Spiritual Free Will

[iBrian]

I just wanted to raise this subject outside of the existing thread about the Christian perspective of Free Will, in order to explore a more general spiritual view.

Here's the first thing - even since being a child, I had a sense of predestination, as if there were areas of my future that were already predetermined and I was going to move to.

The idea of a "path" - of following a certain life path, serves as a good analogy.

The impression has always been that I am on a general path that will pass through major destinations, but that there are sometimes minor differences in how I reach those destinations - as if my exercise of "Free Will" remains very limited.

Here's a bigger issue, though.

I treat intuition as a powerful spiritual signal - like being tapped into the universe. I feel obliged to obey my intuition, because it is right. However, in doing so, it's as if I'm giving up my "Free Will" - because the only choice is a Hobson's Choice - I must obey. Why? To make my life easier, or to fulfill a higher purpose?

In that regard, it reminds me of how Judaism describes Angels as being without Free Will. It makes me wonder that the closer you move towards the spiritual, the more you recognise a higher power, and realise that there are decisions laid out for you that should be followed. Is what Judaism was saying?

Also, on Free Will in general - if we presume for a moment it exists, then I don't think most people use it in most situations, but instead run on a dimmed version which is driven by routine and choices based on routine, because it is easier and simpler to. After all, if you exert Free Will in any individual moment, there are a huge myriad of options you could follow.

For example, I am sat here typing. If I stop, there are so many decisions available - not so much a decision between a couple of decisions based on experience, biological programming, and perceptual sets, as much as decisions I can create. Do I want to twitch a part of my body? If so, what part? There are a variety of objects on my desk - shall I pick one up and use one? In a normal manner? In some other manner? Shall I stand up, jump up, hop around the room? Apparently any of us has the Free Will to make such decisions, and yet many of these choices may some odd at best, or schizophrenic at worst.

In that case, perhaps it can be said that normally we have very little use of Free Will in life under ordinary circumstances, and practice only a very diminished form.

In which case, if my intuition says to do something and I feel compelled to follow it, then does that mean that the best use of Free Will is to subjugate it in the first place to a perceived higher process?

(Probably not written this post very well, but hopefully something in there for discussion).

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Hi Brian,

From a theistic point of view, as you live closer to God, your will becomes more attuned to the will of God, so what you most want becomes the same as what God wants. You are then "on the path", and you know the sense of your life unfolding as it should.

But how do you live closer to God? You do this by knowing, and being true to your real self, by discarding the illusions and attractions of the animal nature and the physical world, by making your outward life mirror your inner self.

You could if you so wished do something totally out of character, you could become a serial murderer, or devote your life to amassing wealth. This would prove you had free will, but would you want it?

Cliff

 

[earl]

I just wanted to raise this subject outside of the existing thread about the Christian perspective of Free Will, in order to explore a more general spiritual view.

Here's the first thing - even since being a child, I had a sense of predestination, as if there were areas of my future that were already predetermined and I was going to move to.

The idea of a "path" - of following a certain life path, serves as a good analogy.

The impression has always been that I am on a general path that will pass through major destinations, but that there are sometimes minor differences in how I reach those destinations - as if my exercise of "Free Will" remains very limited.

Here's a bigger issue, though.

I treat intuition as a powerful spiritual signal - like being tapped into the universe. I feel obliged to obey my intuition, because it is right. However, in doing so, it's as if I'm giving up my "Free Will" - because the only choice is a Hobson's Choice - I must obey. Why? To make my life easier, or to fulfill a higher purpose?

In that regard, it reminds me of how Judaism describes Angels as being without Free Will. It makes me wonder that the closer you move towards the spiritual, the more you recognise a higher power, and realise that there are decisions laid out for you that should be followed. Is what Judaism was saying?

Also, on Free Will in general - if we presume for a moment it exists, then I don't think most people use it in most situations, but instead run on a dimmed version which is driven by routine and choices based on routine, because it is easier and simpler to. After all, if you exert Free Will in any individual moment, there are a huge myriad of options you could follow.

