When did God give man Free Will?

[edhopper]

So God gave man free will because ...evil or something, still not clear on this.

Anyway, I was reading an article in Free Inquiry about the evolution of morality in Man. Looking at the beginnings of what can be called "culture" and the rise of consciousness, somewhere in the last 200,000 years modern man arose. So when did man get free will? Did earlier Homo species have it? Do other apes? If the bible is just a metaphor, but God giving man free will real, there had to be a moment in human evolution when a generation received free will from God.


For the purpose of this discussion, God gave us free will and free will can be said to be choosing your own actions, deciding between right and wrong.

[Throck]

1. or is free will and decision making part of the evolutionary process?

Is free will the void in consciousnesses? Does free will describe the fork in the road of the underdeveloped mind?

But each generation has the benefit of the prior generations knowledge in their decision making process?

The more I think about it the more questions I have. Damn You!

[PJMcK]

2. The creation of humans story is self-contradictory

Consider one aspect of the god of the Bible's nature: It's omniscient. Therefore, god should have known that humans would be flawed. Yet god created humans anyway and then blamed them for their sins.

I cannot follow that with any logic.

But to answer your specific question, if one believes the creation story, free will was given at creation. God tells Adam and Eve what to do and what not to do. This implies that they are able to make their own choices.

[edhopper]

14. But what about people like most Catholics

who accept modern science, including evolution and current cosmology.
They also believe in what the bible says about God giving man free will?
And when was the original sin if modern science gives us a factual account of man's evolution?
So when did all that happen.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. "accept modern science"

It isn't really an active process. More often than not it's just the passive recognition that scientists tend to know what they're talking about. Stop anyone on the street, Catholic or not, and you're probably going to find they don't spend much time thinking about evolution. They probably don't know much about it beyond a vague sense, likely informed by the crazy shit they've seen in Hollywood flicks. That they should have to reckon their belief in free will with the genetic history of mankind has not occurred to them.

Somewhere, some scientist-priest has probably written a lengthy bit of fan fiction reconciling their service to two masters. I'll bet it's bullshit. And boring as hell.

[DetlefK]

3. Never mix religion and facts. It's not healthy.

In one hand you have a subjective Bronze-Age belief-system that was invented by iliterates and is so full of holes that it creates more questions than it provides answers.

On the other hand you have mutually agreed upon facts that were discovered 3000 years later by objective methods.

[edhopper]

15. Yet billions believe both.

[erronis]

105. Well stated. Evidence-based science took quite a while to be accepted

by people that could understand it.

Others were, and some still are, more comfortable getting their diet from the learned elders.

[DetlefK]

118. Nonononono. You don't understand: The concept of evidence-based science didn't even exist back then.

Back then, people had engineering. They knew "how" to make something.

But in the question of "why" they were philosophically limited to animistic explanations: gods, spirits...

The philosophical concept that it's even possible to learn something about nature by collecting objective evidence didn't exist until the early Renaissance and the Hermeticist movement. Before then, collecting objective evidence was deemed futile because nature was controlled by entitites with free will.

The philosophical concept that objective evidence should be used to judge theoretical explanations whether they are correct or incorrect, that didn't exist until the late Renaissance. This concept was invented by the alchemist Francis Bacon.

[erronis]

121. I could have sworn that earlier civilizations figured out the movement of the stars, calculated the

hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle, etc. I guess everything prior to the european dark ages isn't part of this equation.

[DetlefK]

122. This is "how", not "why".

Babylonians had a trigonometric algebra. It's mathematically different from our trigonometry but just as suitable for calculating angles and triangles.

They knew "how" the stars move, but their explanations "why" the stars move in this way were limited to gods and spirits.



The big philosophical jump was going from animism ("a conscious entity makes the thing do this&quot to mechanism ("a thing makes the thing do this&quot .
And AFAIK that happend in Renaissance-Europe.

[Duppers]

4. "God" is just a game-playing sadist.

And the game is rigged. "He" could've created us any way he wanted but then, where's the fun?!

[Voltaire2]

5. My dogs know when they have been bad.

[rampartc]

31. cats certainly have free will.

i'm sure most mammals do.

[zipplewrath]

6. Based upon your premise

For the purpose of this discussion, God gave us free will and free will can be said to be choosing your own actions, deciding between right and wrong.

The biblical answer would tend to be that we got free will when Adam ate from the apple.

If you are talking scientifically, "right and wrong" would probably be hard to define. It's probably really more of a feature of tribalism which exists in many animals. The thing that tends to distinguish homo-sapiens from other animals is the length of both short and long term memory. That allows long term learning which also leads to the passing of knowledge and ideas across generations.

[MineralMan]

8. Not really. Adam EXERCISED free will by doing that.

If he hadn't had the free will, it would not have happened.

It's not a flaw, though. It's essential for growth. Without it, no choices would be made, eliminating progress, which is always a matter of making choices and then distinguishing them between successful and unsuccessful choices.

Sentience depends on free will. Without it, there's nothing to decide. You are just an automaton, continuing always with the programmed actions.

Gods are created by beings that have free will.

