"Free will was given to man by god."

[Lacewing]

But Nick, I'm very open and happy and spiritual and unafraid! So what's wrong with that?

If that is your goal there is nothing wrong.

It's not a goal, it's just what I am. Can you understand that?

If you believe this and it satisfies your need for meaning, who am I to argue.

Notice how you project that what I'm saying is either a goal or a belief. Are the views that YOU talk about goals or beliefs for you? Why do you minimalize what I say with these projections of yours, rather than acknowledging how irresponsible and dishonest you are for projecting inaccurate ideas onto people, that you wouldn't assign to yourself???

I know by experience how difficult it is to be open and to become able to use fear as opposed to having it use me. I know how spiritual energy is confused with emotional energy and why people confuse them. I know how relative happiness is and to be happy and considered normal in a world that is crumbliing around me.

Do you think these ideas about your experience make you an expert on judging other people? We all have our extraordinary paths and experiences. You and your ideas are NOT some ultimate model for the Universe.

It doesn't seem anything to be happy about But again if it satisfies your need for meaning, go for it.

And here you go again with your dishonest characterizations. Who said anything about being happy ABOUT a crumbling world? People can be happy DESPITE a crumbling world. And they can manifest positive changes because they see beyond (and more than) the crumbling world. Whereas, someone who builds a platform on doom and gloom and condemnation of everyone around them, is ADDICTED to the crumbling world vision, and they feed into it in order to prove themselves "right".

Simone Weil wasn't happy. She cried in frustration at the reality of world hunger. She wasn't normal. Happy people are normal and unable to experience it assuring that world hunger will always be a reality

You seriously don't think that happy people care about world hunger, and cry for the suffering of our world? Must we all be bent over sobbing over horrors all the time in order for you to think that we're conscious and compassionate? How can you be so narrow and shallow in your assessments?

Lately in conversations with people, the topic of selective compassion has come up a few times: how there are people who claim to be champions for some group of "downtrodden", yet those champions will be rude and hateful to everyone else and accuse everyone else of being the enemy. It is a self-glorifying need of such "champions". They cannot acknowledge all the awareness and compassion and love and value in everyone else for that would invalidate their skewed platform.

Why don't you recognize such qualities and consciousness in other people, Nick? Why do you project falseness onto them instead? Why is your need so great, that you must do that?

[Belinda]

Immanuel, even a tiny sliver of will that is free of all constraints is enough to qualify as 'Free Will'.

Not "all," B. You can, for example, be constrained by the needs of your family, the practicalities of the moment, the limits of your finances, your age and health, and so on...but none of that will be sufficient to make you not free. You are still free to choose what you do, given all those things.

So which constraint is not a caused constraint? Choosing is not using Free Will, choosing is selecting one's preferred option.

The problem about the abuse of girls in care in Manchester, England,

I thought perhaps you were speaking of Rotherham. There are many such cases, of course.

Yes, that one too. The Manchester one has come to light since then.

...was like the problem with abuse by priests. The institutions had become self- serving.

No, the priests were self-serving. What they did had no "institutional" function, nor did the institution prompt them to do it. The institution's fault was trying to cover up their misdeeds after the fact.

The bad behaviour of the priests is one thing but the cover up by the church authority is another, worse, problem as the Church facilitated criminals to continue abusing.When the organisation becomes more important than individuals that is when the organisation is worshipped as an idol. You are right, evasive bishops were serving not themselves but their god, the organisation.

There is no way to stop institutions becoming self-serving other than by public scrutiny by people who serve individuals not institutions.

"Institutions" have no consciousness, no conscience, no moral awareness, and no ears to hear. We can whine all day about their "institutiona" prejudices and faults, and it will change nothing. Only individuals have those things, and only individuals can hold the individuals who do evil to account. And there is nothing so effective, in reforming institutions, as to cut out of the herd those individuals who have been hiding their wickedness with the institution, and make them publicly accountable.