For example, I am sat here typing. If I stop, there are so many decisions available - not so much a decision between a couple of decisions based on experience, biological programming, and perceptual sets, as much as decisions I can create. Do I want to twitch a part of my body? If so, what part? There are a variety of objects on my desk - shall I pick one up and use one? In a normal manner? In some other manner? Shall I stand up, jump up, hop around the room? Apparently any of us has the Free Will to make such decisions, and yet many of these choices may some odd at best, or schizophrenic at worst.

In that case, perhaps it can be said that normally we have very little use of Free Will in life under ordinary circumstances, and practice only a very diminished form.

In which case, if my intuition says to do something and I feel compelled to follow it, then does that mean that the best use of Free Will is to subjugate it in the first place to a perceived higher process?

(Probably not written this post very well, but hopefully something in there for discussion).

Brian, perhaps the "predestination" is a more generic directional set in which you are "predetermined" to encounter various forks in the road-life lessons/decision points. Utilizing you intuition is probably the best means of deciding which fork to take. Well, that's my "New Age" take on it. earl

 

[seattlegal]

Physics on determinism:

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance to philosophy


The double-slit experiment has been of great interest to philosophers, because the quantum mechanical behavior it reveals has forced them to reevaluate their ideas about classical concepts such as "particles",[12] "waves", "location", and "movement from one place to another".
In contrast to the way of conceptualizing the macroscopic world of everyday experience, attempting to describe the motion of a single photon is problematic. As Philipp Frank observes, investigating the motion of single particles through a single slit can obtain a description of the pattern of photon strikes on a target screen. However, "the pattern of fringes for two slits is not the superposition of the two patterns for single slits. Hence, there is no law of motion that would determine the trajectory of a single photon and allow us to derive the observed facts that occur when photons pass two slits."[12] Experience in the micro world of sub-atomic particles forces us to reconceptualize some of our most commonplace ideas.
One of the most striking consequences of the new science is that it is not in agreement with the belief of Laplace that an omniscient entity, knowing the initial positions and velocities of all particles in the universe at one time, could predict their positions at any future time. (To paraphrase Laplace's idea, the positions and velocities of all things at any given time depend absolutely on their previous positions and velocities and the absolute laws that govern physical interactions.) Laplace believed that such particles would follow the laws of motion discovered by Newton, but twentieth century physics made it clear that the motions of sub-atomic particles and even some small atoms cannot be predicted by using the laws of Newtonian physics.[12] For instance, most of the orbits for electrons moving around atomic nuclei that are permitted by Newtonian physics are excluded by the new physics. And it is not even clear what the "movement" of a particle such as a photon may be when it is not clear that it "goes through" either one slit or the other, but it is clear that the probability of its arrival at various points on the target screen is a function of its wavelength and of the distance between the slits. Whereas Laplace would expect an omniscient mind to be able to predict with absolute confidence the arrival of a photon at some specific point on the target screen, it turns out that the particle may arrive at one of a great number of points, but that the percentage of particles that arrive at each of such points is determined by the laws of the new physics.​

Now add consciousness to the mix. Then expand beyond the physical to the Spiritual. (Your results may vary. )

 

[Thomas]

Hi Brain — I'll offer an answer from outside that discussion ...

The impression has always been that I am on a general path that will pass through major destinations, but that there are sometimes minor differences in how I reach those destinations - as if my exercise of "Free Will" remains very limited.

Well here you inevitably engage with different spiritual paradigms. In the Christian one, for example, the idea of the 'person' as an autonomous and self-determining entity is paramount: that underscores the whole issue of its Revelation, or its paradigm.

In others, it differs, as I understand it. Islam is often defined as 'submission', although I think philosophical Islam would not agree ... that's more a fundamentalist attitude.

Buddhism, again as I understand it, treats the person as something of a chimeric or transient phenomena ... hopefully others more informed will come in with more precise definitions.

