1. Yesterday, the television was consumed by wall-to-wall coverage of memories, pontifications, analyses, and the such prompted by the 20th anniversary of the attack on the Manhattan twin towers. It reminded me of something that has long puzzled me about myself. The suicide attacks by Saudi Arabian followers of Osama bin Laden had little or no emotional effect on me. I listened to the reports as they came in, I watched on television the collapse of these two enormously tall buildings, I realized that a great many lives had been lost, but it was not then and has not been since a defining moment in my life, a moment about which I would always say “I remember where I was when I first heard of it” and so forth. Since I am the only person of any political persuasion I have ever met who has said something like this, I realize that I must just be a very odd person but there it is. I remember vividly where I was when I first heard of the assassination of Pres. Kennedy. I remember precisely what I was doing when I heard that Bobby Kennedy had been shot. I even recall how as a small boy I got the news of the death of FDR. But this extraordinarily dramatic attack, which forever changed the geography of lower Manhattan – part of the city, after all, in which I grew up and in which I lived for seven years while teaching at Columbia – just did not have much impact on me. I do not see any larger significance in this, but this is, after all my web log, or blog, so I thought I would mention it.
2. Yesterday was
also significant, at least in my little household, because Susie and I went to
the headquarters of the local animal services department and picked up the
little cat we had decided to adopt. She has settled in spectacularly well,
running all over the apartment exploring, using the cat box, eating food,
climbing up to look out the window at the birds that come to our birdfeeder,
even hopping up on our bed several times in the middle of the night – all in
all a total success and one that nicely fills the hole in our hearts left by
the loss of our much loved Kitty. We started the adoption process by going
online and looking at the pictures posted there of 20 or 30 cats available for
adoption. Initially we chose to have a personal meeting with a young cat named
Tigger, to whom I was attracted for obvious reasons. But when we went to the
kennel last Tuesday we were not terribly taken with Tigger. However, we did see
an enchanting young kitty to whom the kennel owners had given the unappealing
name of Eda, and after spending some time with her we decided to adopt her
(after a good deal of discussion, we have given her the name Chloe which I
think suits her much better.)
As we were driving home yesterday a thought occurred to me
that I confess rather ashamedly had never in the same way crossed my mind
before. As I was congratulating us on finding and adopting a delightful little
cat, I thought to myself, “but suppose we had been adopting a little girl.
Suppose we had gone to the orphanage thinking to adopt one child but after
spending some time with her had found her not especially responsive or
interesting, and had then switched to a different child at the orphanage who
took our fancy more.” I was appalled by the heartlessness of this thought and
realized – this is the part about which I feel shame – that I had never in the
same way thought about adoption like this before. Now I am not totally dumb. I mean, this theme
about which children get adopted from orphanages plays a small but significant
role in the TV series about which I have made such a fuss, The Queen’s Gambit.
But the sheer naked transactional character of adoption had never before been
thrust on my mind in quite the same way.
89 comments:
I remember where I was when JFK was assassinated, in high school and where I was during 9-11, at home listening to the morning news on the radio and it was interesting to see how the narrative changed in a few minutes from an accident to a terrorist attack. I don't recall at all where I was and what I was doing when RFK was shot.
Maybe the difference, for me at least, is that JFK's murder was a huge change and shock, nothing like that had ever happened before in the peaceful suburban middle-class U.S. of my life experience; and similarly, I immediately realized that 9-11 was a changing moment in world history, that the U.S. would strike back and hard, while RFK was assassinated in 1968, after Martin Luther King and it just seemed to me to be one more political murder in a long series of political murders.
I lived and worked in Manhattan on 9/11, so the events of that day were palpable for me.
I don't think it is wrong or unseemly to decide to not adopt a child, or pet, if you don't feel a positive emotional connection after interacting with the potential adoptee. The relationship of the parent to the child should ideally come to be one of unconditional positive regard, even unconditional love, and it will require a very substantial commitment from you for potentially many years. Why take on a role that your gut is saying you aren't fully committed to? A bad parent-child relationship might potentially do more harm than good.
Can we see a picture of Chloe?
-Tyler
I am unmoved by death also, but that is because I am an occasionalist, i.e., everything including death comes from God. People die at their appointed time and in the manner and place of God's choosing. In that sense, I am simply an observer. The idea is expressed here in a poem which you can tell from the title comes from Hinduism, in particular from some verses of the Bhagavad-Gita:
Brahma
By Ralph Waldo Emerson
If the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again.
Far or forgot to me is near;
Shadow and sunlight are the same;
The vanished gods to me appear;
And one to me are shame and fame.
They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings;
I am the doubter and the doubt,
I am the hymn the Brahmin sings.
The strong gods pine for my abode,
And pine in vain the sacred Seven;
But thou, meek lover of the good!
Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.
Nothing the Professor wrote leads me to think he is 'unmoved by death'.
And a belief that people die at their appointed time is just moronic Ahmed.
Jerry Brown,
Nothing the Professor wrote leads me to think he is 'unmoved by death'.
He wrote, "just did not have much impact on me". I assumed that was the case with other deaths. So a mistake on my part and I apologize for that. I should have just left out the word "also" from my comment and left it at that.
And a belief that people die at their appointed time is just moronic Ahmed.
This is a basic tenet of the Islamic faith, which has 1.8 billion people. By 2070, Islam will overtake Christianity to become the religion with the most adherents. Even if you think these ideas are moronic, you should still educate yourself to how other people think, because they will have an impact on you and future generations.
Also, I did not use the word "believe", or "faith", or anything like that in my comment above. Go ahead and reread it.
You might want to check your assumptions.
Ahmed,
You may be right that by the year 2070 the adherents of Islam will far outnumber the adherents of Christianity, as well as possibly all other religions combined. But the belief that everyone dies at their appointed time relieves its adherents of personal responsibility when they are the active agents of the deaths of others, a belief, regardless how many people may believe it, I find repulsive. The terrorists who committed the 9/11 attack, resulting in the death of 3,000 people, can say, well, their time was up and we were just doing Allah’s will. A religion which allows its adherents not to take personal responsibility for their actions is not a religion, however many adherents it may have, that I believe deserves to be admired or proselytized for.
In saying this, by the way, I recognize that Christianity, in a different way, also absolves its adherents of responsibility for their actions, by telling them that Jesus died for their sins, both past and future, and by including in their liturgy the statement that the only way to God is through Jesus, a statement which excludes both Islam and Judaism from the opportunity to be with God.
P.S.
Ahmed,
You may not not have used the word "belief," but you did use the word "tenet," which is synonymous with belief.
Ok Ahmed. My assumptions include that I have some degree of control over my own behavior. As in I could go out tomorrow and buy a rifle and shoot some random pedestrian dead. And that would be my decision and action and that has nothing to do with God deciding or willing that some other person should have their life ended suddenly by my hand.
I DO NOT think Islam is moronic. I disagree with the fatalism, the lack of an individual's agency, that your previous comment suggested. I disagree with your particular statement Ahmed.
AA, Ahmed said:
"Also, I did not use the word "believe", or "faith", or anything like that in my comment above."
And in that comment he also did not use the word "tenet." For a persnickety lawyer perhaps you should take more care in how you ply your trade.
"This is a basic tenet of the Islamic faith, which has 1.8 billion people." That is what Ahmed said in the comment at 9:48 pm.
"People die at their appointed time and in the manner and place of God's choosing. In that sense, I am simply an observer." That is what was posted at 4:27 pm. It is obviously a statement of a belief. One that I disagree with.
Anonymous,
Yes, I am a persnickety lawyer, and I was correct. In response to Jerry Brown's comment, Ahmed wrote:
"And a belief that people die at their appointed time is just moronic Ahmed.
This is a basic tenet of the Islamic faith, which has 1.8 billion people.:
So Ahmed did use the word "tenet.: It is you who cannot read.
Islam is an occasionalist religion. Islam is also a compatibilist religion. Here's a definition from Wikipedia:
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
Compatibilism was championed by the ancient Stoics and some medieval scholastics (such as Thomas Aquinas).
Here's Aquinas on free will:
Free will
Aquinas argues that there is no contradiction between God's providence and human free will:
... just as by moving natural causes [God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
— Summa, I., Q.83, art.1.
Notice "He operates" and not "you operate". So no, you don't get to choose your own actions. You do however get to choose your own nature, and thus acquire actions in accordance with that nature. It's called "dual agency". This safeguards both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Here's an interesting article on the subject:
St Thomas Aquinas: Is God Making it Snow?
