiple outcomes for the future. God can still allow for choice and bring to pass his propheceys because he too can make choices and intervene in our lives to make those things happen. A lot of times, the trivial decisions we make do not change or alter the main coarse of the predicted future- the path remains the same as far as a certain prophecy or goal is concerned. For example- irregardless of whether our above candidate chose frozen orange juice or juice already made, they will still proceed through the day relatively unchanged as far as other events happening that day because of that event.

So you think God is still making choices? Does that not put Him on the same level as a mortal man? What would He choose between? Good and evil? If so then that would make God capable of committing sin, which is not possible according to the scriptures.

One of the interesting things about patriarchal blessings is that they often give people different outcomes whether they choose to obey or to disobey. This is exactly what I am getting at. Their coarse has not been fixed for them, but remains to be fixed entirely up to their free will. Either A or B can happen based off their decisions in life. This means that god may know the possible outcomes for both A and B, but that he does not know specifically which one you will choose. That is why he gives the different predictions.

A Patriarchal blessing is just that a pronouncement of a blessing or a revelation that is worded as a promise IF WE ARE FAITHFUL. If we are not, we have no promise to receive those blessings. The reason God does not simply tell us the outcome is that it would effect our agency (or not depending if we believe it.) It does not mean He does not know the outcome, it means He is with-holding that knowledge from us. Much like a teacher who gives an exam knows the answers, yet the students must choose the right answers. (This is not a perfect example either because the teacher would not know who would pass or fail and God does.)

The point I am making here is that yes, there are certain things according to prophecy that are written and will happen because of the divine intervetion of god and his angels irregardless of what we are choosing to do. But there are many things not written but just remain as mulitiple paths according to our free will. Whether I decide to eat a hamburger or a hot dog tonight is pretty much up to me- hasn't been written and fixed yet even though both of those predictions exist and have been calculated in the future.

Think also of it this way- suppose we are supposed to do something fulfilling prophecy- the things already written. There may be 100 different ways to make decisions leading up to the event and still have that prophecy happen. God must allow for free will that is not fixed. If free will exists, so must alternative futures.

From your point of view God is just like a mortal man with a time machine... and that He can leap around in time fixing things to match an arbitrary guess of the future that is called revelation.

One more thing- if god already knows the future, why does he give me blessings and tell me that different destinations exist depending solely upon my decisions? Why not have him just tell me exactly how the future is?

The reason He does not tell us is because it would in effect destroy agency and thus nullify the results of our mortal probation. But the fact that He can see it does not mean that we do not have the choice. His knowing it does not "make it so." If God did not know all things then what would prevent Him from discovering some law or force that could "undo all existence"? Or some other being that could defeat the purposes of God and make His word be to no effect. God "sees" things differently than we do His comprehension is beyond our scope of understanding. The apparent paradox between God's foreknowledge of all things and our free choice is not a paradox when looked at from the understanding that God is an infinite being that exists from eternity to eternity and sees things past, present and future as the scriptures indicate. Sometimes we may not understand how this can be so, but only that we need to have the faith to believe His words.

[LDSMusic483]

I don't have time right now for a lengthy response. I'll offer one later and I'll address your posts fully LDSmusic483 and consiglieri. One brief question before I return. Does God know what it is like to be Satan? If He does know what it is like than He must know by virtue of having evil thoughts and intentions. If God doesn't know what it's like to be Satan then God doesn't know something.

There is a great deal of difference between knowing how Satan thinks, feels, and why he does what he does and actually doing the acts themselves. I agree with Log that the atonement allowed Christ to feel all that Satan has feel. He suffered for all of our sins. What are our sins if not the extension of Satans will? That and Satan is completely deviod of the spirit, something Christ also of necessity had to suffer.

[LDSMusic483]

I agree with Rob that God is not choosing through options now. If that were the case, the choice He did not make could be construed as the wrong choice. What type of individuals are we to say that God needs to decide which course of action is correct? I stand by the choice which He places forward in the scriptures are for our growth. God said he would destroy the children of Israel but then was persuaded by Moses not to was not because Moses was such a persuasive speaker and showed God He was wrong. It was to help Moses himself grow. Moses felt love for the children of Israel and needed to see reasons why he should speak up for them. It was more about Moses making the right choice. Moses may have been at a point where he felt...you know what, that's probably a good idea. They just keep misbehaving, it's probably best for them to just be wiped out, thanks! No, Moses was allowed the opportunity to grow and see that mercy must have it's equality with justice.