The point is, however, that as I view it, the person never loses his or her free will, that remains always, but they do become more directed, as Virtual Cliff points out ... it's not that freedom or choice is restricted, rather the options are fewer because you're more certain of what you're aiming for.

I treat intuition as a powerful spiritual signal - like being tapped into the universe. I feel obliged to obey my intuition, because it is right. However, in doing so, it's as if I'm giving up my "Free Will" - because the only choice is a Hobson's Choice - I must obey. Why? To make my life easier, or to fulfill a higher purpose?

Here I would disagree, but here is the paradox of the human person, and a certain Christian, whose feast we celebrate today, sums it up nicely:
"I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-24)

Not preaching, but if you'll allow the terminology, I really I think, in his own words, he puts the problem nicely.

If we tap into the universe, then we have a sense of the real, the true, the beautiful ... but then why ever do we still entertain any other option? Because we will trade that to savour a sense of absolute self-determination ... why do we, when faced with a choice and know instinctively the right way to go, go a different way, everything turns to a crock and we say "I knew I shouldn't have done that!"

Also, on Free Will in general - if we presume for a moment it exists, then I don't think most people use it in most situations, but instead run on a dimmed version which is driven by routine and choices based on routine, because it is easier and simpler to. After all, if you exert Free Will in any individual moment, there are a huge myriad of options you could follow.

A listen to a programme a while ago on BBC radio, in which the scientist talking, with great reservation, said that after experiments the implication of the data was that most of the 'decisions' we make are actually determined by the unconscious and put into action before we think about it — we're talking microsecond measurements of neural activity — a crass example is that point when you're driving when you realise you've no memory of the last few miles, did I drive through a red light? Did I do this? that? ... obviously we're on auto, as it were, not paying attention, but still conscious enough to see the lights, avoid pedestrians, etc. The point is, even when we think we're consciously driving — that is paying attention — it seems the lights change and the unconscious initiates the action before we say,'light changed, gotta stop'.

The conscious mind makes bigger decisions, he seemed to think, like shall I go to work, throw a sickie ... the conscious plans, the unconscious takes care of the detail.

For example, I am sat here typing. If I stop, there are so many decisions available - not so much a decision between a couple of decisions based on experience, biological programming, and perceptual sets, as much as decisions I can create. Do I want to twitch a part of my body? If so, what part? There are a variety of objects on my desk - shall I pick one up and use one? In a normal manner? In some other manner? Shall I stand up, jump up, hop around the room? Apparently any of us has the Free Will to make such decisions, and yet many of these choices may some odd at best, or schizophrenic at worst.

And many are pre-programmed because that's the kind of thing we do ... there's a number of things I do, walking round the house when no-one's looking, that I won't embarrass myself mentioning ... why do I do that? There's no need, no reason ... free will then? I don't think so. I do wonder if I'll ever grow up, however ...

In that case, perhaps it can be said that normally we have very little use of Free Will in life under ordinary circumstances, and practice only a very diminished form.

I tend to agree.

In which case, if my intuition says to do something and I feel compelled to follow it, then does that mean that the best use of Free Will is to subjugate it in the first place to a perceived higher process?

No, I don't think so ... because the choice to follow that intention or not is an act of free will. The very paying attention to intuition is an act of the will ... maybe not a huge battle of conscience (which is when free will comes into the spotlight) but a disposition of the will itself.

Free will is too often invoked only in the moral dimension, when the choice is stark, and the path uncertain, but the spiritual path is closed to the uncertain will, and any moral dimension is subsequent to that first choice ... let doubt in, and it evaporates in an instant.

Maybe you're lucky, and tuned to that path by nature and circumstance (nature and nurture, another chestnut) ... but just staying tuned is an act of will, and any instrument that is not used goes out of tune ... it's a tension that requires work and effort, and that's an act of will.

Use it or lose it, as they say.

