Daniel Dennett once said in a video that compatabilism is the best solution to the freedom/determinism debate. It solves a lot of problems, he said. This question, mind you, doesn't require there to be a God. The universe itself could be the infallible mover of the world, or part of one's subconscious mind instead. Basically compatabilism says a force of higher power can make a human person do something with infallible force while leaving the human's freedom intact. — Gregory

Compatibilism is the view that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, meaning that even in a deterministic universe (where all events are caused by preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature), human beings can still be considered free in a meaningful sense. But it doesn't usually involve the idea of an external force (like a higher power or subconscious mind) making someone do something with "infallible force" while preserving their freedom. Dennett was a strict materialist, i.e. the causal factors he saw were those known to natural science. Nothing at all about "higher powers" in his reckoning, all such ideas being remnants of "folk psychology".

A core idea in compatibilism is that freedom is about acting in accordance with one's desires and rational decisions, even if those desires are in reality determined by prior causes. Dennett and other compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism because what matters is that individuals act according to their own motivations and reasoning, rather than being coerced or forced by external agents. The concept of being "forced" with "infallible force" typically falls outside compatibilist definitions of freedom because it would imply a kind of coercion that most compatibilists would reject.

Critics often argue that compatibilism, particularly Dennett's version, offers only an illusory or superficial sense of freedom, rather than any real autonomy. While compatibilists like Dennett redefine free will in a way that seems to accomodate determinism, the resulting "freedom" is illusory. For instance, according to Dennett, as long as a person is acting in accordance with their desires and motivations, without coercion or external interference, they are acting freely—even if those desires are themselves determined by prior causes.

On atonment, is not it crystal clear that someone cannot receive merits from someone else. How can another man's actions change the karmic situation of a person when dealing with his conscious. Again, this seems to be obvious to me. A person's moral state and repercussions are entirely in their own hands, no? Nevertheless the largest religion in the world believes otherwise. Again, what am i missing?? — Gregory

I think you're missing the background against which the whole idea of atonement makes sense. In ancient Judaism, atonement was achieved through sacrificial rituals, where offerings were made to reconcile the people with God after they had sinned. The idea of the 'scapegoat' comes from these practices—symbolically placing the sins of the community onto a goat and sending it away, taking their guilt with it (Leviticus 16).

Christianity takes this concept to a cosmic level. In Christian theology, Jesus is seen as the ultimate sacrificial lamb, whose death on the cross atones for the sins of the world (hence the Christian expressions of the 'Lamb of God' and 'the blood of the Lamb'). This is the basis of the doctrine of 'vicarious atonement,' especially in Catholic and Protestant traditions—where Christ's sacrifice is believed to be on behalf of all humanity, reconciling them to God.

However, note that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't emphasize this doctrine in the same way. Instead, they interpret Christ's life, death, and resurrection as part of the process of theosis—the idea that 'God became man so that man might become God,' meaning that the Incarnation and resurrection are central to humanity's transformation and union with God, not just atonement for sin.

However, it's important to note that compatibilism, which is a philosophical position on free will within a deterministic framework, is largely grounded in a materialist worldview. This seems quite distinct from the theological notions of atonement found in the Bible, where divine grace and intervention play central roles in addressing human sin. The two ideas belong to very different domains of thought—compatibilism in philosophy of mind and determinism, and atonement in religious and moral theology—so it's not clear how they relate to one another.

But it doesn't usually involve the idea of an external force (like a higher power or subconscious mind) making someone do something with "infallible force" while preserving their freedom. Dennett was a strict materialist, i.e. the causal factors he saw were those known to natural science. Nothing at all about "higher powers" in his reckoning, all such ideas being remnants of "folk psychology".

A core idea in compatibilism is that freedom is about acting in accordance with one's desires and rational decisions, even if those desires are in reality determined by prior causes. Dennett and other compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism because what matters is that individuals act according to their own motivations and reasoning, rather than being coerced or forced by external agents. The concept of being "forced" with "infallible force" typically falls outside compatibilist definitions of freedom because it would imply a kind of coercion that most compatibilists would reject. — Wayfarer

I beg to differ. "[T]he causal factors he saw were those known to natural science. Nothing at all about 'higher powers' in his reckoning": I guess you object to the use of the term "higher power" but in relation to Dennett it is just "those known to natural science". I see no different between your description of compatibilism and mine.