I agree about the nature of institutions. I disagree with your remedy. George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury withheld information from the police about a criminal priest the late Bishop Ball for if I remember right fifteen years, and George Carey has at this time a seat in the House of Lords. Social class divisions are real in England.

There will always be sinners and evil men however many we imprison there will always be some other bad people to take their place. What we can do is ensure powerful authorities lack the power by sacrificing powerless victims to save their own organisations .

The priests who did what they did should be in jail...every one of them...since that is the limit of what the law allows. And the institution that shielded them should be exposed, and then reformed or shut down.

I agree.

Blaming is no use for serving individuals' welfare and crime prevention; what is needed is knowledge of causes and effects, specifically causes of crimes.

Blaming is exactly what's needed. Blaming, and holding accountable, that is. It is the very fact that they can hide in an institution, and never be personally called to account, that makes individuals bold to do evil.

I do , personally, blame the powerful for victimising the weak. However my anger is useless and harms only me. I need to seek ways to curb the bad behaviour of the powerful and one way is to understand why human organisations get to be huge evil gods.

Try it: tell somebody, "Whatever you do in your role in institution X, you will personally answer for." Just see how happy they are to cross line after that.

But they are told that, Immanuel. The law tells them that ever since Magna Carta curbed the powers of the monarch. The barons of modern times have accumulated so much power for themselves that sometimes even the police are part of their establishments.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, even a tiny sliver of will that is free of all constraints is enough to qualify as 'Free Will'.

Not "all," B. You can, for example, be constrained by the needs of your family, the practicalities of the moment, the limits of your finances, your age and health, and so on...but none of that will be sufficient to make you not free. You are still free to choose what you do, given all those things.

So which constraint is not a caused constraint?

"Caused constraint"? I was not speaking of the constraints, but of the chooser. The constraints may indeed be products of prior causes; but that does nothing to limit what the chooser can do as a result. A poor man may choose to be resentful, or grateful for what he does have. That's his choice, given him despite the constraints on his income. The choice is still completely free: nobody MAKES him choose the one over the other.

Choosing is not using Free Will,

If that were true, we could not speak of "choosing" at all. For one has no actual "choice" entirely devoid of limiting conditions...not one, in one's entire lifetime. But one is always free to choose one's reactions and disposition, given the circumstances one has.

...was like the problem with abuse by priests. The institutions had become self- serving.

You are right, evasive bishops were serving not themselves but their god, the organisation.

Perhaps they were protecting the organization itself; but more likely, they were just protecting themselves, and trying to keep the prestige they get by remaining above critique within the organization.

Social class divisions are real in England.

Yeah, I know. It's kind of stunning, if you've lived in North America, to see that. But it's a product of things like a long history, and of living on an island. In some ways, England is like a lifeboat: people get along there by not rocking the status quo too much. The boat's kept from getting tippy by making everybody stay in their assigned seats. And many Englishmen don't like hierarchy "boat-rockers."

There will always be sinners and evil men however many we imprison there will always be some other bad people to take their place. What we can do is ensure powerful authorities lack the power by sacrificing powerless victims to save their own organisations .

"By"? Did you perhaps intend to write "to sacrifice"?

I do , personally, blame the powerful for victimising the weak. However my anger is useless and harms only me.

That's a product of "blaming the institution," or "blaming the powerful" (collectively, without further specification). If you locate the malefactors, and blame them, you'll find it's a whole lot less "useless."

Try it: tell somebody, "Whatever you do in your role in institution X, you will personally answer for." Just see how happy they are to cross line after that.

But they are told that, Immanuel. The law tells them that ever since Magna Carta curbed the powers of the monarch. The barons of modern times have accumulated so much power for themselves that sometimes even the police are part of their establishments.

There's a difference between "telling" people they're going to be held accountable (and then not holding them accountable) and actually doing it. When the malefactors are exposed, shamed and punished, then the self-interest of other potential malefactors makes them reign in their evil. But so long as we only talk in vague terms about "institutional faults" or "the powerful" they do not feel identified. They do not, then feel morally accountable.