As readers of Eclectic Orthodoxy know, I am obsessed with the relationship between divine causality/agency and creaturely causality/agency and have devoted several blogs to it, including a five-article series that begins with the physicist Stephen Hawking and ends with the metaphysician Austin Farrer. I keep reading and writing on the topic, but my understanding hasn’t gotten much further than the mysterious notion of double agency. Yet as unfathomable as double agency may be, I find it a more satisfactory “explanation,” both philosophically and spiritually, than any view that pits divine agency over against creaturely agency.
source: St Thomas Aquinas: Is God Making it Snow?
but you did use the word "tenet," which is synonymous with belief.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about myself, but rather Muslims in general. As for me, I have certainty, which is the goal of the Sufi path. I am a Sufi.
And worship your Lord until certainty comes to you. —Qur'an 15:99
Ahmed,
You wrote: “People die at their appointed time and in the manner and place of God's choosing.”
Therefore, despite the tension you refer to between free will and determinism, when it comes to dying, God decides for each and every one us, when, how and where we will die – be it by cancer, by an assassin’s bullet, or by crashing a jet plane into a building occupied by thousands of people. Therefore, the assassin, and the terrorists have no responsibility in the deaths of their victims – it was God’s will.
You may try to sugar coat this conclusion by shrouding it in the mystery of free will vs. determinism, but in the end it absolves all murderers of their crime.
I am unmoved by death also, but that is because I am an occasionalist, i.e., everything including death comes from God. People die at their appointed time and in the manner and place of God's choosing. In that sense, I am simply an observer.
This is an interesting view, but I have some questions, namely: Is it possible to be an occasionalist and yet not be unmoved by death?
It's quite tempting to call mourning and grieving the "normal" responses to death, even for people who believe in things like the survival of death and post-mortem union with God. I've seen people try to score points against Christians etc. by saying, "If they really believed in Heaven, they wouldn't cry at funerals," but this seems like an unfair move to me, because belief is a complicated business, especially religious belief.
If someone says, for instance, "I believe in God," then it isn't clear to me which (if any) of these would be an adequate paraphrase of that statement: "I am certain that theism is true"; "I don't know whether theism is true, but I happen to feel as if it is"; "I am willing to say the words, 'I believe in God,' while yet (perhaps) conducting my life in a way largely indistinguishable from non-believers'"; "I tend to act as if theism is true, without (necessarily) thinking myself competent to rationally persuade others of its truth"; "Theism strikes me as likely being more philosophically meritorious than its rivals"; etc.
Many of these statements would not be at odds, at least psychologically, with a person's inclination to mourn the loss of loved ones. It's not as though the Christian at a funeral is someone who has (or even claims to have) a direct, incorrigible perception of their loved one's Heavenly bliss; in that case, mourning would probably be senseless.
Fatalism was also mentioned; and that is interesting in a similar way. Fatalism seems to fit naturally with the "passive observer" attitude. But it's easy to doubt that anyone can really go through life (or even manage their everyday tasks!) while "honestly believing" that fatalism is true, or "truly feeling" themselves a mere passive observer of the world; there's a reason for that famous "laziness argument" from antiquity. Maybe the only way in which it's possible to believe in fatalism (and likewise occasionalism) is "in theory" - as in, it might seem the best solution to some abstract intellectual problem, while feeling quite alien to the practices of everyday life.
(Just hoping for clarification, BTW. I don't mean to question anyone's sincerity.)
Another Anonymous,
...or by crashing a jet plane...
Sorry, but motion doesn't exist and people don't crash jets into buildings. Because jets cannot move, they cannot cause death. This is because continuous creation, which destroys causality, gives rise to the illusion of motion and time.
Oliver Crisp summarizes [Jonathan] Edwards's view: "God creates the world out of nothing, whereupon it momentarily ceases to exist, to be replaced by a facsimile that has incremental differences built into it to account for what appear to be motion and change across time. This, in turn, is annihilated, or ceases to exist, and is replaced by another facsimile world ... and so on."
As for Jonathon Edwards:
Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703 – March 22, 1758) was an American revivalist preacher, philosopher and Congregationalist theologian. Edwards is widely regarded as one of America's most important and original philosophical theologians.
"Motion doesn't exist."
Well, that ends this conversation. I'll stick with Newton.
Michael,
What we've been discussing here is the death of strangers, so it's in that sense that my comment was made. As for someone dying who is close to me, I would be moved in the moment, but I would consider that a defect in myself and work against that. That would be the highest ideal, i.e., complete acceptance of God's will.
It's important to note the difference between sadness and how it is accompanied by anger in some people. For example, people will say that only if the hospital hadn't screwed up, their loved ones would still be alive, etc. Or how Biden caused the death of those soldiers in Afghanistan. That sort of thing.
Having sorrow for a time is alright. It's the other stuff that's wrong.
Another Anonymous,
"I'll stick with Newton."
Physics is coming around to the view that I've described.
Two views of the world clashed at the dawn of thought. In the great debate between the earliest Greek philosophers, Heraclitus argued for perpetual change, but Parmenides maintained there was neither time nor motion. Over the ages, few thinkers have taken Parmenides seriously, but I shall argue that Heraclitan flux, depicted nowhere more dramatically than in Turner's painting below, may well be nothing but a well-founded illusion. I shall take you to a prospect of the end of time. In fact, you see it in Turner's painting, which is static and has not changed since he painted it. It is an illusion of flux. Modern physics is beginning to suggest that all the motions of the whole universe are a similar illusion - that in this respect Nature is an even more consummate artist than Turner. This is the story of my book. —Julian Barbour (The End of Time - The Next Revolution in Physics)
A sense of justice should apply to strangers also. Sorrow and distress about innocents suffering is completely normal. But for someone to look at the world and say this is how God wants it to be and therefore it is right? Disagree.
I didn't realize how much noise I lived with until 911. I lived a few hundred feet from LAX's south runway. Everything was normal when I left and when I came home in the afternoon it seemed strange. It took a few seconds for me to realize it was dead quiet. I had adapted to a certain noise level.
Probably the first cat wasn't taken with you for reasons but, for reasons, the present cat found you to her liking. Marley was a stray who spent several weeks interviewing me before adopting me. Other non-human animals also size folks up. Over the years I've had raccoons, deer, a grey jay, and currently a skunk pass through and stay awhile.
While an infant is a blob, I'm not sure compatibility isn't an issue when adopting an older child - goes both ways.
Jerry Brown,
But for someone to look at the world and say this is how God wants it to be and therefore it is right?
In Islamic theology, Allah has ninety-nine Names, and He has no partner in any of His Names. One of His Names is "The Healer". He and He alone heals.
Now, a fatalist would simply say that it's God's will if they got sick and not see a doctor. A Muslim, on the other hand, goes to the doctor but sees the doctor as an instrument of God's healing.
For a Muslim to say that a doctor healed them would be the biggest sin in Islam, i.e., partnering others with Allah.
As an aside, another one of Allah's Names is "The Giver of Death". He and He alone causes death. Which, by the way, was the whole point of that poem by Emerson in my first comment above.
I hope that makes it clear.
As for someone dying who is close to me, I would be moved in the moment, but I would consider that a defect in myself and work against that. That would be the highest ideal, i.e., complete acceptance of God's will.
It's remarkable (if I'm right about this) how the first sentence of this is almost immediately negated by the sentence that follows. Considering anything whatsoever "a defect" to be "worked against," while maintaining that the complete acceptance of God's will is the highest ideal: I would think there'd be a serious charge of incoherence here!
Put differently: If (per occasionalism) I am to reflect on any putative misdeed from my personal history and accept that the deed (like everything else in the world) was consistent with God's will after all; that I, the "performer" of the "misdeed," was merely a passive vessel through which God himself acted - then doesn't it follow that it cannot possibly be true that I've done something wrong? And why not extend that inference to the present, so that no "decision" yet to be made can possibly turn out to be the wrong one? How is wrongdoing in any sense possible on this view? (Same goes for sin.)
I'm not playing "gotcha," and I don't imagine this objection is original or surprising; I really would find it fascinating to go into the history of how Islamic/occasionalist etc. thinkers have addressed it. There seems to be a family of related arguments to the effect that any "fatalistic" position (or any position that militates directly or indirectly against regret, fear, etc., or even desire/attachment) is rationally self-defeating, as it casts doubt upon the possibility of rationality itself. After all, if the very point of rationality is to be able to say, "Do X, not Y" (or, "Believe X, not Y"), and if it happens to be true that X was never in our power to refrain from doing, then something odd happens to the force behind "Don't do Y!"
There's the old bit for instance about the criminal who says to the judge, "You have no right to sentence me, as it wasn't in my power to refrain from committing the crime; like anyone, I merely did what I was fated to do." I used to think the judge's response ("Then you won't object if my fate is to sentence you") missed the point.
How can occasionalism be compatible with compatibilism?
If the only effective causes are god-generated, then no finite creature exercises effective causation.
