Monday, December 29, 2008
-In which quantum mechanics delivers a swift roundhouse kick to the ugly face of causal determinism-
My posts on this blog are going to come in spurts as I feel inspired to write...
Interesting realization I came to today. I was reading up on quantum mechanics, trying futilely to understand it before I run off and major in physics, and I was delighted to discover that quantum physics may put a nail in the coffin of causal determinism, which essentially is an argument against free will. (and no i'm not obsessed with free will, it just seems to come up a lot in these areas of thought.) It basically states that existence is determined by cause and affect. You can't have free will because when you make a decision, you're simply acting as your life experiences have taught you to act and this is how you MUST act. and consequently.... freewill is history...
(and all the arminianists scream NOOOOOOOO!! While the Calvinists gloat and revel in their own cleverness...)
But not so fast! recent research in quantum mechanics is showing that at an atomic level, molecules seem to act completely unpredictably and randomly. They are not locked into a specific state based on the forces at work around them. Sooooo.... The atomic world is not predetermined, and randomosity becomes not only possible but quite factual. (Of course no one really understands why or how this is possible...but it's quantum stuff so you aren't supposed to...) But the point being that if molecules are able to act randomly, then it may be assumed that human choices could also be random. of course in this case, random is understood to mean undetermined, or free choices.
Freewill: 1
Determinism: 0
HURRAY FREEWILL!!
Now if I can just reconcile all the other sneaky forms that determinism takes I'll be well on my way to being awesome;D
My dear reader,
I will frequently award your patronage of this blog with such entertaining cartoons to atone for the sin of my highly boring self-absorbed prattle... so keep reading...
Interesting realization I came to today. I was reading up on quantum mechanics, trying futilely to understand it before I run off and major in physics, and I was delighted to discover that quantum physics may put a nail in the coffin of causal determinism, which essentially is an argument against free will. (and no i'm not obsessed with free will, it just seems to come up a lot in these areas of thought.) It basically states that existence is determined by cause and affect. You can't have free will because when you make a decision, you're simply acting as your life experiences have taught you to act and this is how you MUST act. and consequently.... freewill is history...
(and all the arminianists scream NOOOOOOOO!! While the Calvinists gloat and revel in their own cleverness...)
But not so fast! recent research in quantum mechanics is showing that at an atomic level, molecules seem to act completely unpredictably and randomly. They are not locked into a specific state based on the forces at work around them. Sooooo.... The atomic world is not predetermined, and randomosity becomes not only possible but quite factual. (Of course no one really understands why or how this is possible...but it's quantum stuff so you aren't supposed to...) But the point being that if molecules are able to act randomly, then it may be assumed that human choices could also be random. of course in this case, random is understood to mean undetermined, or free choices.
Freewill: 1
Determinism: 0
HURRAY FREEWILL!!
Now if I can just reconcile all the other sneaky forms that determinism takes I'll be well on my way to being awesome;D
My dear reader,
I will frequently award your patronage of this blog with such entertaining cartoons to atone for the sin of my highly boring self-absorbed prattle... so keep reading...
Vestigia Trinitatis
This is an essay I wrote on the works of a monk dude named Anselm...yep.
-The Trinity Reflected in the Mind of Man-
The Trinity
The Trinity is understood to be one supreme essence comprised of three distinct persons. This essence is not a collective being wherein each member makes up a part of the whole, rather, the Father, the Son and the Spirit are each individually the supreme essence in the fullness of its being. It is a triad of quintessential unity wherein the three persons are one and the same to such a great extent that they are not three but one. This phenomenon may also be explained as follows; Each person of the Trinity holds particular characteristics, yet these characteristics, being distinct from each other, do not imply a plurality of that person’s being. Likewise, the Oneness of God is not compromised by the fact that He consists of three persons. This ineffable multiplicity of oneness is exemplified in The Gospel of John where it states that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The Father and the Son are unified as one being while still maintaining a distinct plurality. Anselm asserts that the understanding of this mystery of the triune essence of God is well beyond man’s comprehension. Nevertheless, while we cannot fully understand what the Trinity is, we can make an accurate inference of what it is like.
