[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the absurdity
 of the label atheist. The only place I have seen the word used was 
 by religious people as a pejorative.  This writer was clearly 
 reacting against these writers.
 
 Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is much like the 
 term racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK member, but 
 there is no term to identify those who fight racism.  Because not 
 believing in racial superiority is not a characteristic of any one 
 group.

The problem with 'atheist' is that it has gathered
about itself *subliminal* pejorative meanings. Like
the word 'cult.' Look at the dictionary definition
of it, and see if you can find anything that even
hints at the negative reaction most people have been
trained to have to the term 'cult' when they hear it
these days:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

'Atheist' is a loaded phrase, a word that is supposed 
to *connote* bad things about the person it is applied
to. And you are correct, Stu, that that loading
came from the ranks of organized religion.

As I've said before, I prefer the term non-theist.

 Free will does not necessarily follow from faith.  

And is antithetical to the dogma of many faiths,
including the not the doer dogma of the TMO. If
you ain't the doer, someone/something else is. If
you *can't* do, then you live in a predetermined
universe. And yet, these people claim that by 
*doing* TM they are making advancements in their
evolution. Go figure.

 Augustine, Calvin,
 and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for the doctrine of
 pre-determination.  

Bringing it all back home, on this forum, we have 
several examples of predetermination. It is possible
to predict what their posts are going to be like and
who and what they are going to spend them putting
down with uncanny accuracy. Percentage-wise, there
is almost no variance from week to week. Curiously,
most of those posters are strong TM supporters, who
have been practicing (or claiming to practice) that
technique for decades.

Then you have the posting atheists, who mix it up
and who post about *different* things. You can't
really predict what they're going to post about or
who they'll support or who they'll rag on. The pre-
determinists even criticize *this* as inconsistency
on the part of the posting atheists. On the whole, 
these posters are NOT true-blue TMers.

Therefore, I suggest that, based on the semi-scientific
experiment that is Fairfield Life, TM tends to create
predeterminists (those who consider themselves bound 
by God or by His Holy Euphemism the Laws Of Nature) to 
keep doing the same old things over and over and over, 
and that a stepping back from TM tends to produce 
a-theists, those who do not consider themselves bound 
by any deity or cosmic laws or sense of what they 
should do or shouldn't do, and who can think for 
themselves.

:-)  :-)  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

stu writes snipped:
In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by people regardless of
their proclivity towards faith.  However, I am ever suspicious of
anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with faith.  If they are
willing to accept one notion without adequate evidence what then of
their other notions?  Sounds to me like a lot of guesswork.

TomT:
In my experience relating Free Will and awakening I have come to see
that Awakening is absolutely FREE. But it will Cost you every concept
you have about it. Secondly it WILL happen because it is who you are
and all you do is get to see that which has always been right under
your nose. As one of my friends likes to say You'll find IT in the
last  
place that you don't look.
Tom

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote:
 
  Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the
  absurdity of the label atheist. The only place I have seen
  the word used was by religious people as a pejorative.  This 
  writer was clearly reacting against these writers.
  
  Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is much
  like the term racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a
  KKK member, but there is no term to identify those who
  fight racism.  Because not believing in racial superiority
  is not a characteristic of any one group.
 
 The problem with 'atheist' is that it has gathered
 about itself *subliminal* pejorative meanings. Like
 the word 'cult.'

There's also a very significant difference, however:
Very few people are willing to apply the term cult
to the groups to which they belong, or to call themselves
cultists; whereas many who actively disbelieve in God
not only have no problem applying it to themselves, but
apply it with pride, including two of the three writers
(Dawkins and Hitchens) being criticized in the piece
from which I quoted that Stu was commenting on.

snip
 'Atheist' is a loaded phrase, a word that is supposed 
 to *connote* bad things about the person it is applied
 to. And you are correct, Stu, that that loading
 came from the ranks of organized religion.

Just as positive loading comes from the ranks of the
atheists themselves. You might want to look, for 
example, at the site of the organization American
Atheists. Click on Local Groups on the menu at the
left for a list of several dozen affiliated groups
across the country, many with Atheist/s/ism in the
title.

How many groups are there that proudly proclaim as 
their goal the advancement of cultism and use the
term Cult in their titles?

snip
  Free will does not necessarily follow from faith.  
 