Say you had a thing for music, a natural ability to plonk out a tune on the piano ... does that mean you're destined for the Albert Hall? No. What it says is you've got to work at the gifts you've got to maximise their potential. And at some point that will require you to make a dedication to that ... Ayrton Senna used to believe his driving ability was a God-given gift, that sometimes he was driving beyond his capacity ... and the athlete in Chariots of Fire said the same thing, running was his calling ... now life looks easy for them, from our viewpoint, they're doing what they want to do, and are good at it. They're probably selfish and self-absorbed about it ... but whatever gifts they might have been born with ... they worked at it harder than the next guy, which was why they won.

They're doing what they want to do, because they don't want to do anything else. 'Freedom is slavery to the path of your own choosing' someone once said, very wise, but he fell off the path bigtime. Another story.

Me? With what I know? All that Catlick stuff 'n' all ... I should be a saint by now, walking round with a corona that diverts aeroplanes at 35,000 feet ... but I ain't ... and that's down to nobody else but me.

Any gifts the universe dolls out is for the benefit of the universe, not the individual.

In life, this one and the next, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Oh, and free will ... you have to work at that too. I think some think it's just part of the program, and I'm willing to argue those who deny it, haven't got it.

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

Hi Brain — I'll offer an answer from outside that discussion ...


Well here you inevitably engage with different spiritual paradigms. In the Christian one, for example, the idea of the 'person' as an autonomous and self-determining entity is paramount: that underscores the whole issue of its Revelation, or its paradigm.

In others, it differs, as I understand it. Islam is often defined as 'submission', although I think philosophical Islam would not agree ... that's more a fundamentalist attitude.

Buddhism, again as I understand it, treats the person as something of a chimeric or transient phenomena ... hopefully others more informed will come in with more precise definitions.

The point is, however, that as I view it, the person never loses his or her free will, that remains always, but they do become more directed, as Virtual Cliff points out ... it's not that freedom or choice is restricted, rather the options are fewer because you're more certain of what you're aiming for.


Here I would disagree, but here is the paradox of the human person, and a certain Christian, whose feast we celebrate today, sums it up nicely:
"I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-24)

Not preaching, but if you'll allow the terminology, I really I think, in his own words, he puts the problem nicely.

If we tap into the universe, then we have a sense of the real, the true, the beautiful ... but then why ever do we still entertain any other option? Because we will trade that to savour a sense of absolute self-determination ... why do we, when faced with a choice and know instinctively the right way to go, go a different way, everything turns to a crock and we say "I knew I shouldn't have done that!"


A listen to a programme a while ago on BBC radio, in which the scientist talking, with great reservation, said that after experiments the implication of the data was that most of the 'decisions' we make are actually determined by the unconscious and put into action before we think about it — we're talking microsecond measurements of neural activity — a crass example is that point when you're driving when you realise you've no memory of the last few miles, did I drive through a red light? Did I do this? that? ... obviously we're on auto, as it were, not paying attention, but still conscious enough to see the lights, avoid pedestrians, etc. The point is, even when we think we're consciously driving — that is paying attention — it seems the lights change and the unconscious initiates the action before we say,'light changed, gotta stop'.

The conscious mind makes bigger decisions, he seemed to think, like shall I go to work, throw a sickie ... the conscious plans, the unconscious takes care of the detail.


And many are pre-programmed because that's the kind of thing we do ... there's a number of things I do, walking round the house when no-one's looking, that I won't embarrass myself mentioning ... why do I do that? There's no need, no reason ... free will then? I don't think so. I do wonder if I'll ever grow up, however ...


I tend to agree.


No, I don't think so ... because the choice to follow that intention or not is an act of free will. The very paying attention to intuition is an act of the will ... maybe not a huge battle of conscience (which is when free will comes into the spotlight) but a disposition of the will itself.

Free will is too often invoked only in the moral dimension, when the choice is stark, and the path uncertain, but the spiritual path is closed to the uncertain will, and any moral dimension is subsequent to that first choice ... let doubt in, and it evaporates in an instant.

