The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Hyperion
2012 Reads
>
Hyp: Chapter Four: Isaac
date
newest »
newest »
aldenoneil wrote: "I've never understood the Isaac story, seeing it much as Sol does - a tale about blind obedience to what is essentially a cruel God. And yet it endures as a lesson, or something.Sol has the follo..."
Thats because few people bother with the Isaac "back story." Simmons included obviously.
The "test" for Abraham is not merely if he is willing to give up his son, but is his faith strong enough for him to continue believing God's promise that He would father a nation through Isaac.
Abraham basically had an existing guarantee from God that Isaac would be okay - and then God tells him to sacrifice his son. Abraham doesn't blink, and if you are familiar with Abrahams story he has a history with God that involves Abraham doing a lot of bargaining, doubting, inner struggling etc. But by the time we get to Isaac's story God has pretty much earned Abraham's trust.
Back story - Abraham's wife Sarai (Sol's wife also called Sarai in case we missed what story is being referred to) is barren. God tells Abraham he's going to father a nation anyway. After a quarter century of waiting still no children and both Abraham and Sarai are past it. Abraham and Sarai figure God needs help keeping His promise so Abe takes Sarai's servant as a concubine and gives birth to Ishmael. A lot of heartache from that decision later and God again comes to Abraham and tells him he'll father a nation through the son born to Sarai. Abraham and Sarai think this is a great joke because the lead has definitely left the pencil by now. But regardless Abraham believes God and it is this faith that God commends in Abraham's story. And then Isaac is born and Abraham's faith is justified and God shows himself to be true and adds further promises re Isaacs life. THEN God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son and Abraham doesn't blink - He trusts the guarantee God has given him. He may be a little perplexed but He is not agonizing, reasoning (according to the writer of Hebrews) that God will raise Isaac from the dead if He makes Abraham go all the way through with the sacrifice - which we know from the story God does not do. The "test" is tailor made to Abraham - its a very personal test, but NOT a cruel one, and the story ends with Abraham and Isaac worshipping - not in fear but in genuine reverence and thankfulness.
There is another version of the story where Ishmael, the first born under the laws of the time, was to be sacrificed because of Sarah's jealousy. Sarah had given Haggar to Abraham as a surrogate mother because Sarah was sterile and Abraham as a tribal leader needed an heir - the only other way was to divorce Sarah and take a new wife. Sarah reneged on the very legal deal she had made with Haggar, her slave, so that Sarah would not face divorce. A very modern story with many modern cases of those involved in various sorts of parental surrogacies that go sour.
Haggar and Ishmael prospered despite all that; Ishmael was there to bury Abraham though they seem to have kept away from the area until Sarah died. Poor Abraham was caught in the middle of the two women - knowing one had his son and the other he loved. The two sides are still fighting over the land each claims as their inheritance.
Other parts of the Bible say Sarah had STD and gave it to the Pharoah's family so that she was sterile would have been no surprise. Abraham had given Sarah to the Pharoah despite the fact that Sarah was Abraham's wife.
Oh what a web we weave when first we practice to deceive... and the wars continnue all these centuries later. Karma.
The prediction via God was that the favored son would have as many descendants as stars in the sky. I think that may give the prize to the descendants of Ishmael who have the highest birth rates despite attempts to eradicate them.
David wrote: "...few people bother with the Isaac "back story." Simmons included obviously.The "test" for Abraham is not merely if he is willing to give up his son, but is his faith strong enough for him to continue believing God's promise..."
Nah, won't wash.
Does God actually declare that it is through Isaac that Abraham will have his promised legacy? After all, Abraham has gotten an unexpected son already, maybe the promise is meant for some other son.
Regardless, the question is not really about Abraham's faith at all. After all, if God is omniscient, He would presumably already know Abraham's faithfulness. The question is why such a God would demand such pointless tests in the first place. More broadly still, Sol's conundrum goes to the old theological Problem of Evil. Why, if God is all that He's cracked up to be, require a universe in which rotten things happen to nice people at all? And God's answer, in Sol's dreams, are about the same as those in the Torah: "I don't have to explain Myself to you, humanity." That answer is insufficient for Sol, and likely for many other readers as well.
P. Aaron wrote: "Does God actually declare that it is through Isaac that Abraham will have his promised legacy ..."Yes - Gen 21:12.
The problem of evil from a Biblical point of view is not how God can justify himself but how God can deal with the evil man has opened the door to without brushing it under the carpet and without condemning man to a hopeless eternity. The Bible is very specific as to WHY the creation is broken, who broke it, and gives a very specific solution.