[zipplewrath]

9. Yeah, that's always been a flaw in the story

Adam has to have free will in order to be able to both be told not to eat the fruit, and to choose to do it anyway. It gets confused because supposedly the tree of knowledge allows him to know right from wrong. But if he didn't know that beforehand how does he know not to eat from the tree?

[MineralMan]

10. Well, according to the myth, God told Adam and Eve not to eat

that fruit, so they knew they weren't supposed to. They did, anyhow, after being encouraged by the Serpent. A Serpent!

The fruit of knowledge is probably the most flawed part of that Genesis story. We meet the serpent only in that scene. It's a deus ex machina device, included only to coax Eve. Oddly enough, though, everything that occurs after that is because of that pivotal scene. A very creative campfire storyteller came up with that. Everything depends on it. Without that decision to eat the fruit, there wouldn't actually be much of a story to tell, so it's an essential part of the story. No conflict; no story line.

Without the story, there is no religion. Smart storyteller!

[zipplewrath]

11. And it's the woman's fault

Which will be a feature of literature for centuries to come.

[MineralMan]

12. LOL! True.

In that story you have the beginnings of patriarchy and misogyny. God puts the curse of painful childbearing on the woman and blames her for everything. Again, a very clever storyteller, and a male one, at that. I hadn't looked at it that way, really, before you mentioned it. Thanks!

[Lordquinton]

21. Oh ho!

Just wait until you hear what the snake is an allegory for!

[MineralMan]

22. LOL!

No comment needed.

The old one-eyed trouser snake bit.

[Lordquinton]

55. ...

[edhopper]

16. But there are billions who believe

in both evolution and God giving man free will?

[zipplewrath]

17. In various ways

Someone who accepts both, generally views evolution as a creation of God and so he is the "giver through creation". Then there are those who have never thought about it. And finally there are those that don't understand the question.

[edhopper]

19. And my question for the first group

is when did it happen?

[Voltaire2]

20. The first group are engaged in dishonest

apologetics trying to patch over the problem and are doing so to keep the other 99.999% bamboozled.

[msongs]

7. since the gods are creations of humans they have all the nasty human attributes

so the concept of free will is created by people to condemn other people who are different

[trotsky]

13. The people who use "free will" as a defense can't even prove we have it.

Research seems to indicate that what we view as free will is just our conscious mind letting the brain do its thing and then later saying "Oh I totally meant to do that, yeah."

[zipplewrath]

18. Hate to have to prove it.

Professor in my college writing class would assign topics and positions and the student was required to create the "defense". He assigned both the pro and con for a free will question. The guy that did the "no free will" defense had it pretty easy. The pro-free will student struggled.

[MineralMan]

25. I would simply refuse to make the argument.

That would be my argument for free will. My choice.

[Major Nikon]

26. Plot twist: instructor exercised free will and failed you

[MineralMan]

27. OK. I would have anticipated that, but decided anyway.

A lot of college professors would accept the argument of silence, though. I would, and would give that student high marks.

I had a linguistics professor with whom I disagreed on a linguistics theory. When a paper was due on the topic, I wrote a piece of academic satire that extended the theory to absurdity. Got an A for my effort. I had good professors.

[marylandblue]

30. A linguistics joke

A linguistics professor said, "There are languages where a double negative makes a positive, but there is no language where a double positive makes a negative."

A student replied, "Yeah, right."

[MineralMan]

36. Perfect!

[Voltaire2]

32. You would invent a narrative that you chose

not to defend your position as a demonstration of free will after your non conscious brain functions made that decision.

[Pope George Ringo II]

23. I'm going with 1980. Unsurprisingly, it makes more sense than any holy book.

[democratisphere]

78. Agree completely!

[in2herbs]

28. Several years ago, on a PBS special, the claim was made that the adaptation of a meat-based diet by

humans was the evolutionary process that began to separate humans behavior from animal behavior because the protein in meat improved the mental faculties in humans and from that humans developed the ability to think rather then instinctively react like an animal. Isn't thought and creative thinking part of free will? Animals can do neither.

[Voltaire2]

33. Animals can't think?

You might want to rethink that assertion.

[in2herbs]

34. Animals are instinctive, they do not have the level of reasoning or critical thinking skills that

humans have. This ability is singular to humans and is what sets us apart from animals.

[MineralMan]

37. Actually, no. They can and do think and reason,

but not as well, nor in the same ways, as humans do. Your belief is out of date and incorrect.

[in2herbs]

44. What animals made the scientific discovery for vaccines?? for going to the moon? The level of an

animals capacity to think and reason is far below that of (most) humans. Only when animals can use their brain for these functions will my "belief" will be out of date and incorrect, unless you can cite scientific discoveries made by animals (and not one's in which animals participated as test subjects.)

[MineralMan]

45. No question. We are the best at thinking and reasoning.

That has let us overpopulate the planet and pollute it to the extent that we may cause our own extinction. We're also smart enough to have driven thousands upon thousands of other creatures to extinction and to kill our own species in massive numbers.

That does not mean that other animals do not think. We're just better at it. That's good sometimes, and not so good other times. Your claim was that other animals don't think. That is incorrect.

[Pope George Ringo II]

47. Ponder the self-awareness of a cat looking in a mirror and discovering it has ears.

It's not exactly the discovery of fire, but recognizing yourself in the mirror clearly isn't instinct.