Maybe you're lucky, and tuned to that path by nature and circumstance (nature and nurture, another chestnut) ... but just staying tuned is an act of will, and any instrument that is not used goes out of tune ... it's a tension that requires work and effort, and that's an act of will.

Use it or lose it, as they say.

Say you had a thing for music, a natural ability to plonk out a tune on the piano ... does that mean you're destined for the Albert Hall? No. What it says is you've got to work at the gifts you've got to maximise their potential. And at some point that will require you to make a dedication to that ... Ayrton Senna used to believe his driving ability was a God-given gift, that sometimes he was driving beyond his capacity ... and the athlete in Chariots of Fire said the same thing, running was his calling ... now life looks easy for them, from our viewpoint, they're doing what they want to do, and are good at it. They're probably selfish and self-absorbed about it ... but whatever gifts they might have been born with ... they worked at it harder than the next guy, which was why they won.

They're doing what they want to do, because they don't want to do anything else. 'Freedom is slavery to the path of your own choosing' someone once said, very wise, but he fell off the path bigtime. Another story.

Me? With what I know? All that Catlick stuff 'n' all ... I should be a saint by now, walking round with a corona that diverts aeroplanes at 35,000 feet ... but I ain't ... and that's down to nobody else but me.

Any gifts the universe dolls out is for the benefit of the universe, not the individual.

In life, this one and the next, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Oh, and free will ... you have to work at that too. I think some think it's just part of the program, and I'm willing to argue those who deny it, haven't got it.

Thomas

Thich Nhat Hanh equates mindfulness as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[iBrian]

Interesting you make that point, Thomas - I well regarded a similar point you made on another thread which inspired me to start this one:

The first thing you have to do is get rid of this 'in charge of everything' idea, as if God is a micromanager who has to make every decision that's ever made. I suggest this is your limitation, that you assume that God cannot create something that is free and self-determining.

God is over all — but He allows His creation to act on its own account, even though, by so doing, He knows His creature might make the wrong choice, and moreover an evil choice ... but then that's the price of the greatest gift He can give His creation, that it enjoys the freedom, as much as it can, that He enjoys.

Read Scripture this way, and you'll see that the whole of Salvation History is God trying to lead man back on the right track ... not by making every decision for him, but by invitation ... even the Ten Commandments are an invitation, if you read them in context.

It's a fascinating insight, and one I'm surprised to read because it's often difficult to make real sense from the multi-layered allegory of the Genesis account, hence why I wanted to avoid discussing this from the Christian perspective, but from a general one.

I guess this all seems to boil down to - in a very simplified way:

1. There is a basic choice between the Divine and Animal (or, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil, Vorlons and Shadows, etc ) - the latter being drives which are primarily biological and self-interested, and we are perfectly free to choose because those drives do already exist.

2. And yet there is another choice of the former, one far more difficult to make, firstly, because it's often difficult to be aware that such a choice even exists (lack of mindfulness, perhaps, from seattlegal's post above), and secondly, because the immediate benefit to a biologically driven animal may be more difficult to discern.

Interesting...

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

1. There is a basic choice between the Divine and Animal (or, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil, Vorlons and Shadows, etc ) - the latter being drives which are primarily biological and self-interested, and we are perfectly free to choose because those drives do already exist.

Just to clarify, I was not espousing the Gnostic position where material=evil and spiritual=good. I was only saying that in order to know yourself you must untangle it from your material drives.

As for the Law, as Thomas has said, often misrepresented as an autocratic set of requirements, really more like a book of helpful advice on how to live in peace and harmony. You can say to your son (as I did once) "Don't try to eat chillis out of the jar", but he can still do it if he wants (as my son did!).