It may not be a very emotionally satisfying reason (seeings the problem stems from man himself) but there is nothing wrong with the actual logic.
Not quite so - the translations of Gen21:12 vary. A sample:
And God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad and because of thy handmaid: in all that Sarah hath said to thee hearken to her voice, for in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee.
The context is that Abraham is worrying about the fate of his son Ishmael - he loved him and Haggar or Sarah would not have been jealous. God basically is telling Abraham not to worry about Ishmael - God will take care of him and his mother. You listen to Sarah and let that fate unfold as it will.[perhaps a reincarnation into that line for Abraham???]
Gen 21:20
God was with the boy[Ishmael] as he grew up....
And that lineage has prospered.
At least that is the alternate history...
Is it better to get "seed" or God's presence as an inheritance?
David wrote: "....It may not be a very emotionally satisfying reason (seeings the problem stems from man himself) but there is nothing wrong with the actual logic..."But there most definitely *is* something deeply wrong with the logic: it's not logical.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows the future of every action and choice, and has in fact predetermined such choices before Time, as such, ever began. In that case, man is not ultimately responsible for the admission of evil into the divine plan: God is. It makes "tests" like that of Isaac (or Job, or Lot, or a dozen dozen others) nonsensical.
This is a very old theological conundrum, and it's at the heart of Sol's agony, particularly given that it's especially evident in a fictional universe in which we see people going backwards through time from a (determinate) future.
There have been many answers to the problem in theological circles, historically: Manichean dualism, polytheism, a limited non-omniscient godhead, Calvinist predeterminism...but none of those are consistent with mainstream monotheism, which does not offer a "logical" response which squares with Cartesian rationalism. Indeed, you might say that Simmons is highlighting here the longstanding truism that religious "faith," in the major monotheistic traditions at least, consists first and foremost of the ability to swallow these two logically irreconcilable conditions.
P. Aaron wrote: "It makes "tests" like that of Isaac (or Job, or Lot, or a dozen dozen others) nonsensical."Oooh, questions of free will versus fate! Fun times, fun times...
Allow me to play the devil's (or possibly deity's) advocate here, and point out a problem with your premise: You're assuming that killing is inherently evil.
Think about that. Is it evil to kill a program that isn't performing as expected? Is it evil to kill a plant? An insect? Another human? A family member? Are any of these more or less evil than another? Is it good for a mother fox to kill a rabbit to feed her young?
Are free will, self-awareness, and higher cognitive functions necessary for good/evil dilemmas? Where's the line? Can dolphins be evil? Chimpanzees? African grey parrots? Am I getting off topic?
Okay, so let's say that killing itself is neutral, and the purpose behind it determines the morality of the action. So if you're killing for a good reason, it's good, and if you're killing for an evil reason, it's evil. With me so far?
So God asks Abraham to kill for no reason other than because He said so (thank you, oh Lord, for making sure I could capitalize that "he" and avoid pronoun confusion =P). The act of Abraham killing his son is as neutral as the act of walking across a room. A little more extreme, final, and harder to swallow, but just as morally ambiguous. So God is testing the reason behind the action. Now, if you believe that God is wholly good, you implicitly believe that a command from God is also good, therefore even killing your own flesh and blood is good, if God told you to do it, blah blah blah, I don't really care about that. It's free will that I'm after.
So answer me this: can the ideas of good and evil even exist outside of free will? Can free will exist without some concept of good and evil? Is evil the opposite of good or the absence of good? Can God simultaneously exist and deny the presence of free will through some other assumed aspect of Himself? Does knowing every conceivable rationale behind a choice negate the fact that the person actually made that choice? Can we answer these questions without a perfect (or at least better) understanding of the universe?
Personally, I don't know... I'm just a mathematician, which means I believe in things like imaginary numbers and ideal conditions, so I'm probably not a very good person to ask.
P. Aaron wrote: "But there most definitely *is* something deeply wrong with the logic: it's not logical. ..."Ahh, thats not so easy to prove. The problem is you are comparing the Infinite (Gods knowledge, power etc) with the finite (man's free will). You can't do it. Its like adding infinity plus 2 and then insisting you have come up with a meaningful answer. Infinity by nature leads to the paradoxical - ie things that are obviously true but don't fall within a finite, measurable, perceivable frame of reference. You get them all the time in Maths.