[Pope George Ringo II]

49. I'd also point out that you're apparently arguing humans didn't "think" until the 20th Century...

But there's some impressive thinking documented from crows:

[Voltaire2]

46. Ok let's unpack that.

1. Animals can’t think.
2. Animals are instinctive.
3. Animals do not have the same level of reasoning that humans have.

3. Is mostly true, although “level” is problematic. Also researchers keeps finding new qualities of reasoning in non human animals that were thought to be absent.

1. Is simply false, while 2 is true of all living entities.

[Lordquinton]

56. This ability is singular to humans and is what sets us apart from animals.

Ho boy where do we start.

Well, humans are "animals" we are not some separate being from the rest of life on this planet, we actually have a specific spot alongside everything else living on the planet.

And yes, according to a bar set by humans that is raised every time it gets proven wrong by non-human animals.

Third

[MineralMan]

38. What of carnivorous animals?

The food you eat has nothing to do with how the human brain developed. Evolution is the reason humans more complex brains, not the food humans ate. If eating meat generates intelligence, why are the big cats not smarter?

You have some very outdated ideas, I think.

[edhopper]

41. He explained it poorly

The human brain grew faster than any species in history, tripling in size in 1 to 2 million years. Hunting in groups to supply the protein needed for such brain growth was part of the equation.

[MineralMan]

43. Nope. Bigger brain more success at survival.

Evolution selected bigger brains because those with them survived better to reproduce. What they ate had nothing to do with that. That they were smarter and survived had everything to do with it.

Evolution is a passive process that has nothing to do with what food a creature eats. Evolution selects through survival and reproduction. Bigger brains were better, so humans with bigger brains survived and reproduced, whether they ate fruit, or meat or whatever else. Hunting cultures survived and reproduced better because they were smarter due to larger brains, not the other way around.

[edhopper]

50. Homo needed to change the way it ate

to support the bigger brain. The group hunting and food sharing co-evolved with the bigger brain. Evolution supported those that could feed those bigger brains, hunting large animals and eating more meat enabled survival. It was a behavior that evolved with the bigger brains. What they ate was crucial to survival.

[trotsky]

39. Cooking our food - whether animal or vegetable - was arguably more important.

It unlocked nutrients and calories our digestive systems couldn't on their own, allowing us to get more energy with less effort. As a result, mutations that increased our brain capacity at the cost of weaker jaw muscles didn't harm us. We could still chew and digest food just fine. And the increased brainpower was a huge benefit.

[edhopper]

42. And communal sharing of food as well.

The evolution of morality had much to do with keeping the group together.

[trotsky]

48. Yes, absolutely.

We evolved in groups, not just as individuals.

[edhopper]

52. hey trotsky

maybe you can explain this up-thread to Mineral Man better than me.

[thucythucy]

76. Exactly right. Which is yet another reason why libertarianism

and the whole Ayn Rand "virtue of selfishness" "philosophy" is so full of it.

It's social interdependence and community that enabled us to be so successful. Libertarianism not only denies empathy (another important evolutionary breakthrough) but also denies the most recent science relating to evolution. It's why the whole "rugged individualism" ethos of this culture is so counterproductive, as well as being so toxic.

[LuvNewcastle]

106. Very true.

If we survive as a species, cooperation, not individualism will save us.

[Jim__]

40. The blog, The Conversation, has an article on that idea.

That article, Food for thought? Diet helps explain unique human brainpower, is from April 2017. Darren Curnoe is a scientist:

He is a palaeoanthropologist and archaeologist fascinated with human evolution and prehistory. Darren believes science isn't complete until it has been communicated to the wider community. Therefore, he has made writing, broadcasting and making films about science, especially human origins, a major part of his professional endeavours.

The idea expressed in that article is that it's the complex behaviors needed to satisfy the human diet that led to a bigger brain being advantageous. It doesn't say anything about the protein content of the diet.

An excerpt:

...

Now a new study by Alex DeCasien and colleagues published in Nature Ecology and Evolution has turned the debate completely on its head. They’ve found that the kind of diet a primate species consumes offers the best explanation for its brain size.

...

The human dietary niche is exceptionally broad and involves behaviours aimed at not only obtaining food but also making it more palatable and digestible; activities like extraction, digging, hunting, fishing, drying, grinding, cooking, combining other foods to add flavor, or even adding minerals to season or make food safe to eat.

...

What’s more, our large fruit eating ape brains got even bigger late in human evolution because our diets became ever more challenging to obtain and prepare, especially as a result of our ancestor’s penchant for eating meat.

Hunter-gatherers typically have a diet comprising between 30% and 80% vertebrate meat, while for chimpanzees it’s only around 2%. Instead, chimps get 60% of their diet from fruit, but hunter-gatherers typically obtain only 5% or 6 % (on the odd occasion a lot more) of their nutrition from fruit.

...

[keithbvadu2]

29. There is no free will... there is only allowed will.

There is no free will... there is only allowed will.

If God approves your decision, it stands.

If God disapproves your decision, he will 'change your heart', as he has been given credit for doing.