The first person of the supreme essence is the Father. When it is said that He is the first person, it is not meant to imply that He existed before the Son and the Spirit, because all three exist coeternally with each other. Additionally, the Father could not be first in a chronological sense, because to do so would be to place God within the confines of time, thus limiting his omnipotence, and thus denying his deity. Stating that He is first is done to convey the idea that He is most truly the Father and His Word is most truly the Son. He is the ultimate begetter, and the Son is begotten of Him. It is through Him that the Son claims Its being, while He claims being only through Himself.
This Son is the second person of the supreme essence. He is known as the Son, inasmuch as He is the begotten of the Father. He is also known as the Word because in the same way that a word of language is used to denote the essence of a thing, the Word is the essence of the Father. The disparity in this analogy is that while a word of language can only create a mental image of that which it denotes and not the thing itself, the supreme Word is not an image, but a perfect utterance of the Father’s being. Thus it is identical to the Father’s essence and must be consubstantial to that essence. The Word is the consummate expression of wisdom, love, power, and all other aspects of the Father’s essence.
The third person of the Trinity exists as the mutual love that the Father shares with the son.
The idea that the supreme essence loves Himself is self-evident inasmuch as His being is truly love, and love by definition must love itself. Since both the Father and the Son are each individually the supreme spirit, they must each love the other with the same perfect love by which they love themselves. This love that exists between the Father and the Son, being supreme in nature, is as great as the supreme essence. Because nothing can be equal in goodness to the supreme essence other than the essence itself, it follows that this love is the supreme essence, which is called the Spirit, and is the third person of the Trinity.
The Image of the Trinity
Anselm describes the trinity by designating each member with a trait that defines that being in such a way that the human mind might comprehend it. These traits are memory, understanding, and love. The Father is signified in terms of memory, because He retains the memory of the substance that comprises Himself. The Father, being the supreme essence, claims being entirely in and through Himself. As such He is the progenitor of the Son, who is the begotten essence of the Father. The Son is signified as the understanding, or the Word, corresponding to the human mind wherein a word is begotten of the memory. The trait which defines the Spirit, has already been expressed as the love which exists mutually between the Father and the Son.
If the Trinity is understood in terms of memory, understanding, and love, then the three substances that constitute the Triune essence of God are represented within the mind of man. The Father is reflected in the human mind as it is He who is signified as the memory of God inasmuch as the human mind is the memory of man. It is only through the power of memory that understanding is formed. Thus, the Son, being the Word and the understanding of the divine essence, is reflected in the mind because a word is begotten of the memory just as the Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit, which is love, is reflected through the human mind’s ability to love and to be loved of itself. The mind is truly unique amidst all creation in that it alone has the capacity to remember, to understand, and to love, making it an image of the Trinity through which mankind may attain a fundamental understanding of the ineffable nature of God. These images of the Trinity found within the rational mind were first recognized by Saint Augustine, and dubbed them vestigia Trinitatis. Many Medieval theologians held the opinion that these “vestiges of threeness” perceived in nature provide the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity.
Out of this concept that the Trinity is represented in the human mind comes the question of whether the vestigia Trinitatis are a cause, or an effect. Is the Trinity a truth of God’s essence, the image of which has been implanted in the mind of man through the act of creation? Or is it a linguistic method by which man seeks to comprehend the ineffable essence of God using the human mind as an analogy? The answer to this lies in the means by which we derive our understanding of God. Anselm viewed God’s essence as beyond human comprehension to the extent that no true knowledge of it can be achieved. All theological knowledge is analogical in nature. It is only by means of comparison that the rational mind may reach an understanding of God’s essence. The Trinity is not a simple truth of the divine essence, but an analogical means through which we attempt to describe that which is ineffable.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Free Will
This is not an entertaining blog... more of just a way for me to back up my papers so next time my hard drive is destroyed by an untimely accident, i'll still have them...mhmm... so this is an incredibly tedious and boring and if any of you actually read it, be sure to leave a comment to let me know, because i know i sure wouldn't read it. anyhows...
-A Defense of Free Will-
If God has divine foreknowledge of all future events, then future events are not contingent and free will is an illusion. This is the essential precept of theological fatalism, a concept, wherein either human free will or God’s omniscience must be rejected. Unfortunately, neither of these options is compatible with Biblical Christianity, thus, the argument poses one of the most formidable threats to human free will of any of the fatalistic argument. Various solutions to this dilemma have been proposed, but perhaps one of the strongest of these was offered by Saint Thomas Aquinas. The purpose of this essay is first, to present the dilemma of theological fatalism, secondly, to show why this dilemma is incompatible with Biblical Christianity, and thirdly, to refute this argument by means of the Thomistic ideology of free will.