[johndoe]

How could there be a free will discussion on this board for so long without it catching my eye? Inconceivable!

I disagree with Ostler, and agree with BRM on this particular belief. From what I can tell, Ostler (and others who think as he does) has a strong intuitive sense that for free will (agency) to be anything other than an illusion, it must necessarily be libertarian free will, which posits that for any given choice, one must actually be able to do otherwise for it to be free. A result of this position is that the future results of free decisions cannot be knowable beforehand. If the future state is knowable with 100% certainty beforehand, then there is no different future state which can possibly result from the present, and the demands of libertarian free will simply are not met. As Brade has pointed out on another thread, it actually doesn't matter if God infallibly knows the future or not, but rather if future states are set or not. God's infallible foreknowledge simply happens to be the easiest way to arrive at the defeat of libertarian alternate future possibilities. Placing God outside of time doesn't help either, since whether God views the future from our present timeline or from outside the timeline altogether, the future state is still infallibly set.

My own intuition strongly leads me in the other direction. It feels so obvious to me that when faced with exactly the same circumstances, we would make the exact same choice, that it is difficult for me to understand why so many find determinism so objectionable. I suppose it's simply something about how our brains work.

Regarding the question of what the scriptures mean when they indicate that Christ took on our infirmities and death to know how to succor us, I would ask - was Christ completely incapable of providing such succor before His atonement? Why would only those living on earth after the atonement have the added benefit of Christ's complete compassion? If Christ could foreknow how He would feel during the atonement, then why couldn't He foreknow anything else?

As Brade (ba81) has pointed out, I don't think that the scriptures (nor LDS doctrine, officially) spells this out one way or the other. Both views can be reconciled with the scriptures and with official LDS doctrine, conflicting statements by church authorities notwithstanding.

One thing I would like to mention is that I think the rejection of God's absolute omniscience (and embrace of the Principle of Alternate Possibilites) is highly detrimental to His ability to judge us perfectly. For any given choice, under either view, one can give reasons why one has acted in a certain way. However, it is impossible, both before and after the fact, to provide any reason or cause why one chose one alternative instead of the other. For example, say Steve is faced with the choice to steal a car, or not to steal it. He deliberates, and decides not to. In this case, he could have deliberated, and chosen to steal the car (if libertarian free will obtains). On judgment day, under scenario #2, both Steve and God know what reasons Steve had to steal the car, but neither Steve nor God knows why Steve chose to steal it instead of choosing not to. In scenario #1, Steve had the same reasons to steal the car, yet doesn't go through with it. Again, it is impossible for Steve or God to know why he chose one way over the other. Per libertarian free will, the difference is simply the exercising of the mysterious Free Will one way rather than the other.

How does this lead to more freedom in any real sense? If there is nothing different about Steve in scenario #1 or scenario #2, then how can we know that something originating within Steve himself caused the difference? If we can't know that, then how can we be certain that his being rewarded or punished for either action is just? Let's say that from 1000 alternate universes, Steve chooses to steal the car 100 times and chooses not to 900 times. If in the actual universe, Steve still steals the car in spite of a 90% probablility that he would not, how is it fair that he be held accountable for what appears to be nothing more than an unlucky roll of the dice?

[LDSMusic483]

I agree with Lightbearer that God is not choosing through options now. If that were the case, the choice He did not make could be construed as the wrong choice. What type of individuals are we to say that God needs to decide which course of action is correct? I stand by the choice which He places forward in the scriptures are for our growth. God said he would destroy the children of Israel but then was persuaded by Moses not to was not because Moses was such a persuasive speaker and showed God He was wrong. It was to help Moses himself grow. Moses felt love for the children of Israel and needed to see reasons why he should speak up for them. It was more about Moses making the right choice. Moses may have been at a point where he felt...you know what, that's probably a good idea. They just keep misbehaving, it's probably best for them to just be wiped out, thanks! No, Moses was allowed the opportunity to grow and see that mercy must have it's equality with justice.

Edited to fix a name mistake!

[Log]

Let's say that from 1000 alternate universes, Steve chooses to steal the car 100 times and chooses not to 900 times. If in the actual universe, Steve still steals the car in spite of a 90% probablility that he would not, how is it fair that he be held accountable for what appears to be nothing more than an unlucky roll of the dice?