Or he will arrange it somehow that your decision cannot be carried out.

[in2herbs]

35. This description makes it sound like humans have no control over their lives and if we're without

control why do we have decision-making capability?

[keithbvadu2]

51. 'Allowed' decision-making capability.

'Allowed' decision-making capability.

Only if the decision is approved by God.

[marylandblue]

60. So is that what happened to Trump's SOTU, and

does that make Nancy Pelosi God?

[keithbvadu2]

62. Nope. It makes Pelosi's decision approved by God... and Trump's decisions which come true.

When folks say God works in mysterious ways, it's quite true.

God allows many bad things to happen.

[Voltaire2]

57. Our decision making capabilities may bit

be conscious. I know it goes against our intuitions, but that appears to be where the evidence is pointing.

[SoFlaDem]

53. Is there really such a thing?

I would assume the concept of "free will" is simply a way to counterbalance the idea of devine preordination. In other words, if God makes and controls everything, then it would be God's fault, not my fault, if I am a bad person.

I do think that we are ALL colored with the religious concept of free will whether we want to admit it or not. From a scientific viewpoint, aren't we just animals that react to stimuli as a result of our past experiences and genetic makeup? We all react through part emotion (including empathy as well as fear) and part logic, and how much control do we have, really, over how those thoughts are processed and decisions made?

If I am taught it is immoral to eat animals my whole life, and no one presents me with an alternative view in my formative years, I am likely to recoil at the mere idea that someone thinks it is okay to eat meat. Free will or conditioning? Yet we almost all believe in certain objective standards that some things are innately "good" or innately "bad." Many of these things go beyond what is necessary for a civil society and are premised in certain assumptions about the objectivity of morality and man's ability to choose it.

Setting a date, it seems, would depend on a particular religious doctrine. If the religion is "creationist," Adam, the first man had free will and it fucked us good. If a religion believes God acts consistently with science, they may not profess to know the exact moment that set us apart from the animals.

Personally, I think that maybe man hasn't yet fully developed free will.

[MineralMan]

54. Part of the problem is that there are a couple of concepts of

what free will actually is or would be. That confuses the argument at times, I'm afraid.

When the parties in a discussion don't agree on definitions, useful discussion is next to impossible.

I tend to define it very narrowly. If an individual has two or more choices of a course of action at any given time, then free will exists, in my definition. For whatever reason the individual picks one course of action over another, there is a choice. Sometimes, it's an unconscious choice, and sometimes it's a reasoned choice, but it is a choice to be made by that individual.

Probably quite a high percentage of our choices are made unconsciously. Research backs that up. However, we often opt to consider pros and cons of the choices we have and make one based on some level of reasoning. Either way, though, we often make what turn out to be the wrong choice, to our regret and disappointment.

I'll give an example: If I go into a restaurant that offers dishes from a cuisine that's not familiar to me, I cannot make a choice based on past choices of the menu items. So, I'm in a situation where I have to look at the menu and the ingredients of the various dishes and try to pick something that I'm likely to enjoy. I might ask the waiter about the dishes. If there are pictures on the menu, I can consult those. I will take much longer in such a situation in deciding than I would at a familiar restaurant. I might ask my table mates what they have liked and whether they can tell me something about a menu item that might help me. I'm going to try very hard to choose something that is likely to please me, but may not succeed. I will, however, choose something to order, based on whatever criteria I apply. Once the food arrives, I will discover whether or not I made a good choice, but I will have chosen from many options, using a process that I have used before, but on a menu that is unfamiliar. Fortunately, I'm an adventurous eater, so I usually do OK.

[SoFlaDem]

69. The question begged by all this for me, though...

when we talk about "free will" in a moral sense, would it not only matter if there are presumptions of a guiding God or innate good that we are "free" to accept or shun? Otherwise, it is all relative, no? If there is not a higher power, force or strength, is there an objective higher purpose that goes beyond just what works best in the struggle for survival of the fittest? That is what my spirituality is based around, my belief in an innate good that goes beyond the randomness of evolution (although I don't question evolution is how we got here) and has instilled in me the ability to feel a love that goes beyond just my family, my clan and my genetic progeny.

When did we develop that potential? And why can we also go the other way and kill 8 million Jews in a holocaust? That is the true nature of the OP's question for me.

[MineralMan]

70. I don't think about "free will" exclusively in a moral sense.

It is simply the ability to choose one's actions. Of course, that applies to moral decisions as well, but is not limited to them, in my opinion. Is there some sort of ideal action that one can choose to take? Not really. In moral decisions as well as decisions that have nothing to do with morality, there is no black and white answer. Actions that have a beneficial effect on one thing may have a deleterious effect on another.

I use a reciprocity test when making decisions on actions that might affect others. That's the morality side of free will. Often, though, my actions might affect people or situations of which I am not currently aware and cannot consider properly. I can only do my best to anticipate the results of my actions and to cause the least possible harm to others. Such decisions can be difficult at times. For example, if I decide to drive to the supermarket today, should I exercise additional caution, due to possible icy road conditions? My decision will be to be more cautious, to avoid endangering others. That, however, might cause annoyance for less cautious drivers.