Theological Fatalism
Theological fatalism begins with the assumption that God, being omniscient, must possess infallible knowledge of future events, specifically all future human decisions. This proposition can be assumed to be true given our understanding of the intrinsic nature of God’s being. If God’s divine foreknowledge of future events is truly infallible, then, if today, God believes X event will occur tomorrow, then X event must invariably occur. Nothing can deny this occurrence. This is inherent in the definition of infallibility. For the purpose of this explanation, X will represent the murder of one man by another. God’s knowledge of this future occurrence, being infallible, cannot be altered. So the murder must take place. If the occurrence of this murder is predetermined by God’s foreknowledge of it, then the murder was not committed freely. This is the dilemma of theological fatalism.
The argument requires that human free will cannot be reconciled with God’s divine foreknowledge, therefore one of these must be denied. However, each of these is foundational to the Christian belief system. If divine foreknowledge is rejected, then the omniscience of God has been denied and His deity has been compromised. The idea of God with the absence of divine foreknowledge is inherently self-contradictory. The denial of human free will is equally problematic. If there is no free will, then the murderer mentioned before cannot be held personally responsible for any of his actions. The elimination of personal responsibility necessitates that the guilt of all sins committed must ultimately reside with the creator Himself. Thus God must be guilty of all sins committed, while the human race must be innocent of all sin and utterly guiltless. This scenario wherein free will is denied, is in every way contradictory to Christian doctrine. The argument for theological fatalism demonstrates that divine foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. However, Christianity will not subsist with the removal of either of these things. Therefore, the refutation or modification of the argument itself is essential to Christianity.
In resolving this dilemma, Aquinas prescribes to the Boethian solution, which begins with the denial of the first premise; That today, God believes that X event will occur tomorrow. This premise is denied on the basis that God is an atemporal being and as such, cannot hold a belief in either the past, or the future. The strength of this argument rests on the presupposition of God’s atemporality, which will be considered momentarily. Aquinas explains how God, being an atemporal being, can concurrently know past, present, and future characteristics of temporal reality, using the analogy of a circle. The central point of the circle is equidistant to every point along the circumference. In the same way, God may be understood to exist in a state of eternal now, outside of temporality, from which He views every point in time. All events within the temporal realm are before the mind of God simultaneously. Of course to use a word like “simultaneously” to describe God’s perspective, is using a temporal metaphor to ascribe meaning to that which cannot be understood. A more accurate description would be devoid of all tense, as tense involves time, and God is timeless. However such language, while inaccurate, is helpful in denoting the infinite nature of God in a comprehensible, finite sense. With this in mind, the claim can be made that from the omniscient perspective of God, there are no future events or past events, only present events. As such, God does not view future events as they will be, rather as they are. If the atemporality of God can be substantiated, then the first premise of the dilemma can be denied and the dilemma itself will have been refuted.
Timelessness
The atemporality of God can be confirmed on the basis of His immutability, which can likewise be confirmed through His simple nature which repels composition. For a being to change, it must attain something which it did not already possess. It must exist in two different states, each one lacking something that the other possesses. If God was changeable, this would contradict His understood being in several ways. First, His omnipresence would be denied. If God exists everywhere perpetually, then it is impossible for Him to change His position and exist elsewhere. Similarly, His omniscience would be denied. He could not be all-knowing and yet be changed by increasing or decreasing in knowledge. These, as well as other unique characteristics which delineate God’s being, are infinite in nature and deny change by definition. A being that is mutable could not be God. Therefore, God must be immutable. Time will be defined as a movement or change from one moment to the next. If time necessitates change, then mutability is a prerequisite for temporality. If that is the case, then God, being immutable as shown above, cannot exist in any state but one of atemporality. Having demonstrated the atemporality of God, consideration must now be given to the subject of future contingency.
Future Contingency
Restated, the argument for the incongruency of free will and divine foreknowledge is based on three claims: First, that free will is dependent on the contingency of future events. Second, that future contingencies are unknowable by nature. Third, that God’s nature is such that He must have knowledge of these future contingencies. The following statements are logically incompatible, thus presenting a dilemma.
