Destiny… (29)

As I type I reach out my hand, so as you read, you are then touched.

International man of mystery

It seems to me that both are fairly meaningless debates, because much as we could never test the idea that the world was created 30 seconds ago with all our memories in place, or in 4004BC with dinosaur fossils pre-buried just to confuse us, we can never in any meaningful way test whether we have free will, or are controlled by fate/destiny.

Whether it is a purely physical argument (from the moment of the Big Bang all physical interactions, including those of the neurons in our brains, are following a set of physical rules that cannot be changed) or a more metaphysical one (that we are controlled by a supreme being, or 'fate'), we have no way of knowing because either of those could give us the illusion of free will and ability to choose. Quantum physics seems to suggest that randomness is possible, though whether that is the same as free will may be a more difficult argument, and most theologies seem to suggest that the supreme being gives us the ability to choose, but we can't prove either of these.

The only meaningful issue is perhaps the one that Wonderer pointed out - how we regulate society. If we have free will then it is important that we order society on that basis because we need to make people responsible for their own actions, while if we don't have free will it doesn't actually matter, but we should still try to order it that way as it can't possibly be wrong to do so, since nothing could be 'wrong' or 'right'. So assuming that we have free will and ordering our lives on that basis must be the right thing to do.

I think there is, and from your detailed answer, perhaps you do too.

However, my question was not concerning whether it is capable of being tested or proven, but whether anyone felt that - if they believe in destiny - this militates against freewill. The other thread seemed to be more concerned with the physical than the metaphysical. My curiosity is around, for those who believe in destiny, how and to what extent this affects their belief in the exercise of freewill. But thank you for your contribution.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars" - Oscar Wilde
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

XxX

Da Vinci was a well known sexual deviant. You know that sketch of the naked man in the wheel? Blueprints for a rape machine.
~~~
snowboarding FTW

I believe in free will. I consider that that is one of the ways in which God has made mankind "in His image".

And I agree that we should order our lives on that basis, even if it is not so, since it means people can be accountable for their actions.

However, what you say poses a couple of questions for me. And I am not trying to "catch you out". I am interested to know how you approach them.

First of all, IF we are here purely because of the blind forces of evolution, which have no "purpose", HOW can anything be evaluated on the basis of "right and wrong" - whatever "is" just "is".

Secondly, if, as you say there IS no "right and wrong" (in that scenario), then on what basis would you order society anyway? You say it is fine to order society as if free will exists, since nothing could be "wrong or right" - but without those criteria, what is the principle by which you could "order" society, or even say it NEEDS "ordering"?

What I mean is this - it SEEMS to me that you are saying society should be ordered. I agree. But, presumably, you mean society should endorse what is right, and reject what is wrong - so, for example, we should forbid theft and encourage generosity. But, if there IS no right and wrong, theft must be JUST AS valid as generosity. So, in ordering society, what values do you use, if right and wrong are purely arbitrary?

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Like all these debates it depends on your definition.

Does predestination mean that every point in your life is predestined, in which case free will can not exist, or just the final destination and you have the possibility of choosing what route you take. That begs the question of how you are "steered" back to your final destination which implies that free will at that time could not operate. Also if your destination is to die at 80, you are not free to commit suicide earlier.

The Wikipedia entry starts:- "Predestination is a religious concept, which involves the relationship between God and God's creation. The religious character of predestination distinguishes it from other ideas about determinism and free will. Those who believe in predestination, such as John Calvin, believe that, before the Creation, God determined the fate of the universe throughout all of time and space."

At the time when predestination was in vogue the analogy they had for the universe was similar to a very complex clockwork machine.

Since the development of Chaos Theory it would appear impossible to reconcile unpredictability with predestination.

The Gospel accounts of his involvement in Christ's death show that he conducted Christ's trial in a state of agitation, doing all he could to secure the release of a prisoner who appeared to have done nothing wrong.

God of course (if one believes in him) is all-knowing. But knowing how one of his creations will act, before that creation actually acts, has always seemed very unfair.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

I was going to do that, and decided against.

The closet's cosy and all, but outside there's room to move.