For example you argue "He knows the future of every action and choice, and has in fact predetermined such choices before Time, as such, ever began"
- except God being infinite does not exist in linear time and therefore cannot be referred to in terms of doing or being "before" or "after." Those terms of reference may be useful and true relative to where the individual is in time much the same way saying "the sun rises in the East and settles in the west" is true relative to an observer on Earth who is trying to find out where "north" is - but is inadequate in describing the movement of the planets - the sun is not actually travelling around the earth -likewise God doesn't actually see things before they happen - He sees them exactly as they happen at the same time you see them happen - but is not limited to viewing or interacting with time sequentially ie past present and future occur simultaneously from God's perspective - and even thats not totally accurate because the word "simultaneous" is only meaningful with linear time as a reference.
So God interacts with all points in time "simultaneously" WITH us and allows us to have input into outcomes within time. So in one sense the future is set - but in another sense WE contribute to setting it. The future can be described as being both set and not set relative to a the observer - for us, the future as it relates to our decision making, is not set and God's infinite nature does not absolve us via logical conundrum.
Point is you can't compare an infinite with a finite and then claim you have presented a logical equation with "false" as the answer.
Not an emotionally satisfying answer I know, but no conundrum beyond the normal paradoxical(mathematically speaking) nature of infinity. But infinity is not illogical.
Sky - Now you're making my head hurt.But speaking of infinites. One cannot logically accuse God of Evil or injustice.
Thats because the accusation assumes a Universal standard of morality/law (how or why else would/should it apply to God). And for that standard to meaningful and just it would have to be given by a JUST lawgiver ie God.
So how does one logically accuse God of injustice while simultaneously appealing to a standard of morality contingent on God being just.
Once you start involving infinites then you have to overlook some obvious logical contradictions to attempt to even begin making some of the points Simmons is trying to make.
I Know, I know life is not fair and you want to hit out at somebody - God will do - but you can't call it being rational.
I actually like Simmons books for his FICTION/drama storytelling - not for his spiritual/religious "revelations."
David wrote: "...Point is you can't compare an infinite with a finite and then claim you have presented a logical equation with "false" as the answer...."I'm not sure how close we're getting to derailing into a pure theological thread, nor how inappropriate that might be to this particular forum. Plus, I get paid to argue about this stuff, so this is a bit of a busman's holiday for me. Suffice to say that, in the context of this novel, you're forwarding Lewis' argument which demands a differentiation between temporally limited and infinite perception, but Lewis' 'argument' was shot down - rather viciously - by both Hume and Kant before he even made it. It doesn't matter whether or not the train on the tracks is aware that it has no true free will...the perception of free will is not a sufficient defense to escape the conundrum. Even Augustine admitted that one.
The argument raised re: whether we properly recognize 'omnibenevolence' is stronger, but suffers from the flaw Sol recognizes: if, in fact, there is some ineffable cosmic "good" served by Rachel/Isaac's sacrifice, but it requires trust on the part of a mortal agent which can't recognize that act as good, it's demanding that humans worship a God at the expense of the only ethical system they're capable of understanding. What kind of God would design His creations in a way which made it impossible for His creations to perceive Him as "good?" It's certainly possible that there's some universal, objective "good" we can't conceive of, set up by God, in which, say, broiling kittens alive is a great idea...and that God decided, for some unknown reason, to make it impossible for us to perceive that as Good, and instead demanded we just take it on faith that kitten broiling was acceptable behavior.
But would such a God be worth worshipping? Thus Sol's questions...which remain unanswered.
Simmons has Kassad keep quiet while Sol is telling his story and later when Hebron is discussed. Very odd. But then Sol's story is told by Simmons and not Sol - the change in voice for only that story is extremely odd.
P. Aaron wrote: "you're forwarding Lewis' argument which demands a differentiation between temporally limited and infinite perception"My argument has nothing to do with Lewis, and nothing to do with perception of free will or whether we properly recognize omnibenevolence (though I will say Kant and Hume and yourself might WISH they debunked Lewis).
My argument is specifically about PERCEPTION OF TIME and how God relates to time. Not perception of free will.
The argument that says God's sovereignty negates free will is based on God knowing things in ADVANCE ie before they happen. IE God's foreknowledge being based in linear/finite time.
MY argument is that God's foreknowledge has nothing to with linear time in the first instance so no conundrum. God's foreknowledge is not bound to linear time but rather an infinite God see's and relates to all "WHENS" simultaneously - ie God sees and "experiences" your future exactly when you do and exactly at the same time He sees and relates to your past and present. Hence God's reference to himself "I AM" and "I AM(present tense) the beginning and the end." So God cannot be TRULY described as SEEING or deciding EVERYTHING for you in advance.
