# Is Birth/Genetics Random?  What do you think?



## Freestyler777 (Oct 18, 2007)

It may seem an odd question, especially in this era, when religion has been almost replaced by science.  But what I am trying to say is, there is a certain part of a person's appearance/demeanor that is given by heaven, not by random genetic mutation.

I believe genetics is the language of creation, and although evolution did happen, there are certain traits that are passed along from generation to generation, and there are some that just appear out of nowhere.

Orientals believe in reincarnation, or Pythogorean Theory, an immortal soul that travels from body to body.  I think that is phooey, but they seem to think that there is such a thing as 'taking a fortunate birth' or on the other hand, 'being an outcast'.  I certainly dont believe in reincarnation or an immortal soul anymore, but I digress.

What I ask is, what do you think determines a person's uniqueness, how much of it is genetic, and is there anything like randomness, or is God/Heaven the source of a person's characteristics?

I do believe in evolution, not creation, since there is an overwhleming body of evidence, namely science, that indicates it happened.  And the torah is no historical document, every society has a creation myth, judaism is no exception.  However, I do not believe that we are just primates competing for resources.  What is your take on this?


----------



## Blindside (Oct 18, 2007)

I look at my son, and see many of my features, my lips, my nose, my eyes, my feet, my wife's hair, her eyebrows, her chin.  

With regard to the personality, we are still trying to figure that out, or at least blame the other person. 

My father majored in sociology in college, he says he immediately disregarded much of what he learned when he had kids, according to him, my sister and I had very distinct and consistent personalities from birth.  

Some traits are derived from your genes, but there appear to be an element of randomness.  Identical twins have similar but different fingerprints.  Clones of calico cats have different colorings on their coats, and according to the people who handle them, different personalities.

Incidentally, the classic argument that you are beginning here is referred to as "nature versus nurture."  Also, the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't have anything to do with reincarnation, unless the the relationship of the three sides of a right triangle has something to do with the soul.

Lamont


----------



## Freestyler777 (Oct 18, 2007)

I was reading a book, Celtic Myths and Legends, by Rolleston, and he said 'pythagorean theory' is conflated with the 'Oriental belief in an immortal soul that travels from body to body'.  I'm not talking about that mathematical equation that I learned in high school years ago, and promptly forgot. 

But technicalities aside, I thank you for the post.  Based on my experience and belief, I think nature and nurture are both very important.  But I am trying to get to something deeper.  Is genetics random?  Is anything random?  Or is there a 'design' to a person?


----------



## bydand (Oct 18, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> However, I do not believe that we are just primates competing for resources.  What is your take on this?




Does this mean I can scratch my butt in public now?  

I'll tell you, my thoughts were smartened up real quick when I started having children.  My wife and I have 4 boys, and while they all have the same genetic make-up, no two of them are alike in more than some shared features.  Their personalities run the gamut from quiet and insightful, to outgoing and brash.  They are all raised in the same environment and with mostly the same stimuli, the difference would come from friends and different school classes.  I have to say that birth is a combination of *BOTH* genetics and a randomness.  While my wife and I supplied the genetic material, I have to believe God supplied their basic personalities.  Do I think everybody should feel the same? Nope, that is up to each individual, but you asked what we thought as individuals, and that is my stance.  No amount of statistical data, or scientific studies can diminish what I see with my own two eyes every single day.  You cannot separate Nature from Nurture when it comes to a person.  Both play a part and these parts from what I have seen are almost dead equal.  Before I had kids of my own I would have argued that stand, now I can't.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2007)

Nature and Nurture equally. 

The ability to measure the direct influence of all impacts of nature and nurture are quite probably beyond human measure. This does not make those effects derivative of a supernatural being. 

But, what the hell does the Pythagorean theorem have to do with any of this? The square of the hypotnuse is equal to the square of the legs in a right triangle? How does greek mathematics fit into creation myths?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Nature and Nurture equally.
> 
> The ability to measure the direct influence of all impacts of nature and nurture are quite probably beyond human measure. This does not make those effects derivative of a supernatural being.
> 
> But, what the hell does the Pythagorean theorem have to do with any of this? The square of the hypotnuse is equal to the square of the legs in a right triangle? How does greek mathematics fit into creation myths?