But compatibilism says that the appropriately "agential" exercise of effective causation by human agents is enough to ground human freedom and responsibility even if that exercise of effective causation is itself the result of prior effective causes out of the agent's agential control..
So, compatibilism requires that human beings can exercise precisely the kind of effective causation that occasionalism [at least the strong kind] denies that we can exercise.
So, how can the two "isms" here be compatible?
Leaving all the philosophical twaddle apart, have you considered what may happen to "your" cat which presumably could outlive you and your wife? Or is it simply one more possession for your legal posterity to deal with? I'm not criticising , simply wondering how or whether this differs from human baby adoption.
Unknown,
It is not a big deal, and does not require inclusion in a will, for Prof. Wolff and his wife to make arrangements for a neighbor, friend, or one of their sons to adopt Chloe should they both pre-decease her.
And the philosophical discussion is far more significant than mere "twaddle."
Michael,
I wish to respond to the judge/criminal defendant exchange which you adverted to at the end of your last comment.
As amusing as the judge’s retort in the anecdote you offer is, no judge worth his judicial salt would make such a comment. Rather, a good judge would respond along the following lines:
Sir (or Madam), I cannot accept your defense that you may not be sentenced by this court for the crime of which you were convicted by a jury of your peers because you have been the unwilling victim of fate, a fate over which you have no control. The law presumes that every individual brought before this court has the ability to exercise free will and to know the difference between right and wrong, unless they have offered the defense of diminished capacity, that they were unable to determine their actions due to a mental or cognitive condition which deprived him of the ability to make rational and mature decisions. You have not offered such a defense, and therefore I am required to presume that you knew what you were doing when you committed the criminal offense of which you have been committed. Nor have you offered the defense of coercion – no one held a gun to your head when you committed the crime. In addition, this Court is precluded from considering any defense you may offer which is based on a theological theory that you were merely fulfilling God’s will. Such an argument is precluded by our Constitution, which mandates a separation between church and state. I therefore sentence you to x years of incarceration, in keeping with the sentencing guidelines which apply to your personal circumstances and the gravity of the crime which you have committed.
Court is adjourned.
I will gladly defer to the law-talking guy* on that... :)
BTW, theology may be banned from court, but how about neurology? I can't remember what I was reading in connection with the free will debate, but it mentioned this horrifying case of an otherwise normal adult who suddenly became a child predator, and it was determined that his behavior was caused by a brain tumor; the tumor was removed, and he returned to normal. (Free will theorists may prefer to substitute "impulses" for "behavior," I don't know.)
*Just another Simpsons reference (https://youtu.be/FtVllgTPyfk)
Michael,
First you write:
the "performer" of the "misdeed," was merely a passive vessel through which God himself acted - then doesn't it follow that it cannot possibly be true that I've done something wrong?
Then you write:
"Do X, not Y"
Again, all acts come from God. The possibility of "do this" or "do that" does not exist. All that exists is the ability to change our nature. You could, for example, not feed an orphan. You could, on the other hand, have a nature such that God would feed an orphan through you. The reward for you would not come from feeding the orphan, but of having that nature of compassion.
The same is true for evil people. They hold no power in this world, yet God uses them for His purpose. And they are punished, again, for their nature, and not for acts.
This is why we say that evil does not exist. Evil people, yes, but not evil itself, because that would imply that there is some power outside of God. Like this guy said:
“Evil does not exist; once you have crossed the threshold, all is good. Once in another world, you must hold your tongue.” —Franz Kafka
As an aside, if I seem like I contradict myself, that's because of poor writing skills.
Also, I did not write this comment. Because writing is an act, and all acts come from God. Ditto for your comment. You only thought you were writing it.
Further to my comment,
The poem that I quoted earlier came from this source in the Bhagavad-Gita:
"I am come as Time, the waster of the peoples,
Ready for that hour that ripens to their ruin.
All these hosts must die; strike, stay your hand—no matter.
Therefore, strike. Win kingdom, wealth, and glory.
Arjuna, arise, O ambidextrous bowman.
Seem to slay. By me these men are slain already.
You but smite the dead."
So, according to Hindu scripture, and paying attention to that last line in the poem above, the people in those buildings on 9/11 were already dead when the jets struck.
As with all of philosophy, definitions are essential.
How are you all defining "free will"?
Michael,
I have always made sure to wear pants when attending court, although I have had nightmares in which not only did I not wear pants, but I have neglected to bring all of the pleadings, exhibits, and opening statement just before the trial is about to begin.
Ahmed Fares: "The same is true for evil people. They hold no power in this world, yet God uses them for His purpose. And they are punished, again, for their nature, and not for acts."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tp0UNcjzl8
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do ANY of these 10 things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever til the end of time.
But he LOVES you!
He loves you! He loves you, and he NEEDS MONEY!"
Michael,
I heard a report about the same case several years ago on NPR. Below is a link to a story about the case:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/nightmare-experience-for-man-whose-cancer-turned-him-into-a-pedophile-20021231-gdg1iz.html
A search has failed to turn up a decision on the case. However, a judge confronted with this situation would have conducted an evidentiary hearing at which the neurologists who diagnosed the tumor and the effects on the teacher’s behavior would have testified. Since, according to the report, the neurologists indicated that the teacher’s behavior returned to normal after the tumor was removed, I would expect that a judge would find the defendant not guilty by virtue of diminished capacity.
Eric,
he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn
Yes, that is love.
It's like how people put gold in fire to purify it of its dross, so they can then make jewelry and such out of it. Or like how the parent spanks the child to beat the devil out of him, all the while telling him that I'm only doing this because I love you.
Also, hell is not forever.
If Ahmed’s theology is typical of that held by the adherents of Islam generally, then we should all be concerned, as Christopher Hitchens was immediately prior to his death, of the threat which Islam presents to the Western world and the avowed objective of groups like Isis to create a new Caliphate which will dominate Europe. And this is not simply an expression of Islamaphobia. Ahmed’s concept of how Allah expresses his/her (is Allah indisputably male in Islam?) love to mankind is truly terrifying.
Like Max Weber, I'm 'unmusical' in religious matters, and accordingly can't decide whether it's good news or bad news that hell isn't forever. My understanding is that hell is where most of the interesting people are; and even Jesus visited hell, if only to harrow it.--One of my 100 or so favorite passages in Nietzsche is the opening of the 'Why I Am So Clever' section of Ecce Homo: "Why do I know a few things more? Why am I altogether so clever? I have never reflected on questions that are none--I have not wasted myself. Really religious difficulties, for example, I don't know from experience . . . "God," "immortality of the soul," "redemption," "beyond"--without exception, concepts to which I never devoted any attention or time . . . I am much more interested in a question on which the "salvation of humanity" depends far more than any theologians' curio: the question of nutrition."
Another,
Ahmed Fares is politely and patiently outlining his philosophical views (which are not mine). Why associate him with terrorism or a threat to the Western world? That is McCarthism.
Christopher Hitchens ended up supporting Bush's criminal invasion of Iraq and so that's not a path we should follow.
In fact, I'd say that a dialogue such as Ahmed Fares is trying to carry on here is a first step towards a more peaceful relation with the Islamic world and should be encouraged by all of us who love peace.
I'm an atheist and my view of hell is more or less that of John Rapko, but for those who want to learn about Islam and to dialogue with it, here is an opportunity.
So.....On this PHILOSOPHY blog, no one has yet commented on an expression of doubts about the claim that occasionalism and compatibilism are compatible.
Sad.
s. wallerstein,
I have read comments on this blog where you have taken issue with what you regard as simplistic and erroneous analyses of both philosophical and political issues.
Yet here you come to Ahmed’s defense, accusing me of engaging in McCarthy like tactics, claiming that he is offering us a view into the nature of Islam and we should be open to dialogue with him – views such as that motion does not really exist; that the taking of human life by others is no more than fulfilling Allah’s predetermined will; that people are not responsible for their misdeeds, since everything is an expression of the will of Allah; that condemning people to hell for spurning the teachings of Islam is like purifying the splendor of gold through extreme heat.
There is no rational dialogue to be had here; there is no rational thought here. There is only religious dogma which threatens Western civilization, however friendly and affable Ahmed may appear. And it is fools like you who believe it would be helpful to learn the intricacies of Islam in order to reach a détente with the Islamic world who will wind up allowing them to fulfill their objective of imposing a Caliphate over all of the Western world, where we must all adhere to Sharia law. And then you will complain to high heaven what fascists they are.
As for Christopher Hitchens, he was the most eloquent, most thoughtful political analyst of the last 50 years, who saw the danger in people like you who are willing to accommodate Islamists to show how open-minded you are.
David Zimmerman,
At the risk of being accused by you of taking up too much space on Prof. Wolff’s blog, I am but a humble country lawyer, and a former philosophy graduate student at your alma mater, but it seems to me that the contradiction which you have noted between occasionalism and compatibilism is rather obvious, and I have yet to see a response to this observation by the proponent of their compatibility.