 And is antithetical to the dogma of many faiths,
 including the not the doer dogma of the TMO.

Stu's comment was a non sequitur to the view expressed
in the quote, as is Barry's response here. Nobody
claimed free will *necessarily* follows from faith,
Eastern-type faiths in particular.

The point in the quote was that the Western concept
of free will originates from Judeo-Christianity.
Free will is, of course, a basic tenet of both Judaism
and Christianity. Westerners who promote the notion of
free will as if it were *opposed* to faith are simply
ignorant of its origins.

snip
 Then you have the posting atheists, who mix it up
 and who post about *different* things. You can't
 really predict what they're going to post about or
 who they'll support or who they'll rag on. The pre-
 determinists even criticize *this* as inconsistency
 on the part of the posting atheists.

Um, no, that isn't where the inconsistency lies.

 On the whole, 
 these posters are NOT true-blue TMers.
 
 Therefore, I suggest that, based on the semi-scientific
 experiment that is Fairfield Life, TM tends to create
 predeterminists (those who consider themselves bound 
 by God or by His Holy Euphemism the Laws Of Nature) to 
 keep doing the same old things over and over and over, 
 and that a stepping back from TM tends to produce 
 a-theists, those who do not consider themselves bound 
 by any deity or cosmic laws or sense of what they 
 should do or shouldn't do, and who can think for 
 themselves.

The thing is, of course, that a belief in determinism
carries no implications whatsoever for how one should
behave, a point Barry has always been deeply confused
about.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 stu writes snipped:
 In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by people regardless
of
 their proclivity towards faith.  However, I am ever suspicious of
 anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with faith.  If they are
 willing to accept one notion without adequate evidence what then of
 their other notions?  Sounds to me like a lot of guesswork.

 TomT:
 In my experience relating Free Will and awakening I have come to see
 that Awakening is absolutely FREE. But it will Cost you every concept
 you have about it. Secondly it WILL happen because it is who you are
 and all you do is get to see that which has always been right under
 your nose. As one of my friends likes to say You'll find IT in the
 last
 place that you don't look.
 Tom

And what brought you to that place of awakening?

s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
 tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
 
  stu writes snipped:
  In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by people 
regardless
 of
  their proclivity towards faith.  However, I am ever suspicious of
  anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with faith.  If 
they are
  willing to accept one notion without adequate evidence what then 
of
  their other notions?  Sounds to me like a lot of guesswork.
 
  TomT:
  In my experience relating Free Will and awakening I have come to 
see
  that Awakening is absolutely FREE. But it will Cost you every 
concept
  you have about it. Secondly it WILL happen because it is who you 
are
  and all you do is get to see that which has always been right 
under
  your nose. As one of my friends likes to say You'll find IT in 
the
  last
  place that you don't look.
  Tom
 
 And what brought you to that place of awakening?
 
 s.

ruthless dedication to tearing down every concept, until there is 
nothing left; absolute ruthlessness and hunger to find out the 
absolute truth of life. anything less is staying within the lovely 
and seductive grip of illusion- anything else is living a lie, a 
false picture.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Whether or not there is free will depends not on
 belief but on state of consciousness,

I'd say what depends on state of consciousness
is not whether there is or is not free will, but
whether the existence or nonexistence of free
will is even a valid question.

the question of whether there is or
is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on
belief but on state of conscioiusness.

 and any
 understanding of what free will might be that is
 formulated in waking state is necessarily a fiction.  

Total agreement on that point.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[Angela Mailander]

Are you in brahman?  If not, how would you know what's
real or not real in that state or states beyond?




--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela
 Mailander 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Whether or not there is free will depends not on
  belief but on state of consciousness,
 
 I'd say what depends on state of consciousness
 is not whether there is or is not free will, but
 whether the existence or nonexistence of free
 will is even a valid question.
 
 the question of whether there is or
 is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on
 belief but on state of conscioiusness.
 
  and any
  understanding of what free will might be that is
  formulated in waking state is necessarily a
 fiction.  
 
 Total agreement on that point.
 
 
 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Are you in brahman?  If not, how would you know what's
 real or not real in that state or states beyond?

Where exactly did I suggest I knew, Angela?