However, a contingent event may be understood in two different ways. First, in the sense in which it exists in itself, in the present tense. Within this case, it is not considered a future event, or even a contingent event at all, because once a future contingent has become present, it is no longer contingent.31 It is important to note that in this first understanding, wherein the event is non-contingent, it has become completely knowable. For example, the aforementioned murder, designated as X event, is a future contingent, thus allowing for the free will of the murderer. However when X ceases to be a future event and becomes a present event, the contingency is lost, and knowledge of the event’s outcome then becomes possible.
The second way a contingent event may be considered is as it exists in its cause, in the future tense. In this context, the event is undetermined, and unknowable. While mankind can only have knowledge of the latter of these two views of contingency, God has knowledge of both of them. Though contingent events occur successively, God views them not successively, as they are in their cause, but simultaneously, as they are in their being. This is evident in God’s atemporal perception, through which there are no future or past events but only present events. As such, contingent events may be known by God, not as future contingencies but as timeless actualities. It can then be concluded that the argument for theological fatalism is inherently flawed, as it is incorrect to argue that God possesses divine foreknowledge today that X event will occur tomorrow. This posits a temporality of God’s knowledge that has been shown to be false in view of His timeless nature, by which He is able to possess infallible knowledge of contingent events while still allowing for human free will.
-A Defense of Free Will-
Theological Fatalism
Theological fatalism begins with the assumption that God, being omniscient, must possess infallible knowledge of future events, specifically all future human decisions. This proposition can be assumed to be true given our understanding of the intrinsic nature of God’s being. If God’s divine foreknowledge of future events is truly infallible, then, if today, God believes X event will occur tomorrow, then X event must invariably occur. Nothing can deny this occurrence. This is inherent in the definition of infallibility. For the purpose of this explanation, X will represent the murder of one man by another. God’s knowledge of this future occurrence, being infallible, cannot be altered. So the murder must take place. If the occurrence of this murder is predetermined by God’s foreknowledge of it, then the murder was not committed freely. This is the dilemma of theological fatalism.
The argument requires that human free will cannot be reconciled with God’s divine foreknowledge, therefore one of these must be denied. However, each of these is foundational to the Christian belief system. If divine foreknowledge is rejected, then the omniscience of God has been denied and His deity has been compromised. The idea of God with the absence of divine foreknowledge is inherently self-contradictory. The denial of human free will is equally problematic. If there is no free will, then the murderer mentioned before cannot be held personally responsible for any of his actions. The elimination of personal responsibility necessitates that the guilt of all sins committed must ultimately reside with the creator Himself. Thus God must be guilty of all sins committed, while the human race must be innocent of all sin and utterly guiltless. This scenario wherein free will is denied, is in every way contradictory to Christian doctrine. The argument for theological fatalism demonstrates that divine foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. However, Christianity will not subsist with the removal of either of these things. Therefore, the refutation or modification of the argument itself is essential to Christianity.
In resolving this dilemma, Aquinas prescribes to the Boethian solution, which begins with the denial of the first premise; That today, God believes that X event will occur tomorrow. This premise is denied on the basis that God is an atemporal being and as such, cannot hold a belief in either the past, or the future. The strength of this argument rests on the presupposition of God’s atemporality, which will be considered momentarily. Aquinas explains how God, being an atemporal being, can concurrently know past, present, and future characteristics of temporal reality, using the analogy of a circle. The central point of the circle is equidistant to every point along the circumference. In the same way, God may be understood to exist in a state of eternal now, outside of temporality, from which He views every point in time. All events within the temporal realm are before the mind of God simultaneously. Of course to use a word like “simultaneously” to describe God’s perspective, is using a temporal metaphor to ascribe meaning to that which cannot be understood. A more accurate description would be devoid of all tense, as tense involves time, and God is timeless. However such language, while inaccurate, is helpful in denoting the infinite nature of God in a comprehensible, finite sense. With this in mind, the claim can be made that from the omniscient perspective of God, there are no future events or past events, only present events. As such, God does not view future events as they will be, rather as they are. If the atemporality of God can be substantiated, then the first premise of the dilemma can be denied and the dilemma itself will have been refuted.