The eschatology sketched out by this medievalist crackpot has family resemblances to repellant things I’ve read from some famous Christian theologians—for example, Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas. For a very accessible source of this nonsense, see Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals—section 15, Book 1. Nietzsche has there some lengthy quotations from these two theologians, and the passages cited are worth reading to see just how nuts and sadistic the Christian imagination was (and maybe still can be) when it comes to punishing the damned: for a bonus, by the way, the saved get to see all this bloody phantasmagoria, which adds to their bliss. (The three English translations of the GM that I have all present the original Latin as well as modern English versions of the Latin. It’s great in the Latin, too, if you have some of it left from your schooldays. I do: I went to a Jesuit preparatory school for four years, 55 plus years ago.) And of course there’s Dante with his “living flames” that still have the gift of language. Yeah, this too was created by divine love. Anyway, there’s nothing really new about this sort of thinking; whether we ought for this reason to be as afraid of Christianity as some of us seem to be about Islam is something I’ll leave for others to argue about. I think it’s all foolish, creepy—and sadistic. I would suspect, in a Freudian manner, the deeper motives of anyone who believed this perverted rubbish. After all, there’s far less excuse for believing it today than there was 1000 years ago. I am reminded of John McTaggart’s comment that “truth and absurdity have this in common: neither of them can be refuted.” As far as Occasionalism goes, it’s one big begging of the question, right from the start and all the way down. There’s no reason to argue about it, unless you make some silly assumptions.
re: compatibilism
It is said that the greatest mystery in life is the merging of the personal and the divine will. A good example of that is when Joseph says to his brothers:
You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. —Genesis 50:20
Another example is this:
Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger— the staff in their hands is my wrath. —Isaiah 10:5
Selected quotes from an article (bold mine):
The ludicrous analogies further underscore the point. Israel is not destroyed because of having a weak military or making a strategic mistake in the world of realpolitik, but because the LORD wills it and uses this foreign empire—and its ruthless military might—to do so. While Assyria may be the ax, God is the lumberjack.
The perspective of ‘I Isaiah’ seems clear. Israel has violated the LORD’s expectations, and God will use a foreign nation instrumentally to bring judgment on this rebellious people. Despite the discomfort they may provoke, the “anger of the LORD” figures prominently and the designation “LORD of armies” underscores the militaristic implications of this understanding. As Walter Brueggemann observes, “The tradition of Isaiah articulates faith on a large scale, resisting any safe, private, or conventional categories.” Here God is free, active, and in control, even of foreign powers and their military hardware; God is no pacifist in ‘I Isaiah.’
This passage identifies Cyrus, the king of Persia, as the instrument God will use to gather “my servant Jacob” back from exile. What’s more, while the verb “anoint” appears elsewhere, this is the only occurrence of the term mashiach (messiah/anointed one) in the entire book. Where ‘I Isaiah’ identified Assyria as God’s instrument for executing judgment, here Cyrus of Persia appears as God’s “anointed” to send them home.
This brief discussion of Isa. 45 demonstrates that the logic of ‘II Isaiah’ proves consistent with that of ‘I Isaiah.’ In both cases God’s will is carried out through the instrumental use of foreign powers (including their use of violence) and can be done without their knowledge or recognition.
source: Assyria the Ax, God the Lumberjack: Jeremiah 29, the Logic of the Prophets, and the Quest for a Nonviolent God
I hope the above examples make it clear what compatibilism is.
Having come late to the discussion, allow me a recap.
Ahmed Fares launched it. Jerry Brown heatedly objected. Fares' riposte:
This [i.e. "belief that people die at their appointed time"] is a basic tenet of the Islamic faith, which has 1.8 billion people. By 2070, Islam will overtake Christianity to become the religion with the most adherents. Even if you think these ideas are moronic, you should still educate yourself to how other people think, because they will have an impact on you and future generations.
I am happy to defer to Fares' knowledge of the Islamic faith and how its demographics compare to those of Christianity.
But I find it plainly absurd--and frankly more than a little annoying--to conclude from that that every Muslim or even the majority of Muslims share believes that people die at their appointed time. That's something Fares never ceases to repeat. Are we to believe he is an uncontested spokesman for 1.8 billion people? Says who (other than Fares, that is)?
If an Evangelical came here making similar claims about Christianity and the book of Genesis or about the Rapture or whatever other beliefs they may have, I can imagine the reaction of the readers, at least some of whom must have a Christian background, even if they are not practicing.
And I would bet exactly the same would happen to any pious Jew, faced by non-religious Jews who seem to read this.
----------
By the way, after writing that, Fares, adds
Also, I did not use the word "believe", or "faith", or anything like that in my comment above. Go ahead and reread it.
Give me a break.
-- The AnonyMouse
Ahmed,
It is interesting that you draw examples of occasionalism from the Jewish Pentateuch and Tanakh. However, notwithstanding these examples, the central tenet of Judaism, both in the Pentateuch and the Tanakh, is that of personal responsibility for one’s actions. In Judaism, one who engages in evil and wrongdoing is not excused for believing s/he is implementing God’s will. In fact, in Genesis Abraham argues even with God about the justice of His plan to destroy Sodom:
“The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Abraham came forward and said, ‘Will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You ! Shall not the Judge of all earth deal justly?’ And the Lord answered, ‘If I find within the city of Sodom fifty innocent ones, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.’ Abraham spoke up, saying, ‘Here I venture to speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes: What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Will You destroy he whole city for want of five?’ And He answered, ‘I will not destroy if I find forty-five there.’ But he spoke to him again, and said, ‘What if forty should be found there?’ And He answered, ‘I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.’ And he said, ‘Let not my Lord be angry if I go on: What if thirty should be found there.’ And He answered, ‘I will not do it if I find thirty there.’ And he said, ‘I venture again to again to speak to my Lord: What if twenty should be found there?’ And He answered, ‘I will not destroy for the sake of the twenty.’ And he said, ‘Let not my Lord be angry if I speak but this last time: What if ten should be found there?’ And He answered, ‘I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten.’” Genesis, 18.22
This debate between Abraham and God is unique in religious Scriptures. Not only dose Abraham dare to argue with God about justice, God does not punish Abraham for doing so.
This theme of justice and personal responsibility for one’s actions is repeated again and again in the Talmud, as well. “A person is always responsible for his actions, whether awake or asleep.” Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma 3b
On Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, the liturgy expressly states that God only forgives those sins one has committed against God, e.g., failing to keep the Sabbath. God does not forgive the sins one has committed against other human beings. For that, the sinner must go to the person s/he has sinned against and ask for forgiveness.
In Judaism, the hijackers who killed some 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, were not fulfilling God’s will, and it is blasphemy to say they were.
Correction:
"you draw examples of compatibilism from the Jewish Pentateuch and Tanakh ... "
Another Anonymous,
This theme of justice and personal responsibility for one’s actions is repeated again and again in the Talmud, as well. “A person is always responsible for his actions, whether awake or asleep.” Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma 3b
This is also repeated again and again in the Qur'an also. The difference though is that in the Qur'an, the actions are a consequence of a person's nature, i.e., people do not create actions, they acquire them. So rather than:
Nature > Actions
we have:
Nature > God > Actions
Such that "God > Actions" maintains divine sovereignty, while "Nature > God > Actions" maintains human responsibility.
Anonymous,
But I find it plainly absurd--and frankly more than a little annoying--to conclude from that that every Muslim or even the majority of Muslims share believes that people die at their appointed time.
From one of many verses in the Qur'an:
And it is not [possible] for one to die except by permission of Allah at a decree determined. And whoever desires the reward of this world - We will give him thereof; and whoever desires the reward of the Hereafter - We will give him thereof. And we will reward the grateful. —Qur'an 3:145
As someone who lives among Muslims, every time someone dies, everyone says it was their time to go. Also, we write a certain Qur'anic verse to that effect on their gravestones.
For goodness sake Ahmed- when a child get run over by a car driven by a drunken driver you are saying all Muslims will say it was that child's time to die? Allah willed it? I guess you personally might believe that for some reason, but can you honestly speak for more than a billion people?
"In fact, I'd say that a dialogue such as Ahmed Fares is trying to carry on here is a first step towards a more peaceful relation with the Islamic world and should be encouraged by all of us who love peace."
We need more people like s. wallerstein on this planet.
I, myself, have a related viewpoint, or opinion, similar to occasionalism. My viewpoint is somewhat different however. I believe that determinism can only be understood by an infinite mind: meaning the mind of God; while I believe that everything else with finite consciousness can only understand freewill. We can give determinism a label and many definitions to it, but to truly understand it is impossible for us. Meaning, for us determinism might as well not even exist. So if there is a Day of Judgement, like Muslims believe in, we are judged by our actions as if determinism doesn't even exist.