 --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela
  Mailander 
  mailander111@ wrote:
  
   Whether or not there is free will depends not on
   belief but on state of consciousness,
  
  I'd say what depends on state of consciousness
  is not whether there is or is not free will, but
  whether the existence or nonexistence of free
  will is even a valid question.
  
  the question of whether there is or
  is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on
  belief but on state of conscioiusness.
  
   and any
   understanding of what free will might be that is
   formulated in waking state is necessarily a
  fiction.  
  
  Total agreement on that point.
  
  
  
 
 
 Send instant messages to your online friends 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
 mailander111@ wrote:
 
  Whether or not there is free will depends not on
  belief but on state of consciousness,

 I'd say what depends on state of consciousness
 is not whether there is or is not free will, but
 whether the existence or nonexistence of free
 will is even a valid question.

 the question of whether there is or
 is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on
 belief but on state of conscioiusness.

  and any
  understanding of what free will might be that is
  formulated in waking state is necessarily a fiction.

 Total agreement on that point.


The concept of free will is not so much a state of consciousness but a
political/social question.  The concept of free will in a metaphysical
sense is unprovable.  The question of determinism versus free will turns
on circular logic.  Of course if every action of ours was determined by
the clockwork of the universe there is no way to know if thats true or
not.  Einstein was a great proponent of determinism.  Although he was a
strong believer in determinism, he also believed in the political
importance of freedom of individual expression.

Einstein's notion of free will may be the best starting point.  We know
our thought and actions are determined by a variety of forces outside
our control (and often our consciousness).  Our will is restricted by,
genetics, the structure of language, bodily limitations, perceptions,
political situations, social conventions, duties and so on.  On the
other hand we appear to make choices as best we can within these
restrictions.  We have limited means of expanding freedom of our own
biology.  The extent to which we can broaden the freedom of exercised
will is determined by society.  Hence, Sartres words, Hell is other
people.

As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion of atheism
altogether.  This twisted expression is the fantasy of religious
thinkers and dreamers.  There is no such thing as atheism.  However by
making such a label delusional religious people can attach their own
projections on certain philosophers and thinkers.  We can not generalize
about an individual's mental life based on what they don't believe.  The
universe of not believing is infinite.

However, philosophy has a history and a duty to question beliefs.  The
ongoing dialectic concerning what we believe to be true is not only a
valid path of inquiry but a necessary one.

s.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[Angela Mailander]

Buttsplicer, this is fuccing brilliant--in my opinion,
a phrase they add tirelessly to any statement of such
in China and with mantra-like efficiency--speaking of
techniques that work.  

Now, to my mind, there is freedom of choice, if you're
willing to grant the mathematical and logical
certainty of re-incarnation, while also rejecting the
silly notion of past lives or future lives.  All life
is now.  And in that now-moment (using Eckhart's term)
there is freedom of choice.

Even when reaping lousy karma there is escape.  When
Christ said, Turn the other cheek, he didn't mean
Ask the son-of-a-bitch to lay you flat again.  He
meant something like Turn THAT cheek towards life
that invites what you want instead, now that it's
abundantly clear what you don't want. 

Think of it this way: any life casts a net (moment by
moment) into infinity and draws in a catch.  If you
don't like it, cast your net again.

It is possible even now.  Hell, in Dante's sense (a
very great master, that Dante) is an eternal state,
but that doesn't mean you have to take out eternal
squatter's rights.  The state is there as a form of
Divine mercy (Absolute Compassion), as Blake
recognized, to give a limit of opacity and a limit
of contraction to the individual soul so it doesn't
wander forever in that direction.  You bang your head
against a wall until you realize, this is a wall, this
is not a path.  In other words, until you turn the
other cheek. 

To a being truly in Brahman that means that alternate
universes are yours to realize moment by moment.  a  

  

  

 



--- Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela
 Mailander
  mailander111@ wrote:
  
   Whether or not there is free will depends not on
   belief but on state of consciousness,
 
  I'd say what depends on state of consciousness
  is not whether there is or is not free will, but
  whether the existence or nonexistence of free
  will is even a valid question.
 
  the question of whether there is or
  is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on
  belief but on state of conscioiusness.
 
   and any
   understanding of what free will might be that is
   formulated in waking state is necessarily a
 fiction.
 
  Total agreement on that point.
 
