I guess that it comes down to a matter of how one defines "free will".
Depending on that one either has no free will or every choice, even the most limited, is still an exercise in free will.
Einstein and Religion - with considerations of "Human Free Will"
by james_woods 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
james_woods
Classicly speaking (judeo-christian speak) - not every decision IS free will, but COULD BE free will.
For example - the New Testament hint that Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit was the result of trickery (thus NOT free will), but the suggestion that it COULD have been free will (like Adam's choice) if she had not been fooled.
On the other hand, it brings up the thorny question: Did Eve use FREE WILL in allowing herself to BE fooled? Or was she genuinely fooled without reflective thought - was she even capable of reflective thought on the subject? Or was she just too dumb to figure out the temptation?
So then, can you be TOO DUMB to have free will? Is a severely retarded person capable of free will?
Thinking along these lines is causing me to seriously question the entire religious concept of "free will". I am starting to think (like Einstein did) that it is really just a logical excuse made by religious tradition for God's decision to punish the humans for something they were pretty much destined (and tempted) to do anyway.
-
frankiespeakin
Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."
Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."
Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html#ixzz2E16btH5u
-
PSacramento
For example - the New Testament hint that Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit was the result of trickery (thus NOT free will), but the suggestion that it COULD have been free will (like Adam's choice) if she had not been fooled.
I disagree because she HAD been forewarned by God, so she CHOOSE to evert her free will and side with the "serpent", go against God's command and warning and that is, IMO, the classical example of free will.
Anything other than a DIRECT influence on our ability to choose, still amounts to free will on our part.
Some may even argue that even with direct coersion we still have free will because we still choose from a far more limited selection of choices or we may even choose NOT to choose.
If we define free will as choosing which ever choice we have avaliable to us ( including the choice not to choose), then every choice we make is an exercise in free will.
-
Terry
Einstein's area of expertise was Physics. He was relatively weak in math and, perhaps, utterly on his own with philosophy of religion.
Like a fellow I know who is an incredibly intuitive artist but dumb as a box of edible underwear when it comes to any other facet of life.
When any of us stray out of our magesterium we are just like the rest of the plebes.
I think where Einstien's views on religion may be interesting and profitable for discussion might well lie in the realm of
psychology. His compulsion to reduce the unknown to comprehensible and manageable constituencies is remarkable for how prolific the results often were. But, everything has a limit. Except an asymptote, of course:)
We can't blame Albert for wanting God to "play fair". That would mean the inquisitive mind could find the key to everything were they clever enough.
Gravity, for example. Albert got pretty close to creating useful analogies for understanding the function of the so-called gravitational field.
But, the gizmo that made it all fall into a neat pile of ordered slots and tabs eluded him (and others.)
Scientists are not above willing into existence whatever tool of thought they need to make a theory functional. These are place-holders until the actual discovery is made. Then, neat adjustments (like the Watchtower) can correct as necessary. Scientists are over eager, you see:)
The way Einstein approached problem solving was to remove the problem from the elusive world of math probability and into the practical everyday world of things. Sitting on a beam of light, for example, is not your typical math problem.
But, knowing that what is mysterious is often the result of where one is standing was important to him.
He chose the right spot, the vantage point where one could see the hidden.
I'm reminded of the Sheik who was going to marry off his daughter to one of two annoying princes.
They both bragged about how fast their camels were.
The Sheik proposed a race to settle the problem.
Both men immediately agreed without waiting to hear if there were any annoying details!
"The race will be from here in Mecca all the way to Baghdad and back again. The man who arrives LAST will win my daughter in marriage!"
Both princes went away to confer.
"This could take forever! Me waiting on you to go first and you delaying until I go first. What shall we do?"
They decided to send a telegram to Albert Einstein and propose their dilemma and see if he could come up with an elegant answer.
Within less than a day the reply from Einstein was delivered. It contained only 4 words!
Can you figure out the answer?
Here is the answer when you are ready. Just place your mouse over the area and highlight it.
Answer:
TAKE EACH OTHER'S CAMEL
-
nancy drew
i choose not to accept the genesis account as it's stated in the bible because if i choose it then i am choosing to eliminate other possibilites and ignoring other evidence.
-
frankiespeakin
Terry,
it should read:
"The race will be from here in Mecca all the way to Baghdad and back again. The man who's camel who arrives LAST will win my daughter in marriage!"
-
james_woods
Terry, are you saying that Einstein cannot be right about religion because he was not a religious professional - like say St. Augustine?
I disagree because she HAD been forewarned by God, so she CHOOSE to evert her free will and side with the "serpent", go against God's command and warning and that is, IMO, the classical example of free will.
But Psac - the apostle Paul seems to indicate that her decision was different than Adam's - in that she really was fooled. He intimates that Adam was NOT fooled.
But I postulate that the bible itself does not ever make the clear statement that both (or even one of them) really had free will. For example, if Adam had been created with enough intelligence to see through the serpent's statement - but also had been created with an unbearable sense of curiosity to find out what would happen even in the face of danger - wouldn't the result have been the same? And would such a case be free will at all, or rather mereley the end result of predictable human behavioral response?
-
PSacramento
But Psac - the apostle Paul seems to indicate that her decision was different than Adam's - in that she really was fooled. He intimates that Adam was NOT fooled.
Different yes, if she was fooled, but still an exertion of free will.
But I postulate that the bible itself does not ever make the clear statement that both (or even one of them) really had free will. For example, if Adam had been created with enough intelligence to see through the serpent's statement - but also had been created with an unbearable sense of curiosity to find out what would happen even in the face of danger - wouldn't the result have been the same? And would such a case be free will at all, or rather mereley the end result of predictable human behavioral response?
Again, one must defien free will because, IMO and under my definition of free will, then Adam and Eve both exercised free will:
They both had to choose and they chose freely based on what they were told by both God ( their creator) and the serpent ( a being they had no reason to believe in MORE than their creator).
The moral of the story can be this:
People are given everything they NEED with one rule, they break that rule because they don't have everything the WANT and they break that rule with full knowledge of the consequences. That is the best example of free will one can find.
-
james_woods
i choose not to accept the genesis account as it's stated in the bible because if i choose it then i am choosing to eliminate other possibilites and ignoring other evidence.
I know, Nancy. We are just using this silly story as a point of discussion. Substitute any other human decision for the same logical argument.
The moral of the story can be this:
People are given everything they NEED with one rule, they break that rule because they don't have everything the WANT and they break that rule with full knowledge of the consequences. That is the best example of free will one can find.
But Psac, I think you are missing my point. The relative morality of believing Satan or God is irrelevant to the issue: Was Adam destined to eat the fruit simply by the way the human brain had been created? In other words - was it inevitable that his curiosity (once aroused by Satan) would eventually get the better of him just because humans are wired that way? Or, his desire to know both good and evil?
The bible is really silent on whether or not this is the case - and if Adam were indeed wired to sin (so to speak), then he did not truly have free will. He might have pondered on it, agitated about it, and so on - but if he was inevitably driven to eat the fruit, then that falls short of having free will.