 

[earl]

Well, as to free will or conscious choice, I'd think even a more traditional Christian when accounting for "God's will" in the choosing is aware that such choosing is always some combination of the active and the passive; that is the active is the thinkin' part which involves whatever spiritual standards and other reflective devices one relies upon and the passive is the receptive part whereby preceding and/or following the active reflection one sets aside that aspect of mind to "wait on the Lord" for further inspiration. Intuition is typically found in a passive, receptive state. My wife is quite intuitive and relies of course on both aspects of decision-making but her intuition has never steered her wrong. In fact, whenever she has acted against her intuition, it has turned out the worse for her. Of course, as to how intuition works or what it even is, the explanations will vary greatly dependent upon the explanatory system one employs. earl

 

[nativeastral]

thought you might be interested in reading about Radhakrishnan, Indian president 62-67, who placed great stock in the primacy of intuition

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975) [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[Eudaimonist]

Also, on Free Will in general - if we presume for a moment it exists, then I don't think most people use it in most situations, but instead run on a dimmed version which is driven by routine and choices based on routine, because it is easier and simpler to.

Yes, I agree. Many people seem to live their lives on "autopilot". These people have a dimmed awareness of life issues. Raising one's awareness takes effort, and many people are averse to effort. Expending this effort is perhaps the most fundamental form of will.

As a computer programmer, I am well acquainted with this process. When I get back to work on a Monday morning, I have to expend effort to raise my level of awareness of programming issues to the point (or near to the point) that I had on Friday afternoon. This is perceived as effort, but is very necessary to being effective at my work on Monday. It is sooo easy to slack, but I'd like a raise instead.

In that case, perhaps it can be said that normally we have very little use of Free Will in life under ordinary circumstances, and practice only a very diminished form.

I don't think that using free will means that one must be aware of all the possible courses of action one might take. It is rather a raised awareness of the issues pertaining to the situation one is in, and one's needs.

Are you living mindfully? Or mechanically?

Nathaniel Branden's book The Art of Living Consciously has much to say on this issue.

In which case, if my intuition says to do something and I feel compelled to follow it, then does that mean that the best use of Free Will is to subjugate it in the first place to a perceived higher process?

No, it would be to ask yourself: "is my intuition correct in this case?" It might be! But reason is valuable as a reality-check when you have the time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seattlegal]

Well, as to free will or conscious choice, I'd think even a more traditional Christian when accounting for "God's will" in the choosing is aware that such choosing is always some combination of the active and the passive; that is the active is the thinkin' part which involves whatever spiritual standards and other reflective devices one relies upon and the passive is the receptive part whereby preceding and/or following the active reflection one sets aside that aspect of mind to "wait on the Lord" for further inspiration. Intuition is typically found in a passive, receptive state. My wife is quite intuitive and relies of course on both aspects of decision-making but her intuition has never steered her wrong. In fact, whenever she has acted against her intuition, it has turned out the worse for her. Of course, as to how intuition works or what it even is, the explanations will vary greatly dependent upon the explanatory system one employs. earl

Would you speculate that intuition is something your subconscious mind understands, but your conscious mind doesn't, whereas you can consciously learn something, but it might not "sink in" until your subconscious mind understands it? Wouldn't "free-will" require understanding/mastery by both the conscious mind and the subconscious mind in order to truly be Spiritual free-will? (Having the law written on your heart sort of thing?)

 

[Dondi]

Forgetting about 'Divine Will' for a moment, it occurred to me that in what we might considered individual free will is actually limited to the collective free will of a society. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" (Spock 4:28). Point being that when we consider the circumstance of our actions we take into account the consequences. There are laws against speeding, and anytime we put our foot to the pedal we are consciously telling ourselves that the risk is favorable to do so. But we also know it's wrong. We know there is a chance that we will get caught and ticketed. But we reason that our skill in driving at excessive speeds will be no more dangerous than driving at the required speed limit, so we tell ourselves. But the reason for the speed limit being there is because somewhere, sometime, somebody got hurt, because of excessive speeding. Most traffic laws are written in blood.

Now there are a couple of options on our part:

1) We can obey the speed limit - thus limited the danger.
2) We can continue to speed, hoping we don't get caught. But...

...these scenerios then come into play
a) we don't get caught.
b) we get caught and given a warning.
c) we get caught and given a ticket.
d) we get into an accident.