And how can anyone even argue about Good or Evil if one cannot logically justify the concept in the first instance. WHY, for example, ought you presume that your definition of Good or Evil ought to be held by anyone other than yourself let alone God? I mean that is what you assume is it not?
Despite our opinions of whether God was just or cruel in asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, there is a broader picture at stake.Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a picture of God sacrificing His Son. There are many parallels between Isaac's walk up Mt Hebron (?) And Christ's walk to Calvary.
Even with that said, it is a difficult passage to grasp and I understand Sol's consternation.
David wrote: "...The argument that says God's sovereignty negates free will is based on God knowing things in ADVANCE ie before they happen...MY argument is that God's foreknowledge..."Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the way you're using these terms here: is not "foreknowledge" defined as "knowing things in advance?"
This entire subsection of the debate is, again, getting close to derailment. Do please PM me if you want to continue it. Relative to the text, perhaps we can simply note that Sol would likely stick with Kant's objection to the compatibilists here (what he called their "wretched subterfuge"). Whether one accepts the idea of original sin or not, Sol and Rachel have not personally done anything meriting their fate. Sol's demand for an explanation is understandable on both an empathic and ethical level: what parent, faced with an injured or ill child, doesn't rail against God and ask why they must suffer?
I suppose it does beg the question of whether or not Rachel is really "suffering." Don't we always paint children's lives as innocently happy? If so, Rachels 'curse' is a blessing in disguise.
Hmm, suggests a reading of the entire book to me. For another thread.
Perhaps the question should be, "What is God?" Who says "God" is logical, kind, has our good in mind, is infinite, omniscient, etc?Not too long ago a man in Utah was told by God to sacrifice his son. He built an altar and everything. Last I heard he was in jail.
"W" said God talks to him. And that his fate was to launch neo-Crusades. [and destroy the US reputation as a just place at the same time]
There is a fellow downtown who tells us as we walk by that we are sinners... a voice tells him to occupy that corner of town and shout at people.
Pat Robertson claims to hear God.
Paul, the Judaeo-Roman soldier heard a voice in Damascus and decided to work for Jesus by unteaching almost all of Jesus' teachings. First he taught Gentiles, and second he "was all things to all people".
"Mental health professionals usually define hearing voices as a symptom of medical illness. Many people who hear voices are able to live with them and may consider them a positive part of their lives. Many people hear voices but never find them a problem or need to seek help from mental health services. "
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-i...
One part of the Bible talks about testing the spirit. Did Abraham do that? Not all "spirits" are God. Does no one consider that Abraham might have been as sane (or insane) as "W"? A schizophrenic is not typically rational nor logical and may endanger self and others...hospitals and jails are full of such. Or was Abraham simply a man who was using local beliefs about God to solve his problem with his jealous wife by getting rid of his son (Ishamel or Isaac?). Since Ishmael was the one banished to the desert to die it makes some sense that he was also the one to be sacrificed being first-born and blameless. Infanticide was often practiced in ancient times by placing a child into the wilderness to be cared for by God...
P. Aaron wrote: "It's demanding that humans worship a God at the expense of the only ethical system they're capable of understanding."I think you're right in that that's the conundrum for Sol. Despite everything that's been said in this thread (and I'm loving every bit of it, so please don't take it to PMs on our behalf), the point of Sol's story is that he's a lone voice in the night, a single human being, and he's being asked (by God, Shrike, whatever) to give up his daughter, and he cannot justify listening to any higher power that would make such a request of him.
David, you mentioned the backstory, which I was unfamiliar with, so thanks for that. Looking again at Sol, he didn't have the luxury of knowing all would be all right in the end. I'd be curious to know what Simmons actually thinks of the Isaac tale, and whether or not he shares Sol's views.
Anne: I had the same thought reading through this thread. The issue of voices is especially pertinent in Sol's case, as even he's not sure who's speaking to him (and we, as readers, get a very strong sense it's the Shrike or some agent thereof).
Also, has anyone seen my can of worms? I think I left it in here somewhere.
The issue of voices is particularly of interest in Sol's case since he also hears voices. So who is telling Sol's story? It isn't Sol.
P. Aaron wrote: "Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the way you're using these terms here: is not "foreknowledge" defined as "knowing things in advance?"Yes but thats beside the point. It is meaningful and true in discussing Gods relationship to man to refer to God as "knowing things in advance" RELATIVE TO A FINITE OBDERVER'S PERSPECTIVE at any one specific point in linear time.