For instance, according to Dennett, as long as a person is acting in accordance with their desires and motivations, without coercion or external interference, they are acting freely—even if those desires are themselves determined by prior causes. — Wayfarer

If Dennett is a true compatibilist, he has to believe that the will is actually, genuinely free. That it can act on it's own and is the sole responsibility for it's actions. Spinoza didn't believe in free will, but he thought we act out of desires and motivations. By "without coercion", are you saying what I'm saying?

I think you're missing the background against which the whole idea of atonement makes sense. In ancient Judaism, atonement was achieved through sacrificial rituals, where offerings were made to reconcile the people with God after they had sinned. The idea of the 'scapegoat' comes from these practices—symbolically placing the sins of the community onto a goat and sending it away, taking their guilt with it (Leviticus 16). — Wayfarer

Ah yes, the whole idea of the priesthood is central to this. Jesus as High Priests, himself as sacrifice. But my objection to it is that it seems to be magic. If we are responsible for our own actions, how can something else external to our will affect what level or merit we are at or how we stand before justice? Furthermore, justice is not served to Jesus in this scenario because he has to be killed in order for it to work. And he was innocent they say. So those who did wrong do less than they would have had to and an innocent man gets killed. It doesn't seem rational

The two ideas belong to very different domains of thought—compatibilism in philosophy of mind and determinism, and atonement in religious and moral theology—so it's not clear how they relate to one another. — Wayfarer

Compatibilism is studied in Calvinism and Thomist and is very important in their systems. I think my description of compatibilism was more in line with how they speak of it than what, say, SEP would say.I Also, I related compatibilism to free will in the OP: if Jesus is fully human then he can sin. But he also can't, because he is God. Hence it seems compatibilism is needed in order to save the Incarnation.

Kant said he had to leave reason behind in order to have faith; Kierkegaard said we must crucify reason in order to have faith. Yet when Bergson held up intuition above reason, philosophers quickly retorted that he had to use rationality in order to attack rationality and therefore his position was circular. This is a very difficult subject. I am not a rationalist but the propositions of Christianity appear irrational to me. Many philosophy lovers are in this same position: objecting to to the "unreason" of Christianity while admitting reason only goes so far. Hence the thread

On atonment, is not it crystal clear that someone cannot receive merits from someone else. How can another man's actions change the karmic situation of a person when dealing with his conscious. — Gregory

The Christian apologist, Rene Girard, has a radical non-theological interpretation of what the Christian myth could means. The crucifixion is a symbol of a perennial scapegoating rite which pacifies a crowd or disperses escalating violence at a moment in time within a social group. Supposedly for Girard, Christianity brought revelation to this perennial ritual of spontaneous sacrifice (propitiation/expiation) which was (pre)historically important to keep the social order, where people finally begin to empathize with the scapegoat who is a true victim (innocent) of man's sin/ignorance.

Jesus becomes the model of atonement (expiation), not so much for reconciliation between people and God, but between people, as they acknowledge their tendency toward unconscious violence (born from a concept/impulse he calls mimetic rivalry/contagion).

What at least is interesting with Girard's theory, is that it struggles to appropriate/renew the power of Christianity's myth in an age of non-believers and rationalists. One could imagine now a Christian atheist, where the supernatural belief in God is no longer needed.

Very interesting. One can accept the Gospels to an extent while rejecting Paul. Neitszche thought of Jesus as a pacifist, full of love but not willing to defend himself, and therefore an "idiot" and a "decadent" as he said. He was sacrificed though because the love he showed made people uncomfortable with themselves. It wasn't about legal substitution as in "it is finished". He was a man full of divine light. When he said "I am the way, the truth, and the life", the I in that sentence is his union with father divinità. Union with God is the way, truth, and life he meant. "No one comes to the Father except through me" is, i understand, him saying "me" as the illuminened self. Except as you accept the light, so to speak. To be Christian means to feel guilty for something. That's the first requirement.. Someone must suffer and they believe God gives scapegoats out of mercy. It is not about justice, but mercy. Like Jesus with the woman of adultery

On atonment, is not it crystal clear that someone cannot receive merits from someone else. How can another man's actions change the karmic situation of a person when dealing with his conscious. Again, this seems to be obvious to me. A person's moral state and repercussions are entirely in their own hands, no? Nevertheless the largest religion in the world believes otherwise. Again, what am i missing?? — Gregory

When it comes to vicarious satisfaction or atonement I would probably want to chip at the idea of monadic individualism. Things like reverencing and remembering ancestors, religious worship, and even things like Pure Land Buddhism all balk at this idea of monadic individualism. I am thinking specifically of "religious worship" of ancient times, where a polytheistic distribution of lands to certain gods obtained, and a people or geography was itself bound to a god (and then in turn to a king or ruler).