 
It would appear that there is some confusion about what part of Pythagorus' teachings applies in this instance. It is not, as you have pointed out, the Pythagorean Theorem which the work on Celtic myths Freestyler referred to was meaning to speak of. Below is a couple of paragraphs culled from Wikipedia about Pythagorus' religious beliefs which are more pertinant. (My emphasis).


Pythagoras religious and scientific views were, in his opinion, inseparably interconnected. However, they are looked at separately in the 21st century. *Religiously, Pythagoras was a believer of **metempsychosis**. He believed in transmigration, or the reincarnation of the soul again and again into the bodies of humans, animals, or vegetables until it became moral. His ideas of reincarnation were influenced by Greek Mythology*. He was one of the first to propose that the thought processes and the soul were located in the brain and not the heart. He himself claimed to have lived four lives that he could remember in detail, and heard the cry of his dead friend in the bark of a dog.
One of Pythagoras' beliefs was that the essence of being is number. Thus, being relies on stability of all things that create the universe. Things like health relied on a stable proportion of elements; too much or too little of one thing causes an imbalance that makes a being unhealthy. Pythagoras viewed thinking as the calculating with the idea numbers. *When combined with the Folk theories, the philosophy evolves into a belief that Knowledge of the essence of being can be found in the form of numbers.* If this is taken a step further, one can say that because mathematics is an unseen essence, the essence of being is an unseen characteristic that can be encountered by the study of mathematics.


Pythagorus was pretty secretive about all this and established a cult based on the mysteries of numbers and the universe. It is generally known as the Pythagoreans. 

Some of what he taught was pretty strange.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Oct 18, 2007)

Thank you Steel Tiger.  That was very interesting indeed.

Michaeledward, I don't believe that we are just one of many animals competing for resources.  I also dont believe that such a complex phenomena such as the world could happen by accident.  Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer.  

Evolution happened.  Carbon dating alone blows away the biblical belief that the world is only 6000 years old or so.  That does not mean that life spontaneously began from a sea of organic nutrients.  

For what it is worth, I believe that Heaven means to be one with God, not a place you go to after you die, and that God is a state of being, not a supernatural anthropomorphic father figure.  But there is a longing for the spiritual even in cavemen, let alone modern man, so you can't do away with religion entirely.  

My belief is that the body is a soul, no distinction between mind, body, and spirit, and that dead souls rest in sheol, or hades, or the Otherworld whatever you call it, and can eventually become guardian spirits of their descendents.  I know that sounds like science fiction, but it is almost a universal phenomena amongst shamanic cultures, such as China or mesoamerica.  I don't think that is crazy or illogical.  

My original post was not intended to become a 'nature vs nurture' debate, because i agree with michaeledward in that it is almost impossible to seperate them.  My point was, is there destiny or is everything random?  What makes a human being the way he is?  If you are right, and everything is random and humans are just another species fighting for survival, who share common ancestory with other primates, then all the teachings of religion and philosophy are wrong.  And I dont want to believe that, nor do I think I should.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 18, 2007)

> My point was, is there destiny or is everything random? What makes a human being the way he is? If you are right, and everything is random and humans are just another species fighting for survival, who share common ancestory with other primates, then all the teachings of religion and philosophy are wrong. And I dont want to believe that, nor do I think I should.


 
Put me in the "everything random" camp, there is no meaning to the universe, humans are not special, when you die, thats it, the light goes out.

I find it odd that you will take scientific evidence in the form of carbon dating or fossils or whatever as evidence for evolution, that apparently disproves one creation myth, but then come up with an elaborate hypothesis about a human soul based on a bunch of other myths.  