For decisions that affect only me, I think differently, always being aware that a particular action may have both positive and negative effects and that actions might have consequences that extend beyond the present moment. Personal decisions that affect only myself always come with the chance that I might regret my action later. That becomes part of the decision-making process. For example, I might decide later today whether or not to drink a cup of coffee. On one hand, it will increase my alertness. On the other hand, it might make me wakeful at bedtime. I will consider both and decide, later today. I will have to deal with the results of my decision.

Free will, combined with mindfulness, generally produces the best results, both morally and personally. Still, it can be a crap shoot.

[Voltaire2]

75. How do you know what your higher power wants?

What if it wants the jews, or the tutsi, or the muslims exterminated? The holy books have repeated examples of the abrahamic gods demanding or conducting mass slaughter.

[SoFlaDem]

77. I follow my conscience

First, I do not belong to any Abrahamic religions, so I can't answer for them. I do believe there is something devine in human sympathy and empathy that I can tap into that is a conscience which allows me to know that I am not to massacre (or in my experience, harm) other people.

[trotsky]

79. Other true believers have followed their conscience, too.

And it led them to very dark places.

How do you know that you are right, and they were wrong?

[SoFlaDem]

80. How does anyone know?

I don't really understand the term "true believer"; such a term is merely used to exclude the possibility that others may have better answers than I (ego based thinking is a red flag for me). That's why I consider my faith to be very personal.

I think that true spirituality for me is in the seeking, not in the knowing; I am interested in all spiritual concepts as well as moral philosophies, but in the end my actions are governed by an interaction between myself and my conscience (which, again, I believe to be my connection to the devine). There is much in religions which I see as either allegorical or, in the alternative a creation of man's ego. By seeking spiritual guidance I have found that I do gain moral discernment.

[trotsky]

82. That's kind of the point.

When it comes to religion, it's not just that you can't know, it's that no one can even demonstrate they are closer to knowing than anyone else. Religious "truths" are simply opinions, each one with equal validity. And when everything is equally valid, then everything is equally invalid.

[SoFlaDem]

83. I think we mostly agree

in that I am not a member of any particular religion because religions are human institutions and therefore necessarily reflect to some degree the biases and opinions of the institutional members.

But where we may differ is that I believe that there are devine spiritual principles that I can strive for, and that a spiritual practice helps me act according to them, rather than through my own ego and emotional frailties. Humans often know what is "right", but end up doing the opposite due to their own self-centerdness or self-seeking. I can say only from my personal experience that through a spiritual practice (reading, meditating and praying) I find I am better at living by spiritual (or moral if you want to call them that) principles. Things like honestly, humility, gratitude, acceptance and love are among those principles.

If you think I am saying that I am closer to some truth than anyone else, I am not saying that, because that would fly in the face of the very spiritual principles I try to live by. See for me, the answer itself is in humble seeking. I could be totally off-base, but at least what I do and believe seems to work well for me.

[trotsky]

84. Certainly humans often fervently believe they know what is "right"...

...but their definition of what's "right" is the key here. Some think it's "right" that women be 2nd class citizens and not given the same opportunities as men. Some think it's "right" that homosexuals be executed. It's not that they know their position is wrong but embrace it anyway - they truly believe they are as right as you think you are.

[SoFlaDem]

85. I don't disagree with that.

I'm not sure I get your point. I think we all seek the truth, some by religion, some by logic and some by a combination of the two.

I know most religions profess to have more knowledge of the truth about what is "right" than non-believers of their faith, but I do not. That is why I constantly try to seek guidance in the various forms I do. I have no problem with others seeking truth in some other way. But I do think the principles I mentioned above are some of the keys to behaving in a moral fashion. I don't think executing homosexuals (or frankly anyone) is guided by such spiritual principles as empathy, humility and love, so for me that is abhorrent.

[trotsky]

86. The point is, you are making the implicit statement that your guiding "spiritual principles"...

...are better than those used by others.

Some people's "guiding principles" are basically what they believe their god wants, as dictated by their holy book of choice.

I'm saying that while your principles certainly sound better to me, they are literally no better (or worse) than what other religious people choose, at least when it comes to a faith-based approach to morality.

[SoFlaDem]

87. Are you saying

that because I seek to include divine guidance, along with other things, that they are somehow worse than a non-faith-based approach to morality?

[trotsky]

88. Nope, I'm saying that your faith-based method is no better or worse than any other.

Because of the limitations of faith.

[SoFlaDem]

90. I've never claimed that.

In fact, I have said the opposite. But I do believe it is my human frailties that pose the greater limitations to my morality than my faith.

I do think there are limitations to the application of logic and reason when exercised by emotional beings as well.

[trotsky]

91. Yes you did.

In post #85 you said: "But I do think the principles I mentioned above are some of the keys to behaving in a moral fashion."

Implying your principles are better than those of other believers, because YOUR principles are key to "behaving in a moral fashion."

[SoFlaDem]

92. Do you not believe in certain moral or logical principles to guide you?

That was all I was saying. I left "for myself" out in that one place out of this whole conversation (mea culpa), but I have done my best to explain to you that I don't claim moral superiority.