The idea that God allowed the forgiveness of guilt, the healing of man from within, to cost him the death of his Son has come to seem quite alien to us today. That the Lord “has borne our diseases and taken upon himself sorrows,” that “he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities,” and that “with his wounds we are healed” (Is 53:4–6) no longer seems plausible to us today. Militating against this, on one side, is the trivialization of evil in which we take refuge, despite the fact that at the very same time we treat the horrors of human history, especially of the most recent human history, as an irrefutable pretext for denying the existence of a good God and slandering his creature man. But the understanding of the great mystery of expiation is also blocked by our individualistic image of man. We can no longer grasp substitution because we think that every man is ensconced in himself alone. The fact that all individual beings are deeply interwoven and that all are encompassed in turn by the being of the One, the Incarnate Son, is something we are no longer capable of seeing. When we come to speak of Christ’s Crucifixion, we will have to take up these issues again. — Jesus of Nazareth, by Joseph Ratzinger, p. 159

For Aquinas' view, see his reply to objection 1 at ST III.48.2.

Propitiation to my mind is a denial of free will. To be free is to be the only one making the decision. Ratzinger and Aquinas seem very confused. Do others sin when i sin? No but the merits can be exchanged? Someone cannot act as personhood unless his acts fall on him. Aren't they trying to "have their cake and eat too" by saying mercy and justice were balanced in the cruxifiction? Aren't they denying personhood in humans in line with savage beliefs of old? If we are all "one body" then how can they hold some will be damned? Forever a body divided? How unfitting is that

Propitiation to my mind is a denial of free will. — Gregory

Propitiation is a denial of free will? I would love to hear an argument for such a claim. Whose free will is infringed? The one appeasing or the one appeased? lol...

It implies that the merits can be exchanged between conscious beings even though to be free in a moment is to be in total control of which way to turn, so even God couldn't know what you would do except by vision of the future. So if you are in complete control of sin and repentence it would seem you are in full responsibility for it, so that would rule out atonment. Free will entails "individualism". This is what i've said in this entire thread. Look, if this kind of theology makes Christians feel better about themselves then may they feel their best. I think Christianity was founded by "Paul", whoever that was, and it's insistence on spread the word to the corners of the earth is one of its flaws. Why can't Christians just hope and trust that God will have mercy on them without this convoluted theology about substitution? That's what other religions do. Why do Christians feel they are so bad, that they are unforgivable on their own? Why to they have to put that self-blame on others? Now that is a true Christian mystery

- I would suggest starting with a dictionary and then looking up 'atonement' and 'propitiation.' Maybe after that you will want to find a confessional source for what this or that group of Christians actually believe. It's hard to believe that you would write a thread without taking such steps.

Whatever. I've studied theology since i was twelve. Get lost

How can another man's actions change the karmic situation of a person when dealing with his conscious. — Gregory

Aren't they denying personhood in humans in line with savage beliefs of old? — Gregory

To be free is to be the only one making the decision. — Gregory

It would be hard to overemphasize the foolishness of these ideas. The logical conclusion of the classically liberal notion of freedom is the idea that the actions of others cannot significantly influence another person or their situation. Someone who holds to such a rarefied version of liberty of course does not know what to make of any authentically communal event, including the act of making satisfaction for a group or community (Shoah, anyone?). But they also don't know what to make of the dependence of children on their parents; the duties of community, including family, town, and country; or even something as simple as fetal alcohol syndrome, murder, or the various other ways that individuals are drastically influenced by the actions of others. They don't know what to make of culture, or tradition, or even pregnancy. They struggle with the notion of giving advice or mentoring; they are bewildered by the notion of justified coercive force when it comes to, say, imprisonment. In short, they don't know what to make of reality, and they live in a fantasy land where freedom is whole and complete in each individual.