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Oct 18, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Pythagorus was pretty secretive about all this and established a cult based on the mysteries of numbers and the universe. It is generally known as the Pythagoreans.
> 
> Some of what he taught was pretty strange.


 
Thanks!  I had no idea.


----------



## kaizasosei (Oct 19, 2007)

yes.  noone can truly know because the higher teachings were completely secret.  this question was asked to me when i was in egyptology, i started trying to answer, but at some point the prof. told me that nobody knows the exact nature of the teachings other than the most common math and philosophy.

j


----------



## Freestyler777 (Oct 19, 2007)

Thank you blindside for posting.  Allow me to explain my view.

It is obvious that even primitive man had religous beliefs, often associated with the burial of the dead and the success of hunting expeditions.  I know we are getting closer to anthropology here than to wherever we started.  But anyway, I also do not believe in a lot of religious concepts, however, there are some universal phenomena that make cultures extremely similar, and therefore there must be some truth to it.

I think humans are way above other animals, even other primates.  Humans have language, creativity, and technology.  That is a huge difference between a man and an ape or a bear.  Religion is part of the human experience, and I believe that humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder, not one of many species.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 19, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> But anyway, I also do not believe in a lot of religious concepts, however, there are some universal phenomena that make cultures extremely similar, and therefore there must be some truth to it.


 
As a universal truth, how about "humans are afraid to die, and make things up to make themselves feel better about it."  

If you accept "universal phenomena" in religions as evidence for or against something, do you believe in gods or demons?


----------



## Freestyler777 (Oct 19, 2007)

I didn't mean to antagonize you, blindside.  But there are certain cultural universals that are so ubiqitous that there must be some truth to it.  And no, I dont believe in gods or demons.  I do believe in Jung's collective sub-conscious, but that is a different story altogether.

But follow my reasoning- humans are the highest organisms.  There's no other creature that has technology, learning, organized medicine, religion, or philosophy.  If we are advanced enough to probe nature's mysteries through science, then we can easily draw a conclusion that there is some design to the universe, such complex levels of order cannot have come about randomly.  The odds are tiny, like winning the lottery.

So it comes back to my original post.  My personal view is, there is something about human beings and the way they look and behave that is given by an outside force.  There's more to it than sperm and ovum.  I don't believe genetics is completely random.


----------



## Dionysianexile (Oct 19, 2007)

IF we are speaking about physical traits, then that is due to some random variation in the parents genes when passed on.

Human behavior or personality, however, is a much more complex phenomenon.  The argument of nature versus nurture is often brought up. In the case of humans, there is a genetic component to personality, and this is most apparent with newborns, as the impact of "nurture" is minimized. However, with time, the influence of the individuals own experiences is going to weigh much heavier on their general personality than their genetic components of behavior.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 19, 2007)

> then we can easily draw a conclusion that there is some design to the universe, such complex levels of order cannot have come about randomly. The odds are tiny, like winning the lottery.


 
Lets say a hundred billion galaxies are created in this universe, and in one galaxy of 50 billion stars, one of those stars has a planet capable of supporting life, and of the 5 million species on the planet, one comes up with a high level of consciousness.

You look at these incredible odds and say; "humans are the chosen of the universe."  

I look at it and say "we are lottery winners."

Lamont


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 19, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> It may seem an odd question, especially in this era, when religion has been almost replaced by science. But what I am trying to say is, there is a certain part of a person's appearance/demeanor that is given by heaven, not by random genetic mutation.
> 
> I believe genetics is the language of creation, and although evolution did happen, there are certain traits that are passed along from generation to generation, and there are some that just appear out of nowhere.
> 
> ...





There are "X" number of Genes in the human. We only understand a small percentage and by understand I mean know or think we know what they mean or act or represetn in the entire code. Even looking at this from a simple linguistic point of view the vowels have different sounds based upon location to other vowels or consonances. So why not the same for genes. 