IF however we one to expand our discussion to how God relates to time itself from His OWN PERSPECTIVE then ideas like "before" and "after" and "knowing things before" are inapplicable terms of reference to someone who exists simultaneously in all points of time.
Normally terms like Past, Present, Future are meaningful without qualification because we all (humanity) share a common perception of time. However, when you start introducing the idea of differing perspectives on time (like time travel for example)then the question arises "Who's past" and "Who's future."
Lets drag the conversation here back to Hyperion where Time perception and relative time are key concepts (just so we don't completely derail the thread).
The Shrike travels backwards and Forwards in Time - so just for fun lets interview the Shrike and ask him some time related questions - then after that we'll invest the Shrike with GOD powers and ask him the same questions.
Hyperion Shrike.
Interviewer: So Shrike - have you seen the future?
Shrike: Yes
Interviewer: Do you see the future?
Shrike: No - not at present.
Interviewer: Do you see things before they happen?
Shrike: No - I only ever see things WHEN they happen.
Interviewer: - But you haven't you seen the future before it happenned.
Shrike: No. I saw the future WHEN it happened.
Now lets invest the Shrike with God like powers. Lets imagine their exists an infinite number of Shrikes occupying every point in time simultaneously yet retaining a single consciousness in and through all time frames.
Interviewer: So Shrike, have you seen the future?
Shrike: No
Interviewer: Do you see the future?
Shrike: Yes
Interviewer: So you see things before they happen?
Shrike: No - I only see things WHEN they happen.
Interviewer: But you are seeing MY future NOW before I do?
Shrike: Yes and No. As you are present with me in YOUR future, I am looking at YOUR future (MY PRESENT) precisely when you do.
Interviewer: So we are existing together in the future as we speak?
Shrike: Yes and No -
Interviewer: Explain.
Shrike: From my perspective yes. From your perspective No.
End of Interview.
So my point is an argument that says "God sees the future, therefore the future is set therefore man has no free will" is not a valid argument because its first premise ie "God sees the future before it happens" is not strictly speaking accurate or adequate in that it is only true in a relative sense from a finite, linear time based point of view.
Anne wrote: "Perhaps the question should be, "What is God?" Who says "God" is logical, kind, has our good in mind, is infinite, omniscient, etc?"Well, I suppose if we ignore the fact that God(Biblical) is omniscient/logical by definition and therefore there is no such thing as an illogical God -
the next obvious question would be ---
What is more rational?
That God is illogical
or that 20 - 70 year old human is illogical?
Anyway, back to Sol - I think Sol's emotions are entirely justifiable but he needs to brush up on his old testament.
I am afraid this is precisely the equivocation Kant was decrying. If omniscience exists, then of course his/her/its perception will be something other than ours. Doesn't matter. If the future is known, it is set. If the future is not set, it is not known. Thus if we presume an omniscient observer, the future is known, and thus set. And if the future is set, there is no free will.As I mentioned this is a very old theological conundrum. Lewis makes the same distinction you're making about perception, but there's a reason he isn't cited in serious apologetics: the order of perception is immaterial if the future if known at all. Hume tries a slightly trickier dodge by referring to the distinction between God's perception and humans', but all he gains is that humans have the illusion of free will, not actual agency.
Addendum: please note that this doesn't make simultaneous belief in an omniscient creator - or shrike - "wrong." It just makes it incompatible with Cartesian rationalism...such as that possessed by a scholar like Sol.Lewis' mistake was in his attempt to reconcile logic and faith. He was bringing the wrong weapon to the fight.
P. Aaron wrote: "I am afraid this is precisely the equivocation Kant was decrying."If Kant acknowledges two different perspectives of time yet still insists on drawing conclusions based on only one of those perspectives (ie the human one) being applicable to God then who is guilty of equivocation? He makes the mistake of thinking he can include an infinite in a logical equation and then pin down a truth as if that infinite were in fact finite.
He can decry all he likes - it doesn't make it right no matter how many times its repeated.
P. Aaron wrote: "Thus if we presume an omniscient observer, the future is known, and thus set"
Not proved as it ignores the fact that terms of reference such as "past" and "future" are inapplicable and meaningless if we presume an omniscient observer.
P. Aaron wrote: "And if the future is set, there is no free will."
Unless Man contributes to setting it.