[Belinda]

"Caused constraint"? I was not speaking of the constraints, but of the chooser. The constraints may indeed be products of prior causes; but that does nothing to limit what the chooser can do as a result. A poor man may choose to be resentful, or grateful for what he does have. That's his choice, given him despite the constraints on his income. The choice is still completely free: nobody MAKES him choose the one over the other.

But his genes constrain what his personality and thus his choices will be. His parents , peers, and even the geography and climate of his surroundings constrain what his personality and hence his choices will be .

[/quote]

You are right, evasive bishops were serving not themselves but their god, the organisation.

Perhaps they were protecting the organization itself; but more likely, they were just protecting themselves, and trying to keep the prestige they get by remaining above critique within the organization.

That is why organisations have to be open to public inspection so all people can see the organisation serves them the people instead of its own acolytes.

Social class divisions are real in England.

Yeah, I know. It's kind of stunning, if you've lived in North America, to see that. But it's a product of things like a long history, and of living on an island. In some ways, England is like a lifeboat: people get along there by not rocking the status quo too much. The boat's kept from getting tippy by making everybody stay in their assigned seats. And many Englishmen don't like hierarchy "boat-rockers."

There are vast differences between rich and poor in America too.

There will always be sinners and evil men however many we imprison there will always be some other bad people to take their place. What we can do is ensure powerful authorities lack the power by sacrificing powerless victims to save their own organisations .

"By"? Did you perhaps intend to write "to sacrifice"?

Yes I did. Thanks.

I do , personally, blame the powerful for victimising the weak. However my anger is useless and harms only me.

That's a product of "blaming the institution," or "blaming the powerful" (collectively, without further specification). If you locate the malefactors, and blame them, you'll find it's a whole lot less "useless."

Been there done that. Including if I were a magistrate or a sheriff or a judge or member of a jury my anger would be misplaced.

But they are told that, Immanuel. The law tells them that ever since Magna Carta curbed the powers of the monarch. The barons of modern times have accumulated so much power for themselves that sometimes even the police are part of their establishments.

There's a difference between "telling" people they're going to be held accountable (and then not holding them accountable) and actually doing it. When the malefactors are exposed, shamed and punished, then the self-interest of other potential malefactors makes them reign in their evil. But so long as we only talk in vague terms about "institutional faults" or "the powerful" they do not feel identified. They do not, then feel morally accountable.

I heartily agree fingers should be pointed at individuals whenever possible. Ordinary persons have responsibilities relating to the powers such as they have . High personages with much power have the moral responsibility to use their power well.

By "use it well" I mean use power to serve others.

[Immanuel Can]

"Caused constraint"? I was not speaking of the constraints, but of the chooser. The constraints may indeed be products of prior causes; but that does nothing to limit what the chooser can do as a result. A poor man may choose to be resentful, or grateful for what he does have. That's his choice, given him despite the constraints on his income. The choice is still completely free: nobody MAKES him choose the one over the other.

But his genes constrain what his personality and thus his choices will be.

That's the contentious point. What you're espousing there is "genetic fatalism," of the sort a Richard Dawkins advocates. The problem with it, though, is like other forms of fatalism and determinism -- it's unscientific, because neither falsifiable nor verifiable nor, by any means, testable. It's a sort of gratuitous predication borne of ideology. And given that it is contrary to all human supposition-in-action, they are highly problematic...though, as I say, not any more disprovable than provable.

But really, I don't believe you believe in any form of determinism, given what you've already said.

His parents , peers, and even the geography and climate of his surroundings constrain what his personality and hence his choices will be .

These are merely circumstances. A person's choices happen within them, but are not logically therefore simply controlled by them. He can still be a good or bad man, regardless of all these things. People with bad parents, location, climate, and whatnot are often very fine people.

That is why organisations have to be open to public inspection so all people can see the organisation serves them the people instead of its own acolytes.

That's the only available safeguard, but it's still not a great one. Unfortunately, the people are also corruptible. The supposition of, say, the American Constitution, is checks-and-balances on human corruptibility are not perfect, but necessary and the best one can do.