We all have to choose what principles we are guided by, but if you want to infer that by doing so I am claiming some sort of superiority, than you are free to do so. I do not see it that way at all. I have to choose something and that is what my journey of seeking is designed to do. I never abandon all logic or reason; those are, I believe part of discernment. Others may be guided by different sources
and principles, and if they want to explain them to me, I am open to listening.

Does a secular philospher do something so different?

[trotsky]

120. Of course I do.

None of them are based on gods, however.

I'm pointing out that of those that ARE based on gods or faith or spirituality or whatever, are all on equal footing. Yours may be better for you, but they're not objectively better than the person who really feels that homosexuals need to be put to death because they believe their god commands it. That's a problem with faith-based morality. You might really, really feel a god or spirit wants you to behave a certain way, but that feeling is just as valid for everyone else.

[Voltaire2]

81. Then you have no need of this alleged higher power.

[SoFlaDem]

89. I believe that I do

It has made me a better, sober and more moral person. All humans are capable of knowing the right thing and acting wrongly due to emotional and psychological reactions. I fight that tendency in myself through a practice that has helped me set aside my self-centerdness and self-seeking. I have found that my seeking a divine will for me has helped guide me through difficulties I could not manage on my own.

If you have no need for, nor any belief in, a Higher Power, than that is great, I can only speak of what works for me. I do not presume one who does not believe in the divine is going to be less moral than I either.

[Voltaire2]

93. Still confused by what you've said.

If the higher power, not you, is the authority on The Good, then I understand why you think you need this higher power. But you've also claimed that you are the authority on the The Good and if this higher power dictates that you should slaughter little children and eat them during the super bowl, you know better and Higher Power can go pound sand.

I still think that you have to agree that, as far as The Good is concerned, you are the final authority and this alleged Higher Power is irrelevant.

[SoFlaDem]

94. No...

Because that has not been my experience with my Higher Power. I think I can glean basic spiritual principles from reading and learning from many spiritual sources. The more I seek, the better I am at knowing. My seeking a higher power helps me act not out my personal human emotions and frailties, but rather to act consistently with those principles. That's why we "practice" our spirituality, it is my way of staying in line with what I am convinced is the innate good in the universe. If I get the message to slaughter children, then I'm confident that would be my will, based upon something askew with me, rather than a divine message.

If you see it as something different, that is fine, I am under no compulsion to prove my experiences to you.

[Voltaire2]

95. What you describe is you being the authority on The Good

[SoFlaDem]

96. Authority?

True, I do not fit in with the religious lot. I don't believe any one source written by a human being is authoritative on spiritual matters. Personal biases and political motives are probably almost inseperable from all human endeavors, even (or especially?) religious ones. But in looking at honest attempts to seek a divine, free of prejudices and politics, I think certain principles emerge consistently that are likely part of a greater good, the "Golden Rule" being an example. Not too different from philosophy where no one philosopher has it all figured out.

Many spiritual people over the centuries have embraced the belief that there is no one authoritative source or interpretation and that a spiritual practice is partially about the mystery and always seeking to better understand what that good may be.

Granted, if one believes in on set of principles, or that there may be one attainable logic that can be applied to figure it all out, this would not be for them. But as I will keep repeating, this works for me and that is really all that matters to me for governing my personal decisions and actions. I also find a lot of peace in it.

Do you believe there is an authority on what is good and moral?

[marylandblue]

100. I don't think people understand the difference between belief and spiritual practice

It's a deficiency in the Western tradition, both Christian and secular, which puts a lot of emphasis on belief. Eastern traditions seem more oriented towards practice.

[SoFlaDem]

103. I think you are right

And although I can't claim to be a practitioner of a specific tradition, I have incorporated a lot of Eastern practice and beliefs into my thinking about spirituality.

[guillaumeb]

58. If man is "created in the image and likeness",

that includes free will.

The Creator freely created. The first exercise of free will.

And sentient beings have the intelligence to choose. The meaning of the metaphorical apple story.

[edhopper]

59. When did that occur?

at what point in human evolution did the homo species aquire free will?

[guillaumeb]

61. When we acquired what we call human sentience.

One part of the evolutionary process.

[edhopper]

63. So when did God do that

did autralopithecus have free will? Neanderthal?

When did God decide that Homo could pick good or evil and commit sin.

There had to be aspecific instance when a home got free wil.

Are you suggesting Adam was a real human? If so when was that?

[guillaumeb]

98. The meaning of the name Adam shows metaphoric intent.

[marylandblue]

104. All names in Hebrew have a meaning

As do all names in English and French, except often it's from older languages. So no matter what they gave the first person, it would have a metaphorical meaning. Just like your name Giuillaume is Old German for resolute protector. As you are a resolute protector of the faithful, your parents seemed to have anticipated your avocation with an appropriate metaphor. Where they prophets?

[guillaumeb]

108. The names Adam and Eve were not chosen at random.

And the meaning of the names is strong evidence for the intended meaning of the story.

[marylandblue]

112. I'll say it another way

It's impossible to write a story in Hebrew without the characters having metaphorical names, usually with multiple possibilities. Adam is indeed from the root word for earth, but that root word also means red. Which could mean it's really a metaphor for the striking red sandstone of Jordan(biblical Edom, from the same root)
but never intended as a metaphor for earth at all, but rather that the Garden of Eden was in Jordan. Which would have been obvious to nomadic shepherds 3,000 years ago, but totally obscure to settled agriculturalists in Israel a few centuries later, let alone, us.