Some traits follow simple rules of needing to be reinforced and others express themselves no matter what or might even be dominate. But as in the linguist example there are exceptions so I think there are exceptions in genes as well. Take a look at eye color. They say that Blue is recessive and that Green is a Mutation of Blue and Dominant over Blue as well. Yet Brown is Dominate over Green and Blue. Yet, there is a small genetic expression where there was a Green mutation from Brown that is dominate over Brown. (* One might ask why I know this? Both of my parents have green eyes yet I have Brown.  Caused quite a stir in 10 grade gentics *)

I also have Gilberts (* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert's_syndrome & http://www.gilbertssyndrome.com/ *) which I have been told is genetic and is passed down. As it comes from my Mothers side of the family and my brother does not have it, this reinforces it being an "X" donation from the mother. 

So, I am in the random camp. Other wise I truly would have to question any belief system that designed me the way I am.


----------



## Ray (Oct 19, 2007)

There is a range (minimum / maximum) for almost everything. Within that range, there is variation. Some variation is random some is not.

For example, a friend of mine and his wife had a child with a rare kidney disorder. Doc said "random mutation." A second child was born with the same rare disorder...doc tested parents, parents have a recessive gene that caused the malady. Had they each married someone with a "normal" gene, the malady most likely wouldn't have surfaced.

Also, consider families with life spans near the maximum. Perhaps an inheritable trait, perhaps not. Consider the 20 year old in this lineage who is on a bus that drives off a bridge because the driver had a heart attack.

Somewhere nurture and nature both come into play for most. But 50/50 can only be the average, not the mode.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Oct 20, 2007)

we are lottery winners


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Orientals believe in reincarnation, or Pythogorean Theory, an immortal soul that travels from body to body.



So you know, many "Orientals" consider this word derogatory.  Also, I know a great many Asian christians, so your all inclusive statement is wrong anyways.



Blindside said:


> Identical twins have similar but different fingerprints.  Clones of calico cats have different colorings on their coats, and according to the people who handle them, different personalities.



Identical twins are far more similar than most people are comfortable accepting.  Long separated twins have been found who dress similarly, have similar personalities, have similar political views, marry similar spouses, etc.  There is no question that who we are is heavily controlled by our genes.  How could it not be?  Our brain development is shaped by genes, and brain damage can change the personality of the victim.  Consider the case of Phineas Gage, who completely changed his basic personality after a railroad spike injured his forebrain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

As for the Calico cats, the coat differences is due to X-chromosome inactivation in the females, which is a random process.  Thus, it is different between individuals.



bydand said:


> My wife and I have 4 boys, and while they all have the same genetic make-up, no two of them are alike in more than some shared features.



Actually, your four boys in all likelihood have completely different genetic complements.  Each one to the other, they probably share about 25% of their genes (altered a bit by the sex chromosomes, since each of your boys will have the same Y).  While it could in theory be 100%, that would be rather unlikely.  Thus, it is no surprise that your four boys would be different.



michaeledward said:


> Nature and Nurture equally.
> 
> The ability to measure the direct influence of all impacts of nature and nurture are quite probably beyond human measure.



Actually, science is already getting a handle on this.  The various contributions of genetics and environment can be calculated using separated twins, which gives a number called the "heritability".  The heritability varies between traits - some traits are low, some high.  Also, surprisingly, the heritability of a trait can change with age.  The heritability of IQ for instance is found to be lower in children, and increases with age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Heritability

Overall, I think there is no question that genetics plays a critical role not only in what we are prepared to accept - like hair or eye color - but in more tricky areas like basic personality.  No one likes to believe that they are "locked in", that their personality has a set biological basis.  Nonetheless, I think that is what the data forces us to accept.  
That doesn't leave a lot of room for the Christian and similar God(s).  What does it say for our notions of divine justice that someone might have been born with a personality prone to "sin"?  For that after all, we have the sociopaths or the poor people with reactive-attachment disorder.  Is it their "fault" in God's eyes?  One of the reasons I just can't go for the whole God thing.


----------



## Ray (Oct 21, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> What does it say for our notions of divine justice that someone might have been born with a personality prone to "sin"?