But is that fair? That's not for me to decide. When judges throw people in jail for murders and torturing people to death no one calls it injustice. As a Catholic & Religious Epicurean I don't believe it matters. All I know is that there is talk by Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Buddhists, Dante, & Greco-Roman mythology about the 1st Hell (which is Hades) or even by Muslims and Christians about a 2nd Hell which is the 2nd death or Gehenna. If God allows Hells on this Earth like being treated for a bullet hole during the Civil War, suffering from Covid or other fatal diseases, and battles like Kursk, Stalingrad, Iwo Jima, the Tet Offensive, Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, and Black Hawk Down, why wouldn't there be a hell after death? As a Religious Epicurean I don't believe it matters what God is like. All I know is that there could be pain after death and that to avoid this pain I must try to do good to those who need help. What kind of help? The help mentioned in Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Greek, Jewish, Egyptian writings. Basically it's the same. Feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, give to charity, etc.
Thanks, Michael.
It saddened me that more people here didn't share my genuine shock at the hostility of some commentators here towards Ahmed Fares. I expected more from people on the left, although with time I should have learned not to expect much from anyone, on the left or not.
I began to frequent philosophy blogs about the time of the Iraq invasion and that was the hey-day of the New Atheists, including Christopher Hitchens lauded above, and the New Atheists were hawkish about U.S. military policy towards so-called militant Islam.
Since then "we" have bombed, besides Iraq and Afghanistan, Libia and Syria. We've threatened Iran, backed Saudi Arabia in Yemen and given free rein to Israel in Gaza.
9-11 was a tragedy, with around 3000 civilians deaths, but I have no doubt "we" , our bombs and our drones have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims since then.
When will it stop? When will "we" learn to live and let live with one of the world's largest cultures?
I'm sure that Another will call me "naive" or a "commie dupe" or something like that, but
as I said above, the whole situation saddens me, that's all.
You're welcome, s. wallerstein.
"When will it stop? When will "we" learn to live and let live with one of the world's largest cultures?"
I saw some scenes on YouTube, several months ago, of the 1970 movie Waterloo, and in it there was one young man marching to fight in one of the armies. He started questioning things like "What are we doing here?" "Why are we trying to kill one another?" Until he was finally killed by an enemy musket-ball. I don't remember the exact details about the scene but ever since I saw that scene I thought that he was the only one awake of all of those soldiers he was serving with.
Some may say there are good wars like WW2 and the American Revolutionary War but if World Leaders did reveal to their subjects/constituents about Alien civilizations or a Galactic Federation (like the former head of Israel's space program tried to in December of 2020) then all of the bull-smash would just disappear. Of course, I could be wrong.
I see disagreement with some ideas Ahmed has expressed. I don't see hostility towards Ahmed Fares the person. Nor has Ahmed been hostile while explaining his beliefs. I think it has been a pretty interesting and fair discussion about profound disagreements.
Jerry Brown,
I'm not so much referring to your differences with Ahmed, but to comments like this:
Another Anonymous said...
If Ahmed’s theology is typical of that held by the adherents of Islam generally, then we should all be concerned, as Christopher Hitchens was immediately prior to his death, of the threat which Islam presents to the Western world and the avowed objective of groups like Isis to create a new Caliphate which will dominate Europe. And this is not simply an expression of Islamaphobia. Ahmed’s concept of how Allah expresses his/her (is Allah indisputably male in Islam?) love to mankind is truly terrifying.
I find what is expressed there very disturbing and I was surprised that more people did not share that view. He then goes to say to me:
I have read comments on this blog where you have taken issue with what you regard as simplistic and erroneous analyses of both philosophical and political issues.
Yet here you come to Ahmed’s defense, accusing me of engaging in McCarthy like tactics, claiming that he is offering us a view into the nature of Islam and we should be open to dialogue with him – views such as that motion does not really exist; that the taking of human life by others is no more than fulfilling Allah’s predetermined will; that people are not responsible for their misdeeds, since everything is an expression of the will of Allah; that condemning people to hell for spurning the teachings of Islam is like purifying the splendor of gold through extreme heat.
There is no rational dialogue to be had here; there is no rational thought here. There is only religious dogma which threatens Western civilization, however friendly and affable Ahmed may appear. And it is fools like you who believe it would be helpful to learn the intricacies of Islam in order to reach a détente with the Islamic world who will wind up allowing them to fulfill their objective of imposing a Caliphate over all of the Western world, where we must all adhere to Sharia law. And then you will complain to high heaven what fascists they are.
As for Christopher Hitchens, he was the most eloquent, most thoughtful political analyst of the last 50 years, who saw the danger in people like you who are willing to accommodate Islamists to show how open-minded you are.
I'm sorry but that was a comment that seemed aimed mostly at you (S. Wallerstein) rather than Ahmed. Not that it makes that right.
There are fundamental disagreements with what Ahmed Fares expresses. To some extent there can not be a rational dialog with a person who says every single thing that happens only happens because God acts to make it happen. You can throw all the study of physics and medicine and biology right out the window and just concentrate on what God might do. And you have basically no free will or responsibility over or for your actions. At least that is my understanding of the implications of the argument.
The point is that similar arguments have been used to justify 20 years of wars of aggression against the Muslim world.
Here's a passage from Eric Hobsbawm's book, The Age of Empire:
"the point to stress was not glory and conquest, but that "we" were the victims of aggression, or of a policy of aggression, that "they" represented a mortal threat to the values of freedom and civilization that "we" embodied".
It sounds familiar, doesn't it? Is Hobsbawm talking about the political climate after 9-11? No, about the political climate in all European countries in 1914 as the First World War began.
Do you maybe think that if Ahmed was a fundamentalist Christian telling you God is responsible for every single thing you might ever do that, just maybe, you would have a slightly different reaction?
It doesn't matter to me what religion the person telling me things I disagree with happens to be.
Jerry Brown,
For goodness sake Ahmed- when a child get run over by a car driven by a drunken driver you are saying all Muslims will say it was that child's time to die? Allah willed it?
I had a cousin who died in a car accident when he was struck by a drunk driver. The father-in-law started crying when he found out while he was at a gathering. A young man walked up to him and screamed in his face: "Say that God is One." (in Arabic of course to remind him that everything is God's will). The father-in-law stifled his crying and repeated a phrase to that effect.
Being a teenager at that time, I was shocked, to say the least, that someone would scream at a person who is in sorrow. Only as an adult did I understand why.
I had another cousin whose head was split open with a hammer in a robbery at an ATM. When I went to visit him in the hospital, people there were saying if only he hadn't gone to the ATM late at night, perhaps that wouldn't have happened. A man who was present reminded us that everything that happens is God's will. The whole group shut up.
In that same night, the same person smashed a hammer into the head of a young lady working alone in a sandwich shop. She died.
So no, you can't be a deist around Muslims. They'll quickly put you in your place. Some just to be jerks. Like when you say that someone got cancer because they smoked, and then they tell you that God caused them to smoke, so they would get cancer.
Further to my comment, determinism and compatibilism from a Calvinist perspective,
It’s often claimed that Calvinists are determinists. The claim is true as far as it goes; the trouble is that it doesn’t go very far, and it can lead to a lot of confusion and unwarranted conclusions. For there are many different types of determinism.
-Logical Determinism
-Physical Determinism
-Causal (Nomological) Determinism
-Divine Determinism
-Causal Divine Determinism
-Non-Causal Divine Determinism
-Passive Divine Determinism
-Fatalism
Here's a link to the above that has the descriptions of each: Calvinism and Determinism
In a follow-up article, the author writes as regards compatibilism:
Recall that compatibilism refers to the thesis that determinism is compatible with freedom (i.e., that people can make free choices, for which they can be held morally responsible, even if determinism is true). As I noted in my earlier post, there are different types of determinism and thus there can be various compatibilist theses. One could be a compatibilist with respect to some types of determinism (e.g., divine determinism or causal determinism) but an incompatibilist with respect to other types of determinism (e.g., logical determinism or physical determinism). But let’s leave that complication aside for a moment.
Given this basic understanding of compatibilism, we can define ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ determinism as follows: soft determinism is compatibilist determinism and hard determinism is incompatibilist determinism. In other words, soft and hard determinists agree that determinism is true, but they disagree about whether free choices are possible given that determinism is true. The ‘softies’ say they are; the ‘hardies’ say they aren’t.
Determinism: Soft or Hard?
Well you say you were shocked and so maybe you can understand that I would be shocked also.
Your view view is alien to what I believe about life and reality. That does not mean we cannot agree about many things. But we are not going to agree about this.
s. wallerstein, Michael Llenos
Since then "we" have bombed, besides Iraq and Afghanistan, Libia and Syria. We've threatened Iran, backed Saudi Arabia in Yemen and given free rein to Israel in Gaza.
