Jeremy Christian's Take on Free Will

@jongarvey

Dennett explained the quandry best: to escape the determinism of neural and biological activity of the brain… one wouLd have to act IRRATIONALLY!

But the flip side, rarely grasped, is that such a universe would have no need for awareness.

Awareness is the benchmark for the existence of free will.

Nothing in that was clear to me. What quandary? What do you mean by “such a universe”? What makes you think a universe of any sort would have a need for awareness? What makes you think that awareness requires free will?

Hey, is this compatibilist or libertarian free will you’re talking about? Makes a big difference.

@Jeremy_Christian

Free… blah blah will. This is not a Free Will blog.

1 Like

George is very focused on certain things; and inscrutably dismissive of what he finds peripheral. That doesn’t have to stymie your conversation on this forum.

1 Like

I appreciate it, Guy. He’s not dissuading me. I’ve been at this for many years and have had my fair share of this kind of thing. Responses to this, from both sides of the fence, are often strong.

@Guy_Coe

Actually im not inscrutable on this point at all.

While this fellow champions the relevancy of Free Will… he is poised to make the Genesis 1 pre-Adamites as creatures WITHOUT free will…

… because he doesnt think God’s Image has anything to do with Moral Agency (the universal implications of human free will).

In the meantime… he stirs the manure on many threads by bringing up Free Will like its the only point that matters.

I think @swamidass has already noticed this angle…

@Jeremy_Christian

Which is exactly why it is NOT a helpful topic for this group.

It is. Very helpful. You’ll see.

1 Like

Not the only point, but a point central to everything of interest here. It’s what makes Adam significant. It’s central to the story being told by the biblical texts.

Are you guys familiar with Ptolemy’s loops? For those who aren’t, it’s Ptolemy’s attempt to chart the movement of the planets based on the belief in those days that the heavens revolved around the Earth. Based on that inaccurate view, his planetary orbits looked like this …

image

Not properly understanding free will is akin to this. Understanding free will is like understanding the planets revolve around the sun. It all begins to line up.

While many here in the forum seem comfortable with speaking about biblical things in the abstract, it seems to me we have the obligation to take the text seriously.
So, a caveat I have with highlighting “free will” with regards to Adam is the biblical description that what Adam entered into was NOT “free will,” per se, but “the knowledge of good and evil” which led to behavioral changes. Another way to language that might be that it was both an increase in moral --and immoral --sophistication, as well as an assertion of independence from God, which lay at the root of the fall.

What is the knowledge of good and evil if not free will? True, the Bible never calls it by that name, but the knowledge of good and evil would be a good alternate name.

I take the text very seriously, and literally.

@Jeremy_Christian

Another artful post of ducking and weaving… without attempting to get to the point.

Time for bed.

It’s not an issue of me not getting to the point. I’ve told you directly. You’re just not ready to see it yet. There’s too many preconceived views in the way. I can’t do anything about that but continue pointing. Once you do see it you’re going to feel really silly because of how obvious it will all seem. Just as the heliocentric planetary system seems obvious.

I don’t agree with this characterization, myself.

I can only assume you are referring to Jeremy’s characterization of me?.. but i have no idea which characterization.

Does your computer connection charge you by the key stroke?

To be plainer, George, it’s Jeremy’s characterization “free will” as synonymous with the “knowledge of good and evil” that I disagree with. Hope that helps.

2 Likes

I agree.

Let’s take a stab at another failure in the way people speak about the Adam and Eve story, and the kinds of interpretive hypotheses we’re exploring.
If I were to try summarize the history of the German people, and my terms of art were Hitler, Hitlerites, and pre-Hitlerites, how well would those who love the German people take to this characterization?
Why divide their history using the worst example of their humanity I could find?
The same problem inheres with referring to “those outside the garden” as pre-Adamites, in my opinion.
Genesis 1:27, which chronicles God changing whatever mankind was in 1:26 to what they become in 1:27 --viz., “created in God’s image, male and female” should be our reference point to speak of their identity as “imago Dei” humans, in a “very good” creation.
It is into this established milieu that the story of Adam and Eve intrudes with its paradigm changing morality tale of the fall.
It is not beyond the pale, under this analysis, to refer to all of current humanity as “post fall imago Dei” humans.
This suggests at least two demarcations for discovering behavioral changes, forensically.
One for the appearance and flowering of “imago Dei” humanity, typified by the kinds of things that would follow from that description.
And two, “post fall” humanity, typified by a dramatic increase in what we would recognize as “the knowledge of good and evil.”
Add to that the GA paradigm that ever since Adam, his lineage has spread throughout the whole human population, such that by the time of the NT we are all his geneaological offspring, and you have something more akin to the literal story in the Bible, as well as defensible, historically.
Comments?

Assessing the Genesis 1 Humanity

@GUY_COE writes:
Let’s take a stab at another failure in the way people speak about the
Adam and Eve story, and the kinds of interpretive hypotheses we’re
exploring.
[There is a ] … problem inheres with referring to “those outside the
garden” as pre-Adamites, in my opinion. Genesis 1:27, which
chronicles God changing whatever mankind was in 1:26 to what they
become in 1:27 --viz., “created in God’s image, male and female”
should be our reference point to speak of their identity as “imago
Dei” humans, in a “very good” creation.

GUY, I very much like your proposal. I will be happy to adopt your
recommendation!
“Imago Dei Humans” and “Post Fall Imago Dei Humans” are good
descriptors, good reminders, and factually correct!

You write:
This suggests at least two demarcations for discovering behavioral
changes, forensically. One for the appearance and flowering of “imago
Dei” humanity, typified by the kinds of things that would follow from
that description.

And two, “post fall” humanity, typified by a dramatic increase in what
we would recognize as “the knowledge of good and evil.” Add to that
the GA paradigm that ever since Adam, his lineage has spread
throughout the whole human population, such that by the time of the NT
we are all his geneaological offspring, and you have something more
akin to the literal story in the Bible, as well as defensible
historically. Comments?

I like it all!

@Jeremy_Christian asserts that God could not promise Cain safety
unless the people Cain feared didn’t have Free Will. This is simply
not philosophically or biblically required or even justified. One
might even imagine that Jeremy has been looking for someone - ANYONE -
to agree with him on this point. I doubt he will get many “customers”
here. It not only doesn’t fit with conventional YEC views of what is
possible and not possible for God to do (without violating human free
will), but it certainly invalidates the whole Genealogical Adam
proposal. I find it more than a little perplexing that he thinks we
here are the people to side with him. We here, who endorse
@swamidass’s work, are the least likely ones to endorse it.

Good to know I haven’t given you another headache, @gbrooks9 .
We’ve seen @Jeremy_Christian be willing to at least contemplate renaming his ball, and I wonder how he’ll respond to the analysis.
In the meantime, thumbs up!

1 Like