Eloquent, but it doesn't really address the issue i've raised. I'll let Christopher Hitchens speak for me here:

"I don't believe that it's true that religion is ethical or moral.. Is it moral to believe that your sins, yours and mine ladies and gentleman, brothers and sisters, can be forgiven by the punishment of another person? Is it ethical to believe that? I would submit that the doctrine of vivarious redemption by human sacrifice is utterly immoral. I might if I wished, if i knew any of you, you were my friends, or even if I didn't know you but just loved the idea of you, I could say "look, I'll pay your debts for you. Maybe you'll pay me back some day but for now I can get you out of trouble." I could, if I really loved someone who had been sentenced to prison, if I could find a way of saying "I'd serve your sentence" I'd try and do it. I could do what Sydney Carton does in the Tale of Two Cities, if you like. I'm very unlikely to do this unless you've been incredibly sweet to me, or "I'll take your place on the scaffold". But I can't take away your responsibility. I can't forgive what you did. I can't say you didn't do it. I can't make you washed clean. The name for that in primitive Middle Eastern society was scapegoating. You pile the sins of the tribe on a goat and you drive that goat into the desert to die of thirst and hunger and you think you've taken away the sins of the tribe. A positively immoral doctrine that abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and all morals must depend."

Catholics believe this doctrine, as do evangelicals. Sure there are Christians with different beliefs, but if I make a thread about Islam and 72 virgins, I don't have to mention all the dissenters who still call themselves muslim. There are Christians who believe Christ only covers their sin instead of being propitiation for them, but I don't see how they can explain the "nothing impure shall enter the kingdom of heaven" verse (Rev 21:27). Nevertheless, if you had really been following what I've said here you would know that I was tentitively rejecting atonment theology because of it's incongruence with reason, but was open to how to understand it in a more mystical, feminine sense. Logic is yang, and Christianity is a very feminine religion. I don't want to stand against something as a rationalist who subbornly sticks to his human logic.

What are we to make of this? — Gregory

What I make of it is that eventually the dogma becomes crushingly heavy and squeezes the life out of whatever liberation a religious movement might have offered in its beginning. That's just me. Hundreds of millions of believers find dogma quite tolerable, or find ways of dealing with it.

Jesus without dogma was apparently an itinerate Jewish preacher who attracted a following. In the hands of the church he later became Christ; the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world; miracle worker; healer; the great judge.

For what it's worth, the Jesus Project discarded much of what is attributed to Jesus. I gather they saw in many of his sayings later dogma that was back dated into his mouth or just not convincing.

The program of the church (from the New Testament on down to summer camp) is compelling enough, especially if it was not rammed down ones throat. I found it pleasant enough, even compelling at times, for many years.

I found it pleasant enough, even compelling at times, for many years. — BC

A wonderful renditions of what was my favorite song when I was seven years old:

The genre of "gospel" music is quite large and a lot of it is very singable for otherwise unskilled congregations. "Power in the Blood" is a good example. The Methodist Church I grew up in didn't use much of this genre -- it stuck to mainline hymns like "Come Thou Font of Every Blessing".

"Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" is a hymn written by the pastor and hymnodist Robert Robinson, who penned the words in the year 1758 at the age of 22. It was set to a number of tunes, including shape-note tunes which were generally sung at a fast clip, a cappella. Here is a Primitive Baptist congregation a cappella performance to its most familiar tune.

"Sacred Harp" was a popular late 18th/19th century style of singing for congregations without the wherewithal (or desire?) for instruments. It was sung a cappella in a manner that sounds harsh to our ears. Myself, I'm a church music snob and prefer high-church music to low-church Primitive Baptist styles. Here's an example:

On the other hand, this is more distinctive that the Mormon Tabernacle Cheese Press in Salt Lake City whose mass choir size and big organ crushes everything into a very similar but pleasant sound.

"Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" is a Christian hymn written by the pastor and hymnodist Robert Robinson, who penned the words in the year 1758 at the age of 22. It was set to a number of tunes, including shape-note tunes which were generally sung at a fast clip, a cappella. Here is a Primitive Baptist congregation a cappella performance to its most familiar tune. — BC

I also know that one well.