9-11 was a tragedy, with around 3000 civilians deaths, but I have no doubt "we" , our bombs and our drones have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims since then.
"When will it stop? When will "we" learn to live and let live with one of the world's largest cultures?"
I cannot let the sophistry which you both have been spewing go unrebutted.
Live and Let Live??? The religion of peace??
Have either of you read the Qu’ran??
You will find repeated throughout the Qu’ran such passages as the following:
“Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a might edifice.” 61:1
“Those that believe in Allah and His apostles are the truthful men who shall testify in their Lord’s presence. They shall have their guerdon and their light. But those that disbelieve Our revelations and deny them are the heirs of Hell.” 17:16
“If only the unbelievers knew the day when they shall be powerless to shield their faces and their backs from the fire of Hell; the day when none shall help them! It will overtake them unawares and stupefy them. They shall have no power to ward it off, nor shall they be reprieved.” 21:38
“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrst them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and pay alms-tax, let them go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful.” 9:4
(Continued)
“The true believers fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for idols. Fight then against the friends of Satan. Satan’s cunning is weak indeed.” 4:73
“Those that deny Allah and His apostles, and those that draw a line between Allah and His apostles, saying: ‘We believe in some, but deny others,’ – thus seeking a middle way – these indeed are the unbelievers. For the unbelievers We have prepared a shameful punishment.” 4:149
“Because of their iniquity, We forbade the Jews good things which were formerly allowed them; because time after time they have debarred others from the path of Allah; because they practice usury – although they were forbidden it – and cheat others of their possessions. We have prepared a stern chastisement for those of them that disbelieve. But those of them that have deep learning and those that truly believe in what has been revealed to you and to other prophets before you; who attend to their prayers and pay the alms-tax and have faith in Allah and the Last Day – these shall be richly rewarded.” 4:159
“We forbade the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs and the fat of sheep and oxen, except what is on their backs and intestines and what is mixed with their bones. Such is the penalty with which We rewarded them for their misdeeds.” 6:141
You know who the unbelievers, the idolaters and the infidels are s. wallerstein, Michael Llenos? They are you, me, Jerry Brown and virtually everyone who reads and comments on this blog (with of course at least one exception).
Live and let live, indeed.
Are there similarly repugnant passages in the Torah/Tanakh? Yes there are, particularly in the Book of Joshua which recounts the conquest of Canaan. But there is a significant difference – they refer to events which all purportedly occurred in the past. Nowhere in the Torah, Tanakh or Talmud will you find passages about the future, passages which enjoin Jews to kill and punish those who are not Jewish. Moreover, Israeli archeologists have concluded that the events recounted in the Book of Joshua never really occurred – there is no archeological evidence of the destruction of Jericho. The Book of Joshua was written by scribes during the Babylonian exile, in order to give the exiled Hebrews hope about the future, that they would one day be allowed to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple – which they did after Cyrus conquered the Babylonians and allowed the Hebrews to return to Judea.
And s. wallerstein, regarding your comments about Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya (I will leave Gaza aside, because there is not room enough to debunk your ignorant comment).
Live and let live? Did the United States send rockets or jets into Afghanistan to crash into buildings in Kabul? Was the United States supposed to turn the other cheek when it was attacked by Al Qaeda, who were being harbored and protected by the Talaban? Would Al Qaeda have turned the other cheek?
How many of his own people has Assad tortured and gassed? How many of his own people did Sadam Hussein torture and gas? How many of his own people did Khaddafi murder and torture?
No, I will not say you are naïve or a commie dupe. You are worse. You are ignorant and benighted.
Another,
I've said what I have to say on this topic. If Ahmed Fares feels like answering your warmongering and jingoistic slanders directed against his religion and his culture, I support him (even though I don't agree with his philosophical and religious point of view).
NEITHER FAR OUT NOR IN DEEP
The people along the sand
All turn and look one way.
They turn their back on the land.
They look at the sea all day.
As long as it takes to pass
A ship keeps raising its hull;
The wetter ground like glass
Reflects a standing gull.
The land may vary more;
But wherever the truth may be –
The water comes ashore,
And the people look at the sea.
They cannot look out far.
They cannot look in deep.
But when was that ever a bar
To any watch they keep?
Robert Frost
I understand today is Yom Kippur, so:
G'mar Chatima Tovah
Used to wish someone well for and on Yom Kippur. Tradition teaches that Jews' fate is written on Rosh Hashanah and is sealed on Yom Kippur.
Hey, wait, does that mean determinism?
The Denial of Free Will in Hasidic Thought
According to some Hasidic thinkers, human free will is an illusion; God causes all human actions.
Hmmm... "God causes all human actions."... This sounds familiar...
I obviously have some research to do here. I'm going to read this article later:
The Denial of Free Will in Hasidic Thought
Ahmed Fares,
Gut Yontiv.
Ahmed,
But it is also part of the liturgy on Yom Kippur that sincere repentance and a commitment to change will modify God's judgment - so it is not necessarily sealed, ant the emphasis on repentance on commitment to change reaffirms free will and personal responsibility.
Another Anonymous,
I think we're back to compatibilism again, i.e., divine sovereignty AND human responsibility. Like I said, I'll be doing more research later on how the Hasidic Jews reconcile the two positions.
By the way, here's how I've explained it to others:
Imagine a play that's been written that has good guys and bad guys. People show up to play characters in that play. So the play doesn't change, but people have a choice to play the good guy or the bad guy. So in that sense, there is free will within divine determinism.
Sufism actually uses the shadow play as a metaphor of that, i.e., that all these puppets are acting out their part, but when the veil lifts, all we see is the puppeteer.
People who mock Calvinist theology refer to their theology as "puppets on a divine string".
Another Anonymous
Yes I've read the Penguin Classics version of the Koran. It is the most liberal translation of the Koran, and I continue to go back to it. BTW, are you judging the Koran alone or the religion of Islam itself? The New American Bible Revised Edition is very, very different from a Sunday service of the Catholic church. If all you know of Catholicism is the NABRE you will feel totally lost at a Sunday church service. It's the same with the Book of Mormon and Mormonism and I assume with the Tanakh and a Synagogue service. Yes scripture is read in a Church, Masjid, or Synagogue but the majority of the rites performed differ from the bare text itself. I've met really good Mormons & really good Muslims. The specifics of what a monotheist believes is mostly dictated by the particular sect they belong to than the book of their religion. That being said I love to read the Koran & I find a lot more good in it than anything bad. Same thing with the Bible. A lot of feminists are upset with some of the things St. Paul says--but they go to Church all the same.
I don't really know how to talk with you concerning various religions. I assume you think that Christianity is the only true religion & everything else is for fools. That's very unfortunate. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: 'Beware the man who reads one book.' Similarly it can be said: Beware the man who believes virtue can only be found in one monotheistic religion.
Another Anonymous
I conceive you may have Judeo-Christian values & may be more open minded about religion than I said you were. I don't want to be putting words into your mouth whether you're religious or secular in mind set. So I apologize about any of my false beliefs concerning your stance on religious values or opinions or lack thereof.
Since we're back on compatibilism, a late reply to David Zimmerman's earlier post, "How can occasionalism be compatible with compatibilism?" -
Compatibilism says that the appropriately "agential" exercise of effective causation by human agents is enough to ground human freedom and responsibility even if that exercise of effective causation is itself the result of prior effective causes out of the agent's agential control... So, compatibilism requires that human beings can exercise precisely the kind of effective causation that occasionalism [at least the strong kind] denies that we can exercise.
My comments -
It isn't clear to me that compatibilism must take freedom to involve "agent causation" (by which I mean: causation whose ultimate source is the agent him- or herself). Otherwise, I think it's clear that your argument would work, since occasionalism makes out God (rather than us creatures) to be the ultimate source of those effects which succeed all creaturely activity.
But causation may alternatively be understood as "event causation," in which case, one event "causes" its successor only if it (or rather an event of the same type) has in every like situation been the immediate predecessor of an event of the same type as the successor. (The "constant conjunction" take on causation would be an example of this.)
That said, occasionalism need not be at odds with compatibilism in every case: If I'm not mistaken, compatibilism might be the view that we act freely and responsibly if our acts (i.e., the events constituting our acts) are effects of the "right" causal antecedents: e.g., our particular circumstances, knowledge, and character. Occasionalism might simply qualify "effects" and "causal antecedents" with the word "proximate," while adding that our circumstances, knowledge, and character are ultimately the effects of God's activity - itself (perhaps) the consequence of his antecedent knowledge and character. ("Perhaps" because it's presumably an alternative option for God's activity to be understood as the only instance of agent causation, as opposed to event causation.)