 
 The concept of free will is not so much a state of
 consciousness but a
 political/social question.  The concept of free will
 in a metaphysical
 sense is unprovable.  The question of determinism
 versus free will turns
 on circular logic.  Of course if every action of
 ours was determined by
 the clockwork of the universe there is no way to
 know if thats true or
 not.  Einstein was a great proponent of determinism.
  Although he was a
 strong believer in determinism, he also believed in
 the political
 importance of freedom of individual expression.
 
 Einstein's notion of free will may be the best
 starting point.  We know
 our thought and actions are determined by a variety
 of forces outside
 our control (and often our consciousness).  Our will
 is restricted by,
 genetics, the structure of language, bodily
 limitations, perceptions,
 political situations, social conventions, duties and
 so on.  On the
 other hand we appear to make choices as best we can
 within these
 restrictions.  We have limited means of expanding
 freedom of our own
 biology.  The extent to which we can broaden the
 freedom of exercised
 will is determined by society.  Hence, Sartres
 words, Hell is other
 people.
 
 As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion
 of atheism
 altogether.  This twisted expression is the fantasy
 of religious
 thinkers and dreamers.  There is no such thing as
 atheism.  However by
 making such a label delusional religious people can
 attach their own
 projections on certain philosophers and thinkers. 
 We can not generalize
 about an individual's mental life based on what they
 don't believe.  The
 universe of not believing is infinite.
 
 However, philosophy has a history and a duty to
 question beliefs.  The
 ongoing dialectic concerning what we believe to be
 true is not only a
 valid path of inquiry but a necessary one.
 
 s.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The concept of free will in a metaphysical
 sense is unprovable. The question of determinism versus
 free will turns on circular logic.

Exactly.

snip 
 As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion of atheism
 altogether.  This twisted expression is the fantasy of 
 religious thinkers and dreamers.  There is no such thing as 
 atheism.

You might want to make that argument to those who
vigorously asssert they are atheists.

  However by
 making such a label delusional religious people can attach
 their own projections on certain philosophers and thinkers.

Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer
is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*.

And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself,
so both parts of your formula fall apart.

The interesting part of that piece to me was his
point that free will, at least in Western countries,
is a notion that originated with religion. Western
secularists (including some on this very forum)
tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical
to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of
faith.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote:
snip
 Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer
 is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*.

 And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself,
 so both parts of your formula fall apart.


Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the absurdity of
the label atheist.  The only place I have seen the word used was by
religious people as a pejorative.  This writer was clearly reacting
against these writers.

Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is much like the term
racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK member, but there is no
term to identify those who fight racism.  Because not believing in
racial superiority is not a characteristic of any one group.

If you really want I can send you some links.  I understand this article
is not your view anyway.  I just wanted to point out this fact. 
Incidentally, there are atheist organizations but the writers being
discussed have criticized these organizations for the same misuse of
terms.

 The interesting part of that piece to me was his
 point that free will, at least in Western countries,
 is a notion that originated with religion. Western
 secularists (including some on this very forum)
 tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical
 to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of
 faith.

Free will does not necessarily follow from faith.  Augustine, Calvin,
and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for the doctrine of
pre-determination.  Their interpretation of the bible suggests that God
has chosen who will receive salvation.  We can not override god's will. 
In the eastern religions pre-determination is an integral part of the
philosophy, with some schools arguing that enlightenment is the only
case when a person exercises there freedom as they break the wheel of
birth and rebirth.  And even within these schools many times
enlightenment is not a product of free will.  Instead the Dharma fully
overrides freewill.

If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was Thomas Aquinas who
proposed the terminology of free will.  And it has become a dominant
feature of the modern church.  The concept did its part to help create
the Magna Carta and other doctrines moving towards recognizing
individual rights.

Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree on the question of
free will as well.  However, I am asserting that the modern approach to
free will is better explained in the context of freedom of individual
expression.  This takes it out of the realm of metaphysics and puts it
in the more practical realm of politics.  Sartre best illustrated this
in Being and Nothingness when he questioned why some Frenchmen would
not resist the Nazi invasion during WWII.  He felt that his neighbors
who went along with the Nazis abandoned their authentic existentialist
selves and the distinctively human gift of free will.

In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by people regardless of
their proclivity towards faith.  However, I am ever suspicious of
anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with faith.  If they are
willing to accept one notion without adequate evidence what then of
their other notions?  Sounds to me like a lot of guesswork.

s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote:
 snip
  Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer
  is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*.
 