Timelessness
The atemporality of God can be confirmed on the basis of His immutability, which can likewise be confirmed through His simple nature which repels composition. For a being to change, it must attain something which it did not already possess. It must exist in two different states, each one lacking something that the other possesses. If God was changeable, this would contradict His understood being in several ways. First, His omnipresence would be denied. If God exists everywhere perpetually, then it is impossible for Him to change His position and exist elsewhere. Similarly, His omniscience would be denied. He could not be all-knowing and yet be changed by increasing or decreasing in knowledge. These, as well as other unique characteristics which delineate God’s being, are infinite in nature and deny change by definition. A being that is mutable could not be God. Therefore, God must be immutable. Time will be defined as a movement or change from one moment to the next. If time necessitates change, then mutability is a prerequisite for temporality. If that is the case, then God, being immutable as shown above, cannot exist in any state but one of atemporality. Having demonstrated the atemporality of God, consideration must now be given to the subject of future contingency.
Future Contingency
Restated, the argument for the incongruency of free will and divine foreknowledge is based on three claims: First, that free will is dependent on the contingency of future events. Second, that future contingencies are unknowable by nature. Third, that God’s nature is such that He must have knowledge of these future contingencies. The following statements are logically incompatible, thus presenting a dilemma.
However, a contingent event may be understood in two different ways. First, in the sense in which it exists in itself, in the present tense. Within this case, it is not considered a future event, or even a contingent event at all, because once a future contingent has become present, it is no longer contingent.31 It is important to note that in this first understanding, wherein the event is non-contingent, it has become completely knowable. For example, the aforementioned murder, designated as X event, is a future contingent, thus allowing for the free will of the murderer. However when X ceases to be a future event and becomes a present event, the contingency is lost, and knowledge of the event’s outcome then becomes possible.
The second way a contingent event may be considered is as it exists in its cause, in the future tense. In this context, the event is undetermined, and unknowable. While mankind can only have knowledge of the latter of these two views of contingency, God has knowledge of both of them. Though contingent events occur successively, God views them not successively, as they are in their cause, but simultaneously, as they are in their being. This is evident in God’s atemporal perception, through which there are no future or past events but only present events. As such, contingent events may be known by God, not as future contingencies but as timeless actualities. It can then be concluded that the argument for theological fatalism is inherently flawed, as it is incorrect to argue that God possesses divine foreknowledge today that X event will occur tomorrow. This posits a temporality of God’s knowledge that has been shown to be false in view of His timeless nature, by which He is able to possess infallible knowledge of contingent events while still allowing for human free will.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
-Beginning-
Essentially, I was sitting here writing an award winning paper for my Medieval Philosophy class, when I decided that ingenious writing such as mine deserved to be honored with it's own special place on the world wide web.
So this is for all you throngs of people who keep asking me to print you copies of these brilliant papers.
It is my intention to use this blog to launch an open attack on stupidity, which I find to be one of the greatest evils in the world today...
I'm going to post here essays I've written, quotes I've stumbled on, and awesomeness in general for no real reason other than the sheer pretentiousness of it. (I love that word. It projects it's own meaning so perfectly.)
I chose the Web address because I think that Solomon presents the plight of the human soul so perfectly.
"And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith."
Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is this sore travail with which God has burdened mankind.
So come with me now on a journey through time and space... to Kyle's mind, a magical far-away land where most things are possible but few things ever make sense... where every question begets two more questions, and the answers are always gray rather than black and white... Where Mountain Dew rains down from the sky and Twizzlers are the strings of string theory which make up the universe...
So this is for all you throngs of people who keep asking me to print you copies of these brilliant papers.
It is my intention to use this blog to launch an open attack on stupidity, which I find to be one of the greatest evils in the world today...
I'm going to post here essays I've written, quotes I've stumbled on, and awesomeness in general for no real reason other than the sheer pretentiousness of it. (I love that word. It projects it's own meaning so perfectly.)
I chose the Web address because I think that Solomon presents the plight of the human soul so perfectly.
"And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith."
Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is this sore travail with which God has burdened mankind.
So come with me now on a journey through time and space... to Kyle's mind, a magical far-away land where most things are possible but few things ever make sense... where every question begets two more questions, and the answers are always gray rather than black and white... Where Mountain Dew rains down from the sky and Twizzlers are the strings of string theory which make up the universe...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