Social class divisions are real in England.

Yeah, I know. It's kind of stunning, if you've lived in North America, to see that. But it's a product of things like a long history, and of living on an island. In some ways, England is like a lifeboat: people get along there by not rocking the status quo too much. The boat's kept from getting tippy by making everybody stay in their assigned seats. And many Englishmen don't like hierarchy "boat-rockers."

There are vast differences between rich and poor in America too.

Not "class" differences though. In England, people often want to detect what "class" you're from -- historically, even -- and they treat you accordingly. In America, nobody really cares what "class" you came from: it's what you did with it that counts. I'm admirably positioned to see that difference, having spent lots of time in both places, and having relatives in both.

Maybe nothing a clearer indication of the difference than the fact that England retains a hereditary monarch, out of fondness for the class-heavy past; in America, they pride themselves on the ideology of the man who rises "from nothing" to become president. That's way too "low class" for the English. For them, what's born in Birmingham or Sheffield ought to stay in Birmingham or Sheffield.

Been there done that. Including if I were a magistrate or a sheriff or a judge or member of a jury my anger would be misplaced.

Well, you can't judge an institution. Institutions have no ears, no heart, and no conscience. They don't care, and they aren't even capable of caring. Only people care, and only people are responsible for what institutions do.

[Belinda]

I do judge institutions.Institutions institute and legitimate specific ethics and behaviours. Lies are lies whether told by men face to face , or alternatively in some official book of rules. Institutions empower individuals for good , for evil , or for moral inertia.

I judge the present Roman Catholic Church is a bad institution insofar as it is hierarchical. Also beliefs in the RCC are said to be legitimated by God Almighty and not by people. Moreover I have been told that preachers confuse myth and history.

I judge most religious sects in much the same way although some are worse than others.

I judge Fascist regimes to be bad institutions as they are founded on the lie that some individuals are intrinsically, often racially, better than others.

I judge enlightenment -based children's schools to be mostly good institutions because the professionals who teach there base their work on enlightenment principles applied to curriculums and methods.

I judge Roman Catholic monasteries to be good institutions during the European middle ages as these places ran the only hospitals for the sick, the destitute, and travellers.


Yes, but people can and do institute and perpetuate evil and good which persist through generations via legitimated institutions.

[henry quirk]

I do judge institutions.Institutions institute and legitimate specific ethics and behaviours. Lies are lies whether told by men face to face , or alternatively in some official book of rules. Institutions empower individuals for good , for evil , or for moral inertia.

I judge the present Roman Catholic Church is a bad institution insofar as it is hierarchical. Also beliefs in the RCC are said to be legitimated by God Almighty and not by people. Moreover I have been told that preachers confuse myth and history.

I judge most religious sects in much the same way although some are worse than others.

I judge Fascist regimes to be bad institutions as they are founded on the lie that some individuals are intrinsically, often racially, better than others.

I judge enlightenment -based children's schools to be mostly good institutions because the professionals who teach there base their work on enlightenment principles applied to curriculums and methods.

I judge Roman Catholic monasteries to be good institutions during the European middle ages as these places ran the only hospitals for the sick, the destitute, and travellers.


Yes, but people can and do institute and perpetuate evil and good which persist through generations via legitimated institutions.

Me, bein' a simple creature, I judge individuals, not groups (formal or informal).

[Immanuel Can]

I do judge institutions.Institutions institute and legitimate specific ethics and behaviours.

An institution cannot be made responsible. It cannot be made to care. Institutions do what they do. They know only policies and procedures, not such tings as mercy, wisdom, goodness, justice or faith. Essentially, an institution is a thing as dead as a rock, as indifferent as a machine, as cold as death. It runs on automatic.

And unless you can access the consciences of the individuals within it, you cannot change how it runs.

I judge the present Roman Catholic Church is a bad institution insofar as it is hierarchical.

Do you mean "authoritarian"? Because you must. There's not anything inherently bad about hierarchy. In fact, hierarchies are often good and always unavoidable, wherever issues of quality are involved.