Summing up, the ambiguity of "cause" seems to leave the occasionalist some wiggle room to embrace compatibilism. Your argument would succeed, IMO, if "cause" were taken exclusively in the sense of agent causation. Otherwise, from the standpoint of occasionalism, it might be that "I" act freely and responsibly with respect to events that in all like situations proceed upon circumstances of the same kind, circumstances which involve "my" foreknowledge and approval of said events.
(Scare-quotes around "I" and "my" because the agent to whom these words apparently refer would actually be unreal from God's standpoint.)
Now, all of this does happen to strike me as an exceedingly strange way of talking. But as Darwin once said, "all the world" seems to be in a "hopeless muddle" with respect to the free will question.
I think I also have some issues with Ahmed's recent post featuring the play metaphor, but maybe another time.
Michael Llenos,
I was not, and am not, offended by what you have written, other than s. wallerstein’s assertion that we should “Live and let live,” as if the U.S. was the instigator with respect to the invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation to the 9/11 attack. We were letting them live, until they attacked us, unprovoked.
I have had many friends of all faiths, including Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Hindu. My wife is Lutheran, and I never requested or demanded that she convert to Judaism. We raised our daughter as Jewish, only because my wife insisted on raising her in some religion, and I would not agree to raising her as Lutheran, given Luther’s anti-Semitic pronouncements. I have attended Christmas and Easter services at my wife’s church, and sing the songs and listen respectfully to the sermons. I in fact know a lot more about Christianity than many of my Christian friends, and know more about Christianity than they know about Judaism.
Regrading the holy texts of the various religions, I have the sense that among the religions both Mormons and Muslims adhere more closely to the literal word of their religious texts than other religions. In that regard, I find many of the passages in the Qu’ran which demonize other religions, and in particular Judaism, as problematic. There are not passages of that kind anywhere in the Tanakh or the Talmud. I am a practicing Reformed Jew. Reformed synagogues accept women as rabbis, welcome interfaith couples, accept gay and lesbian congregants, and perform gay marriages.
In recent years I had one disappointing experience with a Lebanese friend whom I had known since 1970. He obtained his Ph.D. in nuclear engineering at the U. of Michigan and we kept in touch over the years. He informed me that he was not Muslim, but was a Christian Lebanese. He was, for a period of time, employed at Los Alamos. However, he was harassed after 9/11 because everyone who worked there assumed he was Muslim. Eventually, he got fired, accused of engaging in sexual harassment. I searched for an attorney in New Mexico to represent him in a civil rights lawsuit and gave him legal advice. When he started having medical problems with his eyes and needed treatment in Ann Arbor, I spent time with him, helping him do his grocery shopping. When he felt depressed, after moving to Lynchburg, West Virginia, and could not find work, I commiserated with him. On December 31, 2019, I called him on the phone and played Auld Lang Syne for him on the clarinet (a holiday tradition I do with all my friends and relatives). He asked me how I was doing, and I told him about a case I was handling involving protesters in front of a synagogue, in which the protesters combined pro-Palestinian signs with such signs that stated such things as, “Resist Jewish Power”; “Jewish Power Corrupts”; “No More Holocaust Movies”; “End The Palestinian holocaust”; etc. Out of the blue, he started screaming at me, calling a m-fcker, telling me, for the first time that he was actually Muslim and that his family had escaped to Lebanon from Palestine at the beginning of the 1948 War for Independence. I was shocked, that he had kept this from me over some 50 years of our friendship. I have not spoken to him since, and not because he is Muslim. I could care less. I felt betrayed by the depth of hatred he displayed to me after all the time we spent together over the years.
So, to bring this to an end (Yom Kippur begins at sundown), I do not disparage other religions. I recognize there are benefits and limitations in all religions, including Judaism. I do find many of the belligerent passages in the Q’ran as troubling, however.
Afghanistan didn't attack "us" on 9-11.
Al Qaeda did. There is no evidence that the Talibans knew what Osama Bin Ladin and his very small group of terrorists were planning. The U.S. could have tracked Bin Ladin down and captured or killed him as they eventually did, in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, but they used 9-11 as a pretext to expand their geopolitical ambitions into Afghanistan and they failed, they fucked up, as they usually do. During "our" 20 years in Afghanistan we killed thousands, perhaps hundred of thousands of innocent civilians, many more civilians than you died in 9-11.
So the Taliban now control Afghanistan as they did before 9-11. It's obvious that there's no way that we can win a war against them and it also seems fairly clear that the Talibans, unlike ISIS and unlike the United States, aren't trying to control the world.
So I insist, the U.S., since its attempts to control the world generally go wrong and since there are lots of cultures in the world which are not to "our" taste, will have to learn to live and let live. That does not imply that the United States should not track down those who engage in terrorist attacks in its territory.
By the way, the first 9-11 was September 11, 1973, the military coup in Chile against democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende, a coup sponsored and backed by the United States, a terrorist coup which left more dead than 9-11 2001. Should
Chile invade the United States because Henry Kissinger, still alive, was a member of the conspiracy behind the coup?
Another Anonymous
Sorry to hear about your ex-friend.
"There are not passages of that kind anywhere in the Tanakh or the Talmud."
Don't forget that the Tanakh attacks past Egyptian-paganism & the Philistines, Tyre and the Assyrians. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I believe as a Catholic it is God who decides that. But I've noticed with most monotheisms that the us-versus-them theme is always at play so that the religion can survive in it's beginning. An analogy is when Sarah told Abraham to kick Hagar & Ishmael out of their dwelling; the reason was that Isaac's line needed no rivalry to succeed. Also when did the liberal movement for Judaism begin? Probably in the 1st or 2nd century B.C.. Around the 2nd century A.D. with the Romans kicking the Jewish people out of Israel (after the 3rd Jewish revolt) was the beginning of the Mishnah & the Talmud teachings during the next 1,600 years of exile--those years shaped more reform in the Synagogues in Europe. The Christian Reformation began around 1,500 years after the time of Christ--Erasmus' Praise of Folly setting off the explosion. But Islam has only existed for 1,500 years--they are in the beginning part of an Islamic Reformation right now, if you agree with Prof. Reza Aslan's theory--so they still have a lot of catching up to do for those who wish for more reform within the Islamic world. It's not that Muslims cannot change their religious-sect within Islam. (A Shia can become a Sufi and a Sufi a Sunni.) It's just that one cannot become an official Reformed Sunni, Shia, or Sufi after being a Conservative or Orthodox Muslim of the three sects. In fact, there is really no categorical distinction of being a Orthodox or Reformed Sufi or Shia. You are either a Sufi, Shia, or Sunni Muslim and that's it. In fact, if someone says they are a liberal Muslim they probably will still not eat pork, not drink alcohol, and not have five or more wives. I'm not saying liberal Muslims have to do such things. But what I am saying is that the terms and their definitions are not written down. The Islamic world needs someone to do such things. But instead of the Islamic world praying for their version of a Martin Luther reformer & a 95 Islamic thesis of their own, they're awaiting for a Madhi to come teach them how to be united as true Muslims. And again I'm not saying that this is good or bad. But these things I believe are what is happening. The Islamic world needs to be given more slack. In fact, the Muslims and the Jews used to get along great. I.e. until the land-wars began in 19th century Palestine.
Salafi’s Excommunicated From Sunni Islam
This past August (2016) well over 200 senior Muslim Scholars from around the world met in Grozny, Chechnya for a 3 day conference to decree what and who Sunni Muslims are, the result was the Excommunication of the Salafi sect from Sunni Islam along with the Islamic universities of Saudi Arabia, which they stated are not teaching orthodox Islam, an issue the Saudi government has acknowledged in the past and unsuccessfully tried to address.
Participants came from 30 countries, including Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Russia, India, Britain, South Africa, Qatar, Kuwait, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, they warned;
Shaykh Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Egypt, defined what mainstream Sunni Islam is and excluded the Salafi Sect from it.
He Defined Sunni Islam As: “Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah are the Ash’arites and Muturidis (adherents of the theological schools of Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari). In matters of belief (Aqeedah), they are followers of any of the four schools of Law (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki or Hanbali) and are also the followers of the Sufism of Imam Junaid al-Baghdadi in doctrines, manners and
[spiritual] purification.”
Robert Fisk weighed in:
For the first time, Saudi Arabia is being attacked by both Sunni and Shia leaders
The Saudis step deeper into trouble almost by the week. Swamped in their ridiculous war in Yemen, they are now reeling from an extraordinary statement issued by around two hundred Sunni Muslim clerics who effectively referred to the Wahhabi belief – practiced in Saudi Arabia – as “a dangerous deformation” of Sunni Islam. The prelates included Egypt’s Grand Imam, Ahmed el-Tayeb of al-Azhar, the most important centre of theological study in the Islamic world, who only a year ago attacked “corrupt interpretations” of religious texts and who has now signed up to “a return to the schools of great knowledge” outside Saudi Arabia.