The use of the langauge of probability is inappropriately prejudicial when applied to how biased we are for or against certain propositions. Indeed, one might make the case that using mathematical probability when speaking of the actions of intelligent agents presupposes a materialistic, deterministic/stochastic view of the nature of intelligent agents, rendering them no more and no less than highly complex rocks.

[johndoe]

The use of the langauge of probability is inappropriately prejudicial when applied to how biased we are for or against certain propositions. Indeed, one might make the case that using mathematical probability when speaking of the actions of intelligent agents presupposes a materialistic, deterministic/stochastic view of the nature of intelligent agents, rendering them no more and no less than highly complex rocks.

The use of such expressions as "highly complex rocks" to refer to intelligent agents in a deterministic system and that free will of the compatibilist sort is an "illusion" is at least as inappropirately prejudicial.

[Log]

The use of such expressions as "highly complex rocks" to refer to intelligent agents in a deterministic system and that free will of the compatibilist sort is an "illusion" is at least as inappropirately prejudicial.

I disagree - indeed, one wonders what significant difference there is between a hardcore materialist's view of intelligent agency and yours?

[johndoe]

I disagree - indeed, one wonders what significant difference there is between a hardcore materialist's view of intelligent agency and yours?

Yes, I knew that you disagreed with this point. I imagine my viewpoint differs from a harcore materialist's in that I believe in a causal relationship between intelligence, spirit and body. Of course, since it is part of LDS doctrine that spirit is a type of matter, one could argue that perhaps the difference isn't significant. I don't view this as a weakness. Tell me, if we can't discuss the libertarian principle of alternate possibilities in deterministic or stochastic terms, what terms are appropriate to use? Magic?

In any case, this is beside the immediate point. You called the use of stochastic language in my analogy "inappropriately prejudicial". I was simply pointing out that if I was begging the question, I have done so no more than others, including yourself. In discussing free will, it is quite common for us to choose language to convey our point in strong terms. It seems that this is the easiest way to express our intuitive grasp of the fundamental concerns.

[Brade]

johndoe! My favorite free will discussions have been with you. If anyone can defend determinism it's you. I thought your earlier post was an excellent sketch of the libertarian and determinist views. Sorry, I'm posting from my iPhone so I'm not gunna say much more because it's taken me long enough to type this already. Hopefully I canpost more this weekend.

[Log]

Yes, I knew that you disagreed with this point. I imagine my viewpoint differs from a harcore materialist's in that I believe in a causal relationship between intelligence, spirit and body. Of course, since it is part of LDS doctrine that spirit is a type of matter, one could argue that perhaps the difference isn't significant. I don't view this as a weakness.

I view it as reducing intelligent agents to automatons - machines which do what they do by sole virtue of the configuration of their matter (spirit or element). Thankfully, LDS doctrine also seems to raise intelligent agents above being automatons by holding forth the concept of intelligence as "light," not matter. (Yes, I'm aware of how modern physics teaches that energy, including photons, are an alternate phase of matter, but I don't think the Lord necessarily had that in mind.)

Tell me, if we can't discuss the libertarian principle of alternate possibilities in deterministic or stochastic terms, what terms are appropriate to use? Magic?

The language of possibilities. Probabilities, on the other hand, presume too much.

In any case, this is beside the immediate point. You called the use of stochastic language in my analogy "inappropriately prejudicial". I was simply pointing out that if I was begging the question, I have done so no more than others, including yourself.

Have I made circular arguments in this thread? I hope not.

[johndoe]

I view it as reducing intelligent agents to automatons - machines which do what they do by sole virtue of the configuration of their matter (spirit or element). Thankfully, LDS doctrine also seems to raise intelligent agents above being automatons by holding forth the concept of intelligence as "light," not matter. (Yes, I'm aware of how modern physics teaches that energy, including photons, are an alternate phase of matter, but I don't think the Lord necessarily had that in mind.)

That POV is common in folks who embrace libertarian free will. I don't agree, but I can't understand where you come from.

The language of possibilities. Probabilities, on the other hand, presume too much.

I don't mind your describing my view as reducing us to automatons. I hope you don't mind my describing your view as magical thinking, because that's really how I see it.

Have I made circular arguments in this thread? I hope not.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say poisoning the well rather than begging the question.