To hate hierarchy is simply to hate excellence.

Also beliefs in the RCC are said to be legitimated by God Almighty and not by people.

You use the passive voice here: who "says"?

Moreover I have been told that preachers confuse myth and history.

Do you always believe what you've "been told"?

I judge most religious sects in much the same way although some are worse than others.

You mean it's good to have a hierarchy of which are better and worse? Of course. It would be foolish and undiscerning to pretend they're all the same, wouldn't it?

I judge enlightenment -based children's schools to be mostly good institutions because the professionals who teach there base their work on enlightenment principles applied to curriculums and methods.

"Enlightement" schools? "Enlightenment" principles?

You mean like in Rousseau's Emile?

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Me, bein' a simple creature, I judge individuals, not groups (formal or informal).

But paedophile priest would not exist but for the churches within which they function.
Remember Jim Jones of the massacre in Guyana? He could not have seduced masses of Americans unless he had organised a 'church'.

[Belinda]

I do judge institutions.Institutions institute and legitimate specific ethics and behaviours.

An institution cannot be made responsible. It cannot be made to care. Institutions do what they do. They know only policies and procedures, not such tings as mercy, wisdom, goodness, justice or faith. Essentially, an institution is a thing as dead as a rock, as indifferent as a machine, as cold as death. It runs on automatic.

So do epidemics of deadly diseases.and I judge them to be dangerous and undesirable.

I judge the present Roman Catholic Church is a bad institution insofar as it is hierarchical.

Do you mean "authoritarian"? Because you must. There's not anything inherently bad about hierarchy. In fact, hierarchies are often good and always unavoidable, wherever issues of quality are involved.

I do mean authotitarian. Hierarchies are not inherently bad, I agree. When the powers at the top of the hierarchy invoke the legitimation of Almighty God, or of a specific force of nature , for their moral values, then the hierarchy is bad and potentially dangerous to its acolytes.

To hate hierarchy is simply to hate excellence.

I don't agree. A meritocracy which I do support is not the sort of hierarchy that depends on some unquestioned institution. A meritocracy depends on reason and constant peer reviews. If a meritocracy is a hierarchy it's a hierarchy of reason and justice.

Also beliefs in the RCC are said to be legitimated by God Almighty and not by people.

You use the passive voice here: who "says"?

I wish I could quote but I cannot. It's common knowledge preachers by definition don't expect to be answered back, quizzed, and questioned.

Moreover I have been told that preachers confuse myth and history.

Do you always believe what you've "been told"?

Its only human to be swayed by confirmation bias. Apart from confirmation bias I respect the opinions of people who are of good repute i.e. who are peer -revewed by well -educated and good-living peers.

I judge most religious sects in much the same way although some are worse than others.

You mean it's good to have a hierarchy of which are better and worse? Of course. It would be foolish and undiscerning to pretend they're all the same, wouldn't it?

Yes. Indoctrination of children is a sin against the civil liberty of children.

I judge enlightenment -based children's schools to be mostly good institutions because the professionals who teach there base their work on enlightenment principles applied to curriculums and methods.

"Enlightement" schools? "Enlightenment" principles?

You mean like in Rousseau's Emile?
[/quote]

Emile's regime would be illegal and immoral according to enlightenment principles of civil liberties.You forget perhaps the enlightenment is a progression from the Protestant Reformation scientific enlightenment did not arise de novo. Historiography narrates causes and effects.

[Immanuel Can]

I do judge institutions.Institutions institute and legitimate specific ethics and behaviours.

An institution cannot be made responsible. It cannot be made to care. Institutions do what they do. They know only policies and procedures, not such tings as mercy, wisdom, goodness, justice or faith. Essentially, an institution is a thing as dead as a rock, as indifferent as a machine, as cold as death. It runs on automatic.

So do epidemics of deadly diseases.and I judge them to be dangerous and undesirable.