I dunno what it says about that, but what does it say about my alcoholic father who left his children hungry and penniless for weeks at a time?  Are you saying because he was born that way, he couldn't be held responsible?   We're humans, after all, the brightest and best that could be randomly come up with.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> I dunno what it says about that, but what does it say about my alcoholic father who left his children hungry and penniless for weeks at a time? Are you saying because he was born that way, he couldn't be held responsible?


 
It means that he didn't mean to hurt you.  It means that some things are beyond the human ability to control right now.  It means that you have to just accept that and move on.  Maybe even find it in your heart to love what you have.

I grew up with a self medicating mentally ill father.  My grandfather taught me things that he did in order to survive the Depression because I was the oldest.  

Ultimately, it means we cannot totally hate them and must learn to seek a little forgiveness.



Ray said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> > We're humans, after all, the brightest and best that could be randomly come up with.
> ...


----------



## Ray (Oct 22, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> It means that he didn't mean to hurt you.
> 
> It means that some things are beyond the human ability to control right now.  It means that you have to just accept that and move on.  Maybe even find it in your heart to love what you have.


You don't know what he meant and what he didn't.  But my real point is highlighted by your suggestions to me to get over it, we do have some control over our actions and our lives.  And we have some responsibility for what we do.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Ultimately, it means we cannot totally hate them and must learn to seek a little forgiveness.


I agree, in fact your statement closely echos my beliefs.



upnorthkyosa said:


> How do you know?  In our little corner of this universe it seems like an incredible conceit to assume that *WE* are the brightest and best.


There may be life elsewhere.  Religiously I believe that there is; scientifically I believe that it most probable but unproven. 

As to whether there is "Life that is brighter and better than us" Religiously I believe that there is; scientifically,  it may be possible.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> Are you saying because he was born that way, he couldn't be held responsible?



By an eternity of punishment with extreme agony?  Literally an infinity of pain?  No.  Not and call it justice anyways.

You may also be interested to know that alcoholism does have a definite genetic component.


----------



## Ray (Oct 22, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> By an eternity of punishment with extreme agony? Literally an infinity of pain? No. Not and call it justice anyways.


The average adult human is capable of making choices and being responsible for them. I never suggested an eternal punishment with extreme agony...where did you get the idea to put it in a post referencing what I said when I said nothing, nor implied, of the sort? And what does eternal punishment have to do with Birth/Genetics and the randomness?


Empty Hands said:


> You may also be interested to know that alcoholism does have a definite genetic component.


I already know that it might. I don't find it too interesting.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> I never suggested an eternal punishment with extreme agony...where did you get the idea to put it in a post referencing what I said when I said nothing, nor implied, of the sort?



My post that you quoted and responded to was about how notions of divine justice can be reconciled with notions of predestination or predisposition.  If instead you wanted to talk about general "responsibility" or how human institutions should deal with these concepts, then you should have made that clear.  As it was, I could only assume you were addressing the portion of my post that you quoted.



Ray said:


> And what does eternal punishment have to do with Birth/Genetics and the randomness?



Most theories of divine justice, in which eternal punishment features heavily, posit that humans have free will and thus responsibility for their actions.  If we have no control over our actions, how could we be held accountable for them by a divine being?  Indeed, a divine being that created us without free will (It's his fault!).  That is why, for instance, Christian fundamentalists insist that being gay is a choice.  If being gay is inborn, then their entire concept of divine justice is flawed by its own tenets.



Ray said:


> I already know that it might. I don't find it too interesting.



Yeah, I figured.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> You don't know what he meant and what he didn't.


 
Please forgive me for being too presumptive, Ray.  I had a good day with my Dad yesterday and I think I was responding more to myself then anyone else.


----------



## Ray (Oct 22, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> My post that you quoted and responded to was about how notions of divine justice can be reconciled with notions of predestination or predisposition. If instead you wanted to talk about general "responsibility" or how human institutions should deal with these concepts, then you should have made that clear. As it was, I could only assume you were addressing the portion of my post that you quoted.