Look, I'm not saying I know all the answers or that guys like Kant are dummies - but that's the point - nobody in their right mind can hope to understand how an omniscient perception of time effects things like time itself and free will. But the argument "The future is known, so is set" attempts to do just that and its nonsense because it presumes knowledge one cannot possibly have (apart from being omniscient oneself) ie nobody (Kant included)is qualified enough to make that statement.
P. Aaron wrote: "Lewis' mistake was in his attempt to reconcile logic and faith. "I don't think anyone has ever proven that faith is illogical. Faith CAN be illogical but is not so necessarily. Even logic assumes by faith the existence of a Universal standard of reason.
We like to think there is a Universal standard of reason --- but that is mostly a personal preference like which brand of cereal to eat for breakfast. Some go further...
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." ...Shskespeare
Science is as close as it comes to establishing universal reason and it works up to the boundary conditions of our assumptions. And then along comes Heisenberg and tries to peer over the edge....
David wrote: "Anne wrote: "Perhaps the question should be, "What is God?" Who says "God" is logical, kind, has our good in mind, is infinite, omniscient, etc?"Well, I suppose if we ignore the fact that God(Bib..."
God isn't omniscient even in the Bible. In Genesis he creates man and then regrets it. He regrets it more than once. The creation isn't going the way he intended.
People have debated the why for millenia.
Anne wrote: "We like to think there is a Universal standard of reason"So much so that you assume you are making sense and that I and everyone else who reads this will know what you are talking about ;).
Anne wrote: "God isn't omniscient even in the Bible. In Genesis he creates man and then regrets it. He regrets it more than once. The creation isn't going the way he intended."
I'm not sure that regret being primarily emotional in nature is contingent on lacking foreknowledge.
For example a woman at the height of labour may regret ever getting pregnant - but not because she did not foresee the pain or did not foresee her feelings of regret.
That does not mean things aren't going to plan - sure, she may prefer not to feel pain during childbirth but that does not mean it was not expected.
But this too is beside the point - my arguments re "Time" are not based primarily on God's omniscience - but rather that God's foreknowledge is based on His omnipresence ie God knows the future because He exists in all points of space AND time(space/time continuum) simultaneously. God "Knowledge" is not so much "head knowledge" but knowing in the same sense as a man knows a woman ("physical" knowledge without the crudeness).
Oh yeah. And God doesn't like women for sure. The Lord of Pain. You'd better obey or else. Poor old Job... he raged at God only to be beaten into grudging submission. For what - a gamble, a whim.
The New Testament has God directly sacrificing His Son in a cruel, painful manner - not even a typical altar sacrifice which is typically quick and comparatively kind and has some dignity to it. His followers often fare similar fates.
Despotic rulers could be no worse.
Captain Kirk had a line in one of the better Star Trek episodes where he states mankind has outgrown its gods.
Have we?
Buddha confronted suffering directly. Do his followers realize that?
David wrote: "I don't think anyone has ever proven that faith is illogical. Faith CAN be illogical but is not so necessarily...."It is, by definition. Faith is an a priori condition, accepted before or in spite of evidentiary requirements. If you are using logic or evidence to justify a belief you are, by definition, not taking it on faith.
As to the question of predesinarianism, fascinating as it is, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about the potential definitions of terms in this particular venue. You seem to think there's a way to define foreknowledge in a way which allows for freedom of choice, even though the agencies in question (humans) would not have been born before their actions and their consequences had been known. I can't accept such an assertion.
Perhaps it would help to define terms more explicitly. This is the brief form of Kant's objection to Hume's compatibilism:
1. If there is an omniscient observer, that observer knows the outcome of future events.
2. To know a thing means that it has a determined meaning, i.e., it is set. If it is still in a state of flux, it is not known.
3. 2->1 if there is an omniscient observer, future events are set.
4. To have free will requires that a decision agent, such as a human being, have actual choices between, at minimum, two possible courses of action.
5. If a course of action is already set, there is only one possible course of action, by definition.
6. 5->4 If actions are set, there is no free will.
7. 3->6 If there is an omniscient observer, there is no free will.
Which part of the syllogism do you not accept as true, and why?
But I still fear we're drifting way off topic. Relative to the book, the important point is that Sol does not accept it either: neither he nor Rachel have chosen their fates. They are being acted upon, not acting. Is that justified?
@ Anne - I often miss a lot of religious inference in books particularly sci fi until somebody points it out. Its usually because I have trouble reconciling the actual Bible message to what is being spouted as theological criticism in the book.If you are going to accuse the Lawgiver of injustice - then can you explain WHO's Law or set of rules are you using to make your judgements? Captain Kirk's? And why would or should those rules logically apply to God if we were to assume for sake of argument that God actually exists?