Without that original cultural context, and given that all names in Hebrew may have multiple metaphorical meanings, how could what the intended metaphor is?

[guillaumeb]

113. Life comes from the earth.

You forgot the name Eve.

The writer had no reason to select any names for the characters. The writer could have called them first woman and first man, but did not. It is my view that the names were deliberately chosen for their symbolic value.

[marylandblue]

117. Like I said, ALL hebrew names in the Bible have symbolic meanings

Often, the Bible tells you so. Eve (Hebrew Chava) does indeed seem to have the same root as life, and the Bible says she "is the mother of all life," but this could be a later folk etymology. Prior to the monotheism of the Bible, God had a wife, Asherah, who was also called Chavat, similar to Chava, and so this could be a vestige of an earlier goddess worship, perhaps representing a demotion for her.

Of course the writer had to select names. What good storyteller does not give his character names? But without the original cultural context, how would know why those names were selected?

5,000 years from now, after our society is ruined, buried, and forgotten, imagine a future archeologist finds a newspaper article about the "the Washington Nationals." If that archeologist did not know where Washington DC was or that it was the national capitol, would he know why the team name was selected?

If he knew about "the National League" from other sources might he think the league was named after the team. Wouldn't he have a great topic for a scholarly journal, quite clever actually, but still have the connection totally wrong? He might be quite insistent on his interpretation, but would that make it any more true?

[guillaumeb]

126. The phrases "first man" and "first woman" are used in other myths.

So we are arguing about the intent of a writer or writers long dead.

[marylandblue]

128. "arguing about the intent of a writer or writers long dead."

Exactly. That's the point. Yet you argue about it frequently. You don't just suggest it's metaphorical, you insist you know what the metaphor represents.

[guillaumeb]

130. I suggest only that it is metaphorical.

And my opinions are noted.

But to note that life comes from the earth is hardly an unusual observation to make about a story written for a society of farmers.

[marylandblue]

131. Then stop calling those who disagree with you "literalists"

Because they are not. Claiming it's a metaphor for humans being made of dust is fine. Claiming it's a metaphor for a speculation that happens to match modern cosmology is far-fetched at best, and appears to imply something you never say you don't mean. Do you understand the unstated implication that you never deny?

[guillaumeb]

132. The term literalist is one that I use for those

who argue a position that depends on only a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So if these "literalists" insist that a verse means one thing, and only one thing , I will continue to use what I feel is the appropriate description.

[marylandblue]

138. They don't think it means one thing and only one thing

They think the surface story is at least part of the meaning and/or the metaphor represents something awful. Adam blaming Eve for eating the fruit then getting to rule her is a metaphor for the real misogyny that was universal then and continues to this day. But it also gives this reality a divine sanction, thereby justifying and perpetuating it.

That some Christians today do not take the metaphor as a justification for misogyny does not change the fact that most people throughout history actually have taken it that way and it's also the most natural reading.

[edhopper]

123. Most likely

but then all myths evolve with symbolic values.

But myths change.

The biblical flood myth was taken from Babylon, the hero Utnapishtim's name means day-life. While Noah's name means rest. What symbolism was meant can be conjectured for either.

But let's face it G, you think there is divine inspiration in the biblical stories and therefore a faithful meaning. But the facts don't support that.

[edhopper]

107. Again

when do you think that God gave free will to the Homo species?

Forget metaphor, if God gave man free will, there had to be a specific time when he did. Before that no member of the homo line had that, after they did.
When in the evolutionary timeline did it happen?

[guillaumeb]

109. When our ancestors acquired human sentience.

That is when.

The Creator started the spark and what evolved happened.

[edhopper]

110. So Neanderthal

had free will? Australpitecus? Maybe Chimpanzees have free will?

[guillaumeb]

111. Neandertal had a large brain.

Brain size of human ancestors evolved gradually over 3 million years

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-02/uocm-bso022018.php

Chimpanzees? Science says humans have much larger brains, even adjusted for relative size.

[edhopper]

114. So Neanderthal

=free will?

So that's like 400,000 years before God inspires any metephores about himself or how we should behave or where the world came from.

[guillaumeb]

115. Are you certain that Neandertal had no creation stories?

An analysis of a Neanderthal's fossilised hyoid bone - a horseshoe-shaped structure in the neck - suggests the species had the ability to speak.
This has been suspected since the 1989 discovery of a Neanderthal hyoid that looks just like a modern human's.
But now computer modelling of how it works has shown this bone was also used in a very similar way.
Writing in journal Plos One, scientists say their study is "highly suggestive" of complex speech in Neanderthals.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25465102

A large brain, and the presumed ability to speak. So what did they talk about?

[edhopper]

116. I forgot

every religion, no matter how primitive, no matter how inconsitant and incompatible with other religions, are true.

[guillaumeb]

124. Off point.

Neandertal was a large brained hominid, presumed capable of speech.

[edhopper]

133. So God inspired them with

creation stories as well?