These scenerios depend on factor's outside our own agenda. The cop on the corner might be busy picking up a donut crumb on the floor of the cruiser's cab and might not see us. Or he might see us and ignore us, figuring we weren't going too fast. Or he might just flick on his lights and pursue. Whatever the cop does is beyond our free will.

Multiply the production of free wills of everyone in your community and your can see you have limitations. You can't just cut in line at the grocery store because you're in a hurry to get somewhere. Rules of law and etiquette come into play.

 

[citizenzen]

Buddhism, again as I understand it, treats the person as something of a chimeric or transient phenomena ... hopefully others more informed will come in with more precise definitions.

Buddhism views virtually everything as transient, not just the person. But that's beside the point I really want to make here.

The point I REALLY want to make is that most of you people totally over-think this issue.

It doesn't matter where will comes from. Whatever its source, it is manifested through your mind and body. What difference does it make that it comes from God or prom your own desire? What would you change in your life knowing that the source was one or the other?

 

[Dondi]

It doesn't matter where will comes from. Whatever its source, it is manifested through your mind and body. What difference does it make that it comes from God or prom your own desire? What would you change in your life knowing that the source was one or the other?

It does make a difference if you are in a religious tradition that holds one accountable to that particular Deity. Are we responsible for our actions or is God controlling those actions? What does that do in regards to our judgment in the afterlife, and so on?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'll just go out on a limb here and say that I don't think there is such a thing as intuition the way most people think of it. We aren't consciously aware of all of our thought processes. Beneath a "gut feeling" there is a sort of handicapping process going on of which we are only partially aware.

To the OP: In my own life, in retrospect, there seems to have been a element of Providence at work. I have also felt that I was destined for something since I was very young. I've tried to understand these two things, but I find that I can't turn entirely to face myself and see exactly where my narcissism ends and objective reality begins.

Chris

 

[citizenzen]

It does make a difference if you are in a religious tradition that holds one accountable to that particular Deity. Are we responsible for our actions or is God controlling those actions? What does that do in regards to our judgment in the afterlife, and so on?

How can you be held accountable to a deity if the deity is responsible for your actions? That's like saying the puppet master holds the puppet accountable for it movements!

If you are held accountable, then it must be because you are accountable.

Otherwise, after you died and went to meet God, He'd say something like, "Remember when I got you drunk and made you drive like a maniac through that crowded sidewalk café and kill those ten innocent people? Man! What was I thinking? Now get into Heaven, you little scamp. And let that be a lesson to you!"

Or even worse, you die and meet God and he says, "Remember when I made you abandon your wife and eight children to run off to Costa Rica with your secretary? Well, I'm sending you to Hell for that. Maybe next time you'll think twice before doing what I tell you!"

Huh?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think I have ever felt destined for anything specifically. Sure, I have my "callings", such as to spend time thinking about philosophy and science, and doing computer programming, because I deeply enjoy such things. But I have never had a sense that this would put me in a particular place at a particular time in my life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PandaMentionalBeing]

How can you be held accountable to a deity if the deity is responsible for your actions? That's like saying the puppet master holds the puppet accountable for it movements!

If you are held accountable, then it must be because you are accountable.

Otherwise, after you died and went to meet God, He'd say something like, "Remember when I got you drunk and made you drive like a maniac through that crowded sidewalk café and kill those ten innocent people? Man! What was I thinking? Now get into Heaven, you little scamp. And let that be a lesson to you!"

Or even worse, you die and meet God and he says, "Remember when I made you abandon your wife and eight children to run off to Costa Rica with your secretary? Well, I'm sending you to Hell for that. Maybe next time you'll think twice before doing what I tell you!"

Huh?

Lol.

This is a great thread.

I've always related mindfulness to divine will, as stated in many of the previous posts here. The insight on this forum is so solidifying. Settling, to say the least.

 

[Postmaster]

I dont think it was ever intended for us to know the source.