  And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself,
  so both parts of your formula fall apart.
 
 Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the
 absurdity of the label atheist.  The only place I have seen
 the word used was by religious people as a pejorative.  This
 writer was clearly reacting against these writers.

Stu, do a Google search for the phrase Why I Am an
Atheist, see what you come up with.

Also see:

http://tinyurl.com/yqodc3
(Amazon page)

http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n

(Note that the American Atheist Alliance's top honor
is the Richard Dawkins Award; and that he has started
something called the Out Campaign, which features
wearing T-shirts with a scarlet A for Atheist.)

Harris is the only one of the three to have real
problems with the term atheist.

snip
  The interesting part of that piece to me was his
  point that free will, at least in Western countries,
  is a notion that originated with religion. Western
  secularists (including some on this very forum)
  tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical
  to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of
  faith.
 
 Free will does not necessarily follow from faith.

Not what I said.

  Augustine, Calvin,
 and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for the
 doctrine of pre-determination.  Their interpretation of the
 bible suggests that God has chosen who will receive salvation.
 We can not override god's will.

Not the same as arguing that we don't have free will.

 In the eastern religions

As I said, at least in Western countries...

 If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was Thomas
 Aquinas who proposed the terminology of free will.  And it has
 become a dominant feature of the modern church.  The concept did
 its part to help create the Magna Carta and other doctrines
 moving towards recognizing individual rights.

Exactly.

 Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree on the
 question of free will as well.

Of course not, never said they did. Not the point, in
any case.

snip

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism

[Angela Mailander]

Buttsplicer, once again I bow to your ass.  



--- Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu
 buttsplicer@ wrote:
 snip
  Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The
 writer
  is addressing people *who call themselves
 atheists*.
 
  And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself,
  so both parts of your formula fall apart.
 
 
 Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments
 about the absurdity of
 the label atheist.  The only place I have seen the
 word used was by
 religious people as a pejorative.  This writer was
 clearly reacting
 against these writers.
 
 Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is
 much like the term
 racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK
 member, but there is no
 term to identify those who fight racism.  Because
 not believing in
 racial superiority is not a characteristic of any
 one group.
 
 If you really want I can send you some links.  I
 understand this article
 is not your view anyway.  I just wanted to point out
 this fact. 
 Incidentally, there are atheist organizations but
 the writers being
 discussed have criticized these organizations for
 the same misuse of
 terms.
 
  The interesting part of that piece to me was his
  point that free will, at least in Western
 countries,
  is a notion that originated with religion. Western
  secularists (including some on this very forum)
  tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical
  to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of
  faith.
 
 Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. 
 Augustine, Calvin,
 and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for
 the doctrine of
 pre-determination.  Their interpretation of the
 bible suggests that God
 has chosen who will receive salvation.  We can not
 override god's will. 
 In the eastern religions pre-determination is an
 integral part of the
 philosophy, with some schools arguing that
 enlightenment is the only
 case when a person exercises there freedom as they
 break the wheel of
 birth and rebirth.  And even within these schools
 many times
 enlightenment is not a product of free will. 
 Instead the Dharma fully
 overrides freewill.
 
 If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was
 Thomas Aquinas who
 proposed the terminology of free will.  And it has
 become a dominant
 feature of the modern church.  The concept did its
 part to help create
 the Magna Carta and other doctrines moving towards
 recognizing
 individual rights.
 
 Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree
 on the question of
 free will as well.  However, I am asserting that the
 modern approach to
 free will is better explained in the context of
 freedom of individual
 expression.  This takes it out of the realm of
 metaphysics and puts it
 in the more practical realm of politics.  Sartre
 best illustrated this
 in Being and Nothingness when he questioned why
 some Frenchmen would
 not resist the Nazi invasion during WWII.  He felt
 that his neighbors
 who went along with the Nazis abandoned their
 authentic existentialist
 selves and the distinctively human gift of free
 will.
 
 In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by
 people regardless of
 their proclivity towards faith.  However, I am ever
 suspicious of
 anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with
 faith.  If they are
 willing to accept one notion without adequate
 evidence what then of
 their other notions?  Sounds to me like a lot of
 guesswork.
 
 s.
 
 
 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com