My parents both grew up in Evangelical United Brethren churches. Some interesting tidbits:

The United Brethren took a strong stand against slavery, beginning around 1820. After 1837, slave owners were no longer allowed to remain as members of the United Brethren Church. The Evangelical United Brethren churches sustained a strong fellowship with Nazarene (believing) Jews. In 1853, the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society was organized. Expansion occurred into the western United States, but the church's stance against slavery limited expansion to the south.

By 1889, the United Brethren had grown to over 200,000 members with six bishops. In that same year they experienced a division. Denominational leaders desired to make three changes: to give local conferences proportional representation at the General Conference; to allow laymen to serve as delegates to General Conference; and to allow United Brethren members to hold membership in secret societies such as the Freemasons. The denominational leadership made these changes, but the minority felt the changes violated the constitution because they were not made by the majority vote of all United Brethren members. One of the bishops, Milton Wright (the father of aviation pioneers Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright), disagreed with the actions of the majority. Bishop Wright and other conference delegates left the meeting and resumed the session elsewhere. They believed that the other delegates had violated the constitution (and, in effect, withdrawn from the denomination), and deemed themselves to be the true United Brethren Church. Therefore, the body initially known as the United Brethren in Christ of the Old Constitution,[1] now called the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.

The denomination merged with the Evangelical Church in 1946 to form a new denomination known as the Evangelical United Brethren Church (EUB). This in turn merged in 1968 with The Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church (UMC).

My father was ordained into, and began preaching in, the First Brethren church. (Not sure where First Brethren fits in.) However, when I was 10 he decided to try farming the family farm, and we began going to the United Methodist church which had been the EUB church that my father went to as a child.

Very interesting. I first heard about the EUB when I was a freshman at Winona State. The 'house parents' of the Wesley Foundation house were an EUB couple, one of them a local EUB pastor. I had never been alerted to the schismatic parentage of Wilbur and Orville Wright. Once again I must ask the staff, "Why was I not informed?"

Protestants do more splitting than an atom smasher, which, I think, keeps them strong and healthy, at least until they grievances all cool off. Everybody leaves the schism refreshed and energized. In time they merge with some similar group and after an appropriately long union, split again. The United Methodist Church is in the process of splitting over gay clergy, gay marriage, and all that.

Protestants do more splitting than an atom smasher, which, I think, keeps them strong and healthy — BC

:lol:

I would submit that the doctrine of vivarious redemption by human sacrifice is utterly immoral. — Gregory's Christopher Hitchens

Very cool Hitchens quote.

Am pretty ignorant about which version of atonement theory becomes go-to dogma of any specific flavor of Christianity. The moral influence theory of atonement seems the least bizarre to me, aside the scapegoat theory. But I kinda gloss over the others.

Abelard not only rejected the idea of Jesus' death as a ransom paid to the devil,[1][2] which turned the Devil into a rival god,[2] but also objected to the idea that Jesus' death was a "debt paid to God's honor".[1] He also objected to the emphasis on God's judgment, and the idea that God changed his mind after the sinner accepted Jesus' sacrificial death, which was not easily reconcilable with the idea of "the perfect, impassible God [who] does not change".[1][7] Abelard focused on changing man's perception of God as not offended, harsh, and judgmental, but as loving.[1] According to Abelard, "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.[1][3] — Wikipedia: Moral Influence Theory of Atonement

Substitutionary atonement theory grows out of trying to give meaning to ritual of the scapegoat. The restless crowd, frustrated by a wrath of a god, is looking for a target to blame, and subject gets chosen whether guilty or not. The accuser finds resolution (possibly a kind catharsis) in the punishment of the accused. This drama is in someway psychologically purgative insofar as the target is associated with the cause of accusers' problem. There is release in every cycle of purging ourselves of internal vindictiveness. Communal vindictiveness focuses itself energetically to an appropriate target. To the degree that we have learned that our target is truly innocent, we can become aware of what we are doing.

Girard would have us believe Christianity puts new spin on an old blood magic to make us better people. The target/victim once guilty and deified is now innocent and deified. God, the son, joins the tragic theater and gets crucified by us twats to show his good will.

If you remember your time on the playground (we are still on that shitty playground ), you might have witnessed the earliest version of this kind of human dynamic. Groups are especially nasty in they way they form arbitrary alignments and vent frustration onto outliers.