David wrote: "If you are going to accuse the Lawgiver of injustice - then can you explain WHO's Law or set of rules are you using to make your judgements? Captain Kirk's? And why would or should those rules logically apply to God if we were to assume for sake of argument that God actually exists?"You can start by holding the Lawgivers up to the standards of their own rules. Plato did.
A slippery slope if one assumes there are entitites above the Law. Especially if he, she or it ignores its own definitions of Justice. You must not beat and torture your slaves.
Oh man, I was sure that this discussion would have died out by now... I guess people feel strongly about this stuff. I should post something technically relavent but practically incoherent!Consider a point. Now, a set of points is a line. A set of lines is a plane. A set of planes is a 3-space. A set of 3-spaces is a spacetime. A set of spacetimes is a dimension. And a set of dimensions is what we mathematicians would see when discussing many worlds.
So let's talk the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. On a nice, easily observable macroscopic scale, we can take this to mean that at any given point in time, every decision that can be made is made, with the results splitting off into alternate realities. So don't worry! If you actually decided to read this post, there could be an infinite number of yourselves that made the (probably wise) choice to not read it!
Unfortunately for you (poor sap) once you've made a choice you're locked into the decision tree stemming from that choice (think Back to the Future 2). So the complexity of the system as a whole increases. But here's the thing: right now, in this world, you had no choice but to read up until this point. It was predetermined by a higher than average curiosity, a propensity for completionism, a sudden spasm in your hand that prevented you from scrolling away, or a chemical interaction in your brain. So you could go so far as to say that I knew, ahead of time, that you were going to read this. Does that mean you have no free will?
Of course not! After all, a limitless number of you made the choice to not read this post for a countless number of reasons, and obviously you have a choice in what you're going to do next (I suggest flaming). Just keep in mind, every decision you could make will also be made, and the worlds will go on.
So an omniscient being may very well know every choice that can be made along with every potential outcome of those choices. This being may even be viewing every single one of the worlds created by these decisions. In fact, if this being was actively participating in any one of these realities, they could tailor that reality toward a desired future (such as the Shrike. Oh man, you see that? Tying it back into the book discussion like a boss). The point is, every choice will be made, every outcome will come to pass, and the fact that those outcomes are all known apriori doesn't change the fact that you get to pick which one you want to make. Omniscience + free will = MWI.
Do I personally believe this? I'm probably on the fence, honestly. But maybe there's a me out there who does, and is secure in the belief that at least one of us is thinking it over. I should really just go back to explaining relative time, that stuff is easy...
The multiple universes argument doesn't answer the objection. If God is omnipresent, God's authority and omniscience extend to all potential universes. The actions of each 'agent' in every universe are therefore still predetermined. Your analogy with reading to the end of the paragraph isn't quite accurate either, as it is conflating 'ability to predict likelihood' with 'absolute knowledge.'You might be interested in seeing the critique of the Franfurtian 'solution' to the paradox in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
As far as Hyperion goes, the distinction is clear: the Core are attempting to gain Absolute Foreknowledge in their predictive methods, but are only at this point able to get approximations (though sometimes very close ones). They can't account for anomolous behavior (like that exhibited by the Keats android, or the Shrike itself). But the fact that we have time travel from a determinant future (the Time Tombs, Rachel) argues that such Absolute Knowledge would, in fact, be possible, in which case there is no free will. That's always a problem with time travel stories. I always thought
Robert Heinlein's solution was pretty good in The Door into Summer: we have the illusion of free will, since we can't see all factors with our limited perceptions, and that'll have to be good enough for us.
To be honest, MWI is fully deterministic regardless of whether an omniscient being exists or not. All choices are based entirely on events that we currently assume to be random. So only the illusion of free will actually exists. According to MWI the human mind is no more interesting than than a rock teetering on edge, and significantly less interesting than random radioactive decay.Also, assuming MWI, all possible things that can happen do happen, so my stating that a person would read any given word is actually perfect foreknowledge, by virtue of it being a potential outcome. So while I didn't know what potential reality the reader would be in, I did know it would be read.
I'm thinking that Simmons didn't subscribe to MWI, however, for the following reason: it precludes time travel in the way he's using it. Rather, the traveler would be traveling to an alternate reality that was an exact duplicate of the past in their reality. By MWI, at any given point in time, the universe is beginning in some dimension (assume the binary choice of the universe beginning or not beginning, occurring over and over every time the universe does not begin). In that case, the Shrike cannot be coming back in time to change the past of the beings who sent it (obvious because they would then have no reason to send it if their present were altered, so it would never be sent), unless it itself was a truly random event that did not violate its own causality.