This remarkable meeting took place in Grozny and was unaccountably ignored by almost every media in the world – except for the former senior associate at St Antony’s College, Sharmine Narwani, and Le Monde’s Benjamin Barthe – but it may prove to be even more dramatic than the terror of Syria’s civil war. For the statement, obviously approved by Vladimir Putin, is as close as Sunni clerics have got to excommunicating the Saudis.
Although they did not mention the Kingdom by name, the declaration was a stunning affront to a country which spends millions of dollars every year on thousands of Wahhabi mosques, schools and clerics around the world.
Wahhabism’s most dangerous deviation, in the eyes of the Sunnis who met in Chechenya, is that it sanctions violence against non-believers, including Muslims who reject Wahhabi interpretation. Isis, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are the principal foreign adherents to this creed outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
source: For the first time, Saudi Arabia is being attacked by both Sunni and Shia leaders
Further to my comment,
International propagation of Salafism and Wahhabism
The impetus for the spread of the interpretations through the Muslim world was "the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted" (according to political scientist Alex Alexiev), "dwarfing the Soviets’ propaganda efforts at the height of the Cold War" (according to journalist David A. Kaplan), funded by petroleum exports which ballooned following the October 1973 War. One estimate is that during the reign of King Fahd (1982 to 2005), over $75 billion was spent in efforts to spread Wahhabi Islam. The money was used to establish 200 Islamic colleges, 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, and 2,000 schools for Muslim children in Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries. The schools were "fundamentalist" in outlook and formed a network "from Sudan to northern Pakistan".
More at the link: International propagation of Salafism and Wahhabism
What's worse is that the US intentionally spreads Wahhabism when it serves its political interests. Here, straight from the source, a short roughly 1-minute video (the audio kicks in after a few seconds):
Hillary Clinton : We created Al Qaeda
[partial transcript (bold mine)]
Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said.
"It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said.
Thank you, Ahmed. That was truly eye opening. Just as there was a Counter-Reformation by the Catholic Church, shortly after the Protestant Reformation, it seems the Islamic Counter-Reformation will mainly have it's seat of power in Cairo. I believe an Islamic Reformation & an Islamic Counter-Reformation are both needed for the successful religious evolution of the Islamic world and for the better prosperity of all humanity. But I may be wrong.
Mostly Sufism in Egypt.
Estimates of the number of Sufis in Egypt include at least a third of the adult male Muslim population in Egypt, being members of a Sufi order; fifteen million of the country's roughly 80 million citizens "claim" Sufism "as a practice", still others say that while 15 million are registered as Sufis, "the true figure is likely to be higher". —Islam in Egypt
Bear in mind that of that 80 million, about 10% are Coptic Christians.
As of 2019, "Copts are generally understood to make up approximately 10 percent of Egypt's population," with an estimated population of 9.5 million (figure cited in the Wall Street Journal, 2017) or 10 million (figure cited in the Associated Press, 2019).
As an aside, I am a Sunni and a Sufi. I also have ten years in the study of comparative religion.
Ahmed,
Wow. I didn't know you could be both. Is that officially, with the recognition of the Imam's, or just unofficially? I'm a Catholic officially, but unofficially my religious creed also includes being a Religious Epicurean. I believe the worst evil is physical & mental pain in both this present life and the next.
Most Sufis are Sunnis. For example, the leader of Al-Azhar is both a Sunni and a Sufi. Every religion has both an exoteric and esoteric dimension. In Islam, being a Sunni is the exoteric, and following the path of Sufism is the esoteric. Sufism is the contemplative path that leads to divine union. It has its parallel in every religion, including Christianity.
As for Catholics, my favorite contemporary Catholic, who died recently, is Bernadette Roberts:
Bernadette Roberts (1931–2017) was a former Carmelite nun and contemplative in the Catholic tradition.
Roberts has extensively chronicled and described her life and spiritual journey. Her book Contemplative: Autobiography of the Early Years[n 1] presents an account of her early family life and spiritual experiences. Her spiritual journey after entering the cloister is described in The Path to No-Self: Life at the Center. This book includes descriptions of her experience of the "Dark Nights" and of the state of "Union," as spoken of by various Christian mystics. After years of life in union with God, Roberts described an event she calls the experience of "no-Self" in The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey. The book, however, only covers a two-year period after the events described. Roberts further elaborated on the context for this event. After the first publication of The Experience, Roberts was invited to speak around the country, to present her talk, "A Passage Through Self," that uses a series of circles to illustrate the spiritual journey.[n 2] For the last 30 years Roberts gave annual retreats entitled "The Essence of Christian Mysticism," in which she presented the essence of Christian mysticism as Trinity, Christ, and Faith.[n 3] Her most recent work is The Real Christ (2012).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Roberts
Ahmed,
"Most Sufis are Sunnis"
That's the first time I've ever heard or read about that. Now that I think about it, it does make sense. Sufism originated from the Sunni sect, since the first Muslim sect was Sunni. Before I thought maybe the Sufis broke away completely from the Sunni sect, like the Shia Muslims did. If I'm not mistaken, Shia Muslims broke away from the Sunni sect because they fought over the line of authority that descended from the Prophet. Now I know better. Thanks, Ahmed.
Ahmed,
Since this dialogue could otherwise go on forever, I'll try to wrap up my part with some final thoughts. It's been good, and I appreciate what you're doing here.
First, on the play metaphor: If I understand, you speak as if the human being is free to choose a part in the play, outside the events inexorably laid out by the play itself (or rather its author, God); i.e., the play features heroes and villains, who correspondingly must act heroically and villainously - but "before the play" (in some sense), the actors are free to choose whether their part will be that of a hero or that of a villain.
Now, I'm having a hard time making sense of "before the play." Clearly it wouldn't be to your purpose to speak of the actor's choice of part as simply another event (or sequence of events) in the actor's life - as in, e.g., an audition; or, a prior perusal of the script, followed by a resolution to learn/rehearse/perform the character's lines. In this case, you would open yourself to the objection, "How is the 'character-selection' of a different metaphysical character than the performance of the character's part? Why isn't my 'prior decision' to play a hero or villain itself analogous to an already-scripted event in a play?" In the absence of an adequate response, we would seem entitled to simply repeat the question that the original analogy was intended to address.
The way out might involve something like a transcendental self, as in Kant (if I'm not misrepresenting Kant): There is free agency, and the observable events constituting what is ordinarily called "human activity" are expressions of this agency; but that which exerts agency cannot be a part of the world of causally interrelated, spatially-temporally extended things, in which events occur and are experienced.
But that seems troubling, too, or at least exceedingly remote. We aren't really accustomed, IMO, to identify our true selves with the transcendental ground of our phenomenal/empirical/apparent selves. What the word "myself" calls to mind is ordinarily a collection of observable things: a body/brain and its motions, the particular thoughts and feelings which are experienced in correspondence with those motions, etc.
(Those religious traditions which speak of post-mortem bodily resurrection would seem to regard our Heavenly careers in terms of the same categories, as basically extensions of our present lives, albeit under a new set of bodily-mental-environmental circumstances: "more of the same, perhaps endlessly more, but better.")
Continued...
If I were an occasionalist (and I'm not saying I explicitly reject occasionalism; I don't really explicitly embrace anything in particular, for the most part), it'd occur to me that I might be able to speak nevertheless of "my actions," which are "freely performed by me," and for which "I am responsible" - but, in my more philosophical moods, I'd also try keep in mind that these expressions are just useful shorthands, strictly wrong from a metaphysical standpoint. Analogously, we speak in shorthand of the sunrise and sunset (as if relative to a stationary Earth, in a geocentric system) - while knowing perfectly well that this is strictly wrong from a scientific standpoint.
Quine has an essay called "On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World." I haven't read it, but I find the title evocative. It might be that you and I are differently aligned in our metaphysical orientations - but perhaps all this means is that our everyday observable behaviors, deeds, values, words, etc. are largely recognizable to one another (we are, after all, having a pleasant philosophical conversation on this particular blog on the Internet), though we have different approaches to understanding the "transcendental grounds" of these behaviors and so forth.
Thus, if I see you about to get mauled by a tiger, and I cry out "tiger!," I'd rightly expect you to react in the same way as just about anyone - though it may be that when we philosophize about it afterward, we disagree about whether "tiger" means "Tigerhood instantiated," or "sense-data arranged tiger-wise," etc.
Take care - it's been good!
Michael,
Thank you. You expressed my point of view better than I did, and you've given me things to think about.
I agree with you that this could go on forever, so it's best to close the discussion. Also, thank you for the interesting essay by Quine, which I plan to research later.
Post a Comment