[guillaumeb]

134. Did they have creation stories?

If they were intelligent enough to wonder about existence, and the large brain suggests corresponding intelligence, they may have had such stories.

I am old, but even at my age, I never knew any Neandertals.

[edhopper]

136. You are the one who brought up

Neanderthal creation stories.

[guillaumeb]

137. See your response 110.

I only suggested that Neandertal could have been physically capable of having them.

[edhopper]

139. So just a way

to avoid answering when God gave free will to the homo species.

[guillaumeb]

140. I did supply some ideas.

But no, the Creator did not personally say anything to me.

[trotsky]

66. So we weren't created in your creator's likeness, then.

We evolved.

[MineralMan]

68. Oops. Major conflict there, Guy.

Either your mythical "Creator" created humans or it did not. If it simply allowed evolution to operate or if it simply did not exist at all, then the entire thing is down to evolution.

So many conflicts; So little space to discuss them.

[Voltaire2]

71. And Guy has repeatedly said elsewhere here that evolution is the only process,

falling back to 'sparky got it all going and evolution is part of sparky's big plan. The problem is that there is then absolutely no reason why we should consider human flavored sentience singular. There is no reason why other branches might not have evolved or will evolve equivalent sentience, or even a 'higher' sentience.

[MineralMan]

72. Well, evolution is sort of a "needs must" sort of thing.

There is no imperative for sentience. Unless it provides a survival benefit, it's not necessarily a selection factor. For humans, it turned out to be an important selection criterion. For great white sharks, not so much.

Random genetic changes produce all sorts of effects, but in small increments. If they improve a species ability to survive or thrive, the changes are more likely to be passed on through reproduction. Sentience is apparently not a beneficial asset for the great white shark, but apparently was for homo species.

In some ways, it remains to be seen whether sentience really benefits our species over the truly long haul. It might. It also might not. We might survive so well that we deplete our resources or change the environment to make survival impossible. Are we still evolving? Probably we are, but our generations are long, so the impact of genetic changes doesn't become evident very quickly.

Humanoid species have been around for just a couple of million years, in one form or another. In the grand scheme of things, that's too short a time to measure our success, really. Consider the dinosaurs. All that is left of them are birds.

[Voltaire2]

73. Sure I am not claiming it has to evolve elsewhere, just that it certainly can.

No divine intervention required.

[MineralMan]

74. Absolutely. And probably has.

A lot of religionists truly think that humans are the only sentient creature. It's a function of thinking of humans as some sort of special case of living things. We're not. Not at all.

Sentience is on a scale. Generally, mammals have more of it than reptiles. Primates have more of it than dogs. But, sentience is out there in many species, to some degree or another, as anyone who keeps pets learns on a daily basis.

For example, my dog knows that drinking more water makes him pee more. He also knows at what time of day we take our dogs out for a walk. About half an hour before that time, he goes to the water bowl and drinks lots of water, the better to mark his usual spots by peeing on more of them. Right now, our walks are shorter, because it's cold outside, so he drinks less water before his walks. Occasionally, we take the dogs out at random times. This puts Dude, the water drinker, in an awkward position. As soon as he becomes aware that a walk is in the offing, he rushes to the water bowl to drink. He will not go for a walk until he does that. He knows that drinking water helps him have urine for marking. But, he doesn't recognize that drinking it just before an unscheduled walk will not work. So, after coming home from an impromptu walk, he has to go out to pee a short time later. His sentience is limited in that way.

Mammals are more sentient that reptiles, which are somewhat more sentient than invertebrates, which have very little sentience at all. Even a cursory examination of brains in those groups reveals where sentience is located in the brain.

Human sentience and intelligence probably got its start from a random mutation in some early primate species or branch of proto-primates. It helped the creatures with that factor survive better, so it was passed along, allowing room for additional development down the road. We probably can't locate the specific mutation, although I'm sure there are scientists looking for it though comparisons of genomes. We can do that now, so we'll be learning more about that.

[guillaumeb]

99. No conflict, just misunderstanding on your part.

[Voltaire2]

64. So god looks like a human?

[guillaumeb]

97. Not what I said.

I referred to sentience.

[Voltaire2]

119. It's exactly what you said.

And then inferred sentience from that.

[guillaumeb]

125. Okay. Go with that.

[trotsky]

65. "The Creator freely created." - This is a completely unsupported and unsupportable claim.

Or do you get special leeway cuz, you know, religion?

[MineralMan]

67. What "Creator?"

Please show your work below:

[Snackshack]

101. Free Will...

Is an illusion. It is the deal our unconscious mind made with itself so it would never be responsible for the guilt or regret we manufacture during our lives...

[pangaia]

102. Everything a man or woman does is just automatic, done in a sleeping state.

Only some intentionally developed degree of consciousness can begin to change that.

[True Dough]

127. I got my free will

papers in the mail several years ago. Came with my wifi password. I've been a free man ever since. Thank God!

[shanny]

129. Assumes facts not in evidence.

[edhopper]

135. Assuming the concepts

established by the Christian Church. It is a discussion based on acceptance of those pretexts.
Not a debate about whether free will or God exists. If he doesn't exist, this discussion is moot.
Think of it as an academic exercise.