Great.
However, your comment seems to be assuming that behavior is a result of Genetics or environment( or a combination of the two). In such a scenario,
a) No being including human beings are capable of making choices that is not “instinctive” in a particular environment.
b) If Human’s have a capability to make choices that transcend their “genetics” + “environment”. How do we know crows cannot do the same?
This is the point i was trying to make to @Jeremy_Christian vis a vis his definition of free will.
I’m just saying we know more than you indicate. I’m not intending to jump into this debate. I’ve explained to @Jeremy_Christian that I find his insistent on using “Free Will” to describe his position is incoherent and unnecessary. He can’t seem to back off from it long enough for us to show him other ways to address it. Argue with him all you like, but you are on your own. 
2 Likes
Ok. Point taken
There is no way to empirically determine whether or not behavior is instinctual or of free will. This is why, in the case of humanity, I key on fundamental behavior changes in the species. When a species, or group of species, begin behaving in patterns that in no way resemble the patterns of others in that same species.
According to the bible, humanity is the only species that this changed in. So the evidence matches what’s described.
The will is the element at work here. And a will behaving ‘free’ of purely programmed behavior is what a ‘free will’ is. This is in the same language as the bible uses …
Romans 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it
Creation was “frustrated” by the “choice” of the one who “willed” it. There is no frustration if God’s will is the only will at play. Only frustration when there are competing wills.
This is also consistent with both meanings of ‘free will’. With natural programmed instinct/God’s will playing the role of ‘determinism’ / ‘predestination’.
You are misusing both terms. And it’s a false dichotomy.
Tell me how
In so many ways. Here’s one: you neglect learned behavior, which is neither instinctual nor free will. If you redefine free will to include learned behavior, as you sometimes seem to do, then you should know that a great many animals display it, as do all those “indigenous” people you think don’t have free will. Why, even chimpanzees and baboons and chickens have social stratification. Changes in behavior in response to the environment are not rare at all.
1 Like
Free will is not required for learned behavior. Learned behavior falls into the context of instinct. All life learns and adapts. This is not what sets modern humans apart.
For example, humans began to farm and transitioned to a settled lifestyle. This is learned behavior and not free will.
Though, technically, according to the context of the Genesis story, farming was taught and not learned.
As I said, you are redefining both free will and instinct. This makes your argument, such as it is, difficult to follow and makes it nearly impossible to talk to you.
I know this can be difficult. The bible for so long has been treated as it’s own stand-alone thing. Everything within it is in one category, and all we know about the natural world we put into another.
What we’re talking about here is juxtaposing the biblical descriptions of history with our scientifically learned knowledge of history. To tell one story. To edit the two books together.
Like St. Augustine said, if at anytime it seems as if the book of nature and the book of scripture contradict, it is human interpretation that is flawed.
I’m marrying the two together. Editing them together. Trying to understand the Genesis story in a modern context using modern language and concepts. Concepts that attempt to define real world phenomenon. So I’m simply speaking as if what’s described in the Genesis stories are real world phenomenon.
Sadly, that assumption is not true. You can make yourself believe it, but it results in distorting both books, as you have consistently done here.
Well I’m emboldened by my approach yielding results in accurately predicting what should be expected to be found in the evidence in this place/time across 2000+ years of human history.
Like that behavior change I keep pointing out. Using my hypothetical framework I predicted this behavior change that I later found while testing against that prediction covered in extensive detail in two books studying humanity and social evolution. They both confirmed this change, their definition of it being very similar as to what’s described in Genesis, and they actually illustrated how this change can be seen beginning right at ground 0 of the Genesis story in both time and place and spreading out from there, again, much like described. Steve Taylor, one of those authors, defines this change as the emergence of the modern human ego.
And that’s not the only example. Identifying the 5.9 Kiloyear Bond Event right where/when it should be to mirror the Babel story is another. Things like that tend to make me think I must be onto something.
So, from my perspective, the only caveat is helping others in the conversation make the same shift in perspective I did. It’s difficult because I’m taking two broad topics that everyone involved already has preconceived perspectives on, and I’m asking you to re-see it all in a new light.
I try not to spam this forum with repeated stuff over and over, but I want to include in this conversation for anyone looking for more detail about what I’m failing to describe …
‘The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era’ by Steve Taylor
‘Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World’ by James DeMeo
Demeo’s book is basically a catalog of evidence collected across the map, in his attempt to identify the behavior change
Taylor’s book piggy-backs off of DeMeo’s. Only his interest is in the psychological aspect.
Between the two, Taylor’s book will be most clarifying. It’s a fascinating read whether you buy into what I’m saying or not.
I don’t know anything about Taylor, but I would like to point out that Demeo is a crackpot of the first water, a believer in the most insane aspects of Wilhelm Reich’s orgone theories. His master’s thesis is actually about his attempt to make clouds disappear by zapping them with orgone, at which he thinks he succeeded.
Yeah, that’s what usually happens. They use DeMeo’s reputation to dismiss and ignore everything entirely. Another expected result.
DeMeo’s book is only a catalog of evidence. Yes, in his view the psychological change he’s attempting to track down is in relation to Reich’s concept of armoring, but that’s beside the point. The evidence he catalogs is telling.
What Taylor takes from that and overlays over the evolution of human societies is the key to better understanding.
And I should also note that I’ve yet to find anything contrary to what either of them say. And I’ve checked. Extensively.
I’m suspecting that Taylor too is a fringe figure. I do wonder what real archeologists think of his work.
Taylor’s interest is primarily in psychology and spirituality. But let’s not dismiss on reputation alone. I’m vouching for what they’re saying. I’ve vetted this to the best of my ability to this point. I’m not asking for the reputations of these authors to add credibility. I didn’t just take their word for it and I’m not asking anyone else to do so either. I’m pointing out a place where you can go to get a better explanation than you’re getting here.
You realize that this adds no credibility, right?
I’m well aware. I’m asking to do what I have done for years now. Try to prove this false. Try to prove this wrong so I can drop it and move on with my life. I’ve had plenty of people tell me I’m wrong, but not once has it been shown.
In my experience, it doesn’t distort both books, it clarifies both. Here’s another result of viewing things through this framework …
Oct2018 …
Now, in this thread, I’m using the same tactic to tackle “Imago Dei”/Image of God
In this context ‘Image of God’ is nature. Everything in the universe. All life. Including Gen1 humans. We, from Adam forward, are the divergence. We are the only things in existence to not be an accurate representation of God. Nature, the image of God, is the perfection that we destroy.