I view it as reducing intelligent agents to automatons - machines which do what they do by sole virtue of the configuration of their matter (spirit or element). Thankfully, LDS doctrine also seems to raise intelligent agents above being automatons by holding forth the concept of intelligence as "light," not matter. (Yes, I'm aware of how modern physics teaches that energy, including photons, are an alternate phase of matter, but I don't think the Lord necessarily had that in mind.)

That POV is common in folks who embrace libertarian free will. I don't agree, but I can't understand where you come from.

The language of possibilities. Probabilities, on the other hand, presume too much.

I don't mind your describing my view as reducing us to automatons. I hope you don't mind my describing your view as magical thinking, because that's really how I see it.

Have I made circular arguments in this thread? I hope not.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say poisoning the well rather than begging the question.

[johndoe]

Log, I've been thinking more about your question of what is the difference between my view and the hardcore materialist's.

First of all, excellent question. My previous response was off the cuff, but this question deserves more attention.Philosopher Eddy Nahmias has posited that the question of free will is really a subset of the Mind-Body Problem. I think that is a very insightful observation. I think the strong intuitive resistance most folks feel towards determinism isn't really so much about the nature of our choices but rather the nature of our selves. Per a hardcore materialist understanding, consciousness is an emergent property. Disassemble the parts, and consciousness itself goes away and is reduced to tiny material particles that could then be reassembled to form a completely different body from which a new consciousness would or could emerge. I believe that people strong intuit that such a consciousness is artificial, and doesn't really represent what it means to be self-aware. This is where the common charge that we would be automatons in a deterministic universe comes from, I think. People intuit that the core of who we are is more than that.

And I agree.

Upon reflection, the main difference between my view and the hardcore materialist's is that my view does not require consciousness to be emergent. I view the core of who we are, per LDS doctrine, as the intelligence, which I think of as a single entity per individual rather than a building block added to others to form a spirit. I believe that intelligence in this sense is irreducible. It cannot be destroyed, nor broken down into smaller bits, and the consciousness (what makes us who we are) is an eternal property that belongs to it.

With that understanding, I don't see why actual alternate possibilities are necessary for us to have true agency. I also don't see why God's omniscience in an absolute sense would preclude agency. As to how God could know everything in an absolute sense, I have no idea, and that's where my own magical thinking comes into play.I would be interested in your opinion, and Brade's, and others, regarding whether the understanding above would still yield people who are essentially automatons. I'm really not certain how you'll respond.

johndoe! My favorite free will discussions have been with you. If anyone can defend determinism it's you. I thought your earlier post was an excellent sketch of the libertarian and determinist views. Sorry, I'm posting from my iPhone so I'm not gunna say much more because it's taken me long enough to type this already. Hopefully I canpost more this weekend.

Thanks Brade. I'm looking forward to your input!

[Zeta-Flux]

On the one hand, some people don't like the idea that we are determined by who we are and have been, our situation in the universe, and rules with regards to how the universe works; feeling that it denies any good form of freedom of choice. On the other hand, some people don't like the idea that we are not determined by who we are and have been, our situation in the universe, and rules with regards to how the universe works; feeling that it introduces an absolutely random element into choice, which again denies a good form of freedom.

Or in the spirit of johndoe's post: either our minds (i.e. that part of us which makes decisions) are, or are not, a part of a universe which is determined by the things which have gone before. If so, we are restricted in our choices, and if not we make choices which are not subject to causation (thus, not fully subject to the sum total of who we are to that point; thus [at least partially] independent of those forces we want to be in control of our choices).

People who deny one, or the other, of these problems, in my opinion, just don't get the conundrum.

------------------

With regards to foreknowledge: the scriptures already teach how God knows the future. He is in all things. He is quantum entangled with all things.

Here is a nice thought experiment. Suppose we establish communication with an intelligent civilization on Alpha Centauri. We have to wait for approximately 4 years to communicate, but that isn't much worse than some letters from missionaries! Anyway, we receive a message that they will be having an election in about four years from the time they sent the message. So, in some sense, when we receive the message, the election is underway. If we asked God, could He tell us what the outcome is? If so, he can communicate information faster than light, and according to relativity, He can communicate information from the future. If not, His knowledge of what goes on in the universe is only locally defined, and our conception of how God knows and answers prayers would have to be seriously rethought (or relativity is just fundamentally wrong).