Of course, it's all just speculation about speculation. I mean, for all I know there could just be an evil demon having some very well crafted fun at your expense, right? For all you know, I might not even exist. =P
P. Aaron wrote: "1. If there is an omniscient observer, that observer knows the outcome of future events.2. To know a thing means that it has a determined meaning, i.e., it is set. If it is still in a state of flux, it is not known.
3. 2->1 if there is an omniscient observer, future events are set.
4. To have free will requires that a decision agent, such as a human being, have actual choices between, at minimum, two possible courses of action.
5. If a course of action is already set, there is only one possible course of action, by definition.
6. 5->4 If actions are set, there is no free will.
7. 3->6 If there is an omniscient observer, there is no free will.
Which part of the syllogism do you not accept as true, and why?"
All parts that include "omniscient observer" as Kant never actually presupposes the omniscient observers point of view upon which his argument hinges. He merely imposes a finite perspective of time upon an infinite perspective of time.
"1. If there is an omniscient observer, that observer knows the outcome of future events."
I suspect Kant actually means the observer knows the outcome of future events BEFORE they happen.
God being omnipresent and thereby occupying all points in space and time cannot be described as knowing anything BEFORE it occurs FROM HIS perspective. God knows everything WHEN it occurs simultaneously and does so without infringement on his omniscience.(and I acknowledge that I am also here imposing linear time of God but at least I admit it).
God being the Creator of space and time is not bound to linear time nor does his knowledge traverse linear time - Nor is it rational to think one can reconcile God's infinite knowledge to linear time.
So 1, 3 and 7 are inapplicable.
The rest of the argument then becomes semantical and therefore ultimately unprovable. But lets go there anyway to look at the ideas of "knowing" and "setting."
"2. To know a thing means that it has a determined meaning, i.e., it is set. If it is still in a state of flux, it is not known."
Self evident even without an omniscient observer - but "a thing" is not the same concept as the "possibility of a thing"
An event and the possibility of an event are two separate concepts.
I know my bank balance but unfortunately it won't set - its still always in flux so "setting" has to be qualified to mean that my bank balance cannot simultaneously be two different balances - but I'm pretty sure that does not logically preclude the fact that my CHOICES contributed to SETTING it.
ie "choosing" is a subset of knowing. ie knowing does not preclude "choosing."
Choosing a thing also sets it but it doesn't change the fact that you have chosen.
"3. 2->1 if there is an omniscient observer, future events are set."
But they are not set BEFORE the future ie PRESET. A future event cannot simultaneously exist in both the past and the future - it is either in the future or it is in the past/present.
God being omnipresent and thereby occupying all points in space and time cannot be described as knowing anything BEFORE it occurs FROM HIS perspective. God knows everything WHEN it occurs simultaneously and does so without infringement on his omniscience.(and I acknowledge that I am also here imposing linear time of God but at least I admit it).
"4. To have free will requires that a decision agent, such as a human being, have actual choices between, at minimum, two possible courses of action."
Self evident.
"5. If a course of action is already set, there is only one possible course of action, by definition."
Slippery slippery - Kant is dangerously close to presuming what he is trying to prove ie the future (course of action) is set BEFORE it occurs.
It is more precise to say "if a course of action is (delete 'already') set only one outcome is possible ie there cannot be simultaneously two outcomes. It does not logically follow that there was not multiple "possible outcomes" BEFORE the event.
The whole purpose of "choosing" an outcome is to "set" that outcome.
"6. 5->4 If actions are set, there is no free will."
unproved as 5 is shown to be "inadequate"
"7. 3->6 If there is an omniscient observer, there is no free will."
also unproved as both 3 and 6 are inadequate.
Knowing a thing (time is not a thing but anyway) sets it. Perhaps.
I know my present -meaning my present is set, but I am still the one setting it.
My future WILL BE set but I will still set it in as far as my own actions/choices are concerned.
Sol has the following dialogue with a God he doesn't believe in:
- What possible reason can there be for this?
- What reason has been visible for all of the forms of pain suffered by humankind?
- Precisely...
- The fact of a thing not being visible does not mean it does not exist.
- That's clumsy. It shouldn't take three negatives to make a statement. Especially to state something as nonprofound as that.
- Precisely, Sol. You're beginning to get the drift of all this.
What did you make of all this?