The problem is that human beings create institutions. They do so in order to make their own lives predictable, and to avoid having to make every decision anew every time and every day. Without some sort of institutions, human living becomes dysfunctionally particular. So we can't really get along without at least some of them.

Consider your workplace. It has to run on set schedules, with set policies and practices, and with regular hierarchies. It can't be the case that every day you have to go into work wondering when work will start, what you will be doing, and who can lead the operation. Making those decisions new each time would make your work impossible and clog your life with needless decisions. So institutionalizing your workplace makes it possible for it to run, and frees you from making minute decisions all the time.

I judge the present Roman Catholic Church is a bad institution insofar as it is hierarchical.

Do you mean "authoritarian"? Because you must. There's not anything inherently bad about hierarchy. In fact, hierarchies are often good and always unavoidable, wherever issues of quality are involved.

I do mean authotitarian. Hierarchies are not inherently bad, I agree. When the powers at the top of the hierarchy invoke the legitimation of Almighty God, or of a specific force of nature , for their moral values, then the hierarchy is bad and potentially dangerous to its acolytes.

The same happens with all ideologies, not just religious ones. They claim some authority. It could be the authority of "reason," or of tradition, or of science...

To hate hierarchy is simply to hate excellence.

I don't agree. A meritocracy which I do support is not the sort of hierarchy that depends on some unquestioned institution. A meritocracy depends on reason and constant peer reviews. If a meritocracy is a hierarchy it's a hierarchy of reason and justice.

A meritocracy is a hierarchy. "Merit" is excellence of some kind.

It's common knowledge preachers by definition don't expect to be answered back, quizzed, and questioned.

I've met many who do.

It depends on which group you're talking about. I've even met some RC leaders who will field a question or two, though I admit that questioning's a good deal less common among highly authoritarian groups like the RC's than it is in many other faith groups.

I respect the opinions of people who are of good repute i.e. who are peer -revewed by well -educated and good-living peers.

Well, there's good sense in looking at how people actually live. "By their fruits, you shall know them."

"Enlightement" schools? "Enlightenment" principles?

You mean like in Rousseau's Emile?

Emile's regime would be illegal and immoral according to enlightenment principles of civil liberties.

I am unfamiliar with where this body of "children's Enlightenment civil liberties" is spelled out. Perhaps you would point me to the original source of them.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

I do mean authotitarian. Hierarchies are not inherently bad, I agree. When the powers at the top of the hierarchy invoke the legitimation of Almighty God, or of a specific force of nature , for their moral values, then the hierarchy is bad and potentially dangerous to its acolytes.

We must trust the Great Beast to decide questions of morality. Nothing else including objective conscience has any objective value. Only the Great Beast has the depth and brilliance to judge the question of abortion or respect for life in general for example.

I respect the opinions of people who are of good repute i.e. who are peer -revewed by well -educated and good-living peers.

Nothing like a well indoctrinated person having been peer reviewed by other well indoctrinated people all claiming to know how to judge value. If the devil created this illusion we must give him credit for inventing the practice of a psychology far beyond what we know today. Only the Great Beast is omniscient The con job of all con jobs.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Me, bein' a simple creature, I judge individuals, not groups (formal or informal).

But paedophile priest would not exist but for the churches within which they function.
Remember Jim Jones of the massacre in Guyana? He could not have seduced masses of Americans unless he had organised a 'church'.

As I say child rapers bein' protected is not institutional, it's a conspiracy.

Jones, preyin' on the lost and the stupid, is not institutional, it's predation.

Institutions are just people.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, regarding civil liberties as they affect children:

https://www.aclu.org/other/childrens-ri ... ts-program

https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un ... ld-rights/

[Belinda]

Henry, a cohesive group is m ore than the sum of its parts. For instance wolves hunting prey are greater than disorganised individual wolves. A football team is greater than the individuals in it. Institutions are cohesive groups. Examples of institutions are :

Family
Church
Political party
Nation
Neighbourhood Watch group
Federation of states or provinces.
Women's Institute
House of Lords(UK)
The Louvre
Harvard University