Hence my question: "Are you saying because he was born that way, he couldn't be held responsible?" which you may not have noticed...it might have been a request for a clarification of what you meant.


Empty Hands said:


> Most theories of divine justice, in which eternal punishment features heavily, posit that humans have free will and thus responsibility for their actions. If we have no control over our actions, how could we be held accountable for them by a divine being? Indeed, a divine being that created us without free will (It's his fault!). That is why, for instance, Christian fundamentalists insist that being gay is a choice. If being gay is inborn, then their entire concept of divine justice is flawed by its own tenets.


Perhaps "most theories of divine justice" are as you say. I think there was a thread on "free will" already. I believe normal adults are responsible for a large majority of their actions. Your concept of "most theories of divine justice" doesn't really fit into my "theory of divine justice."


Empty Hands said:


> Yeah, I figured.


And that means, what? That because I have little interest in the genetic predispostion that may or may not exist in certain people you should be sarcastic?


----------



## Ray (Oct 22, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Please forgive me for being too presumptive, Ray. I had a good day with my Dad yesterday and I think I was responding more to myself then anyone else.


Thank you for sharing that with me.  I'm happy when people have good days with their parents. 

You don't need to be forgiven by me, you didn't offend me.  I understand you were debating and I was too.  My father passed away last week and I got over his problems a long time ago...I hope to get over my own problems some day.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> Hence my question: "Are you saying because he was born that way, he couldn't be held responsible?" which you may not have noticed...it might have been a request for a clarification of what you meant.



No, I noticed.  I fit it into my ongoing discussion of divine justice.  I don't think God(s) could inflict their notions of punishment on your father and call it justice, but that doesn't mean that human society should not punish such people.  However, punishment and responsibility should be leavened with understanding that we don't really have full and unfettered control over all we do.  The psychotically insane would be a good if extreme example - such people are not sent to jail for crimes they commit, but to treatment at a hospital



Ray said:


> Your concept of "most theories of divine justice" doesn't really fit into my "theory of divine justice."



Well then, what is your theory of divine justice?  Does it involve infinite punishment for finite transgressions as the Christian tradition would have it?



Ray said:


> And that means, what? That because I have little interest in the genetic predispostion that may or may not exist in certain people you should be sarcastic?



No, I wasn't being sarcastic.  It was pretty clear to me from your initial response that you are carrying around a lot of pain from the actions of your father, and thus wouldn't be much interested in anything that would have the appearance of exculpation for your father's actions.


----------



## Ray (Oct 23, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Well then, what is your theory of divine justice? Does it involve infinite punishment for finite transgressions as the Christian tradition would have it?


Which "Christian Tradition" are you referring to specifically.

What is infinite punishment? Infinite length of time, infinite pain? I'm not sure what infinity is. However I know this much: If I draw a geometric ray (or am lucky enough to come across one in actual experience) at the end which has the "starting" point is finite; if I travel to the other end of the ray it is infinitely far from the "starting point." Had I not known better, I might have thought that the entire ray was infinite.

Why ask what my "theory" of divine justice is? I believe in the "law of justice" and the "law of mercy." I believe that we will be judged according to the light and knowledge we have received.


Empty Hands said:


> No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It was pretty clear to me from your initial response that you are carrying around a lot of pain from the actions of your father, and thus wouldn't be much interested in anything that would have the appearance of exculpation for your father's actions.


You are very mistaken; I carry no pain from my fathers action. 

If you hold fast to your beliefs that we have no free will then there is nothing that can be considered exculpatory since their is no guilt and there is no fault.

If I hold fast to my belief that God said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men" then there is no need for exculpation because I must forgive.

I only bring up my father's malady and the effects it may have had on me, my three siblings and my mother to see if you had a reasonably logical response. But I didn't see that; I see an attempt at long-distance amateur pschchoanalysis ("It was pretty clear to me from your initial response that you are carrying around a lot of pain from the actions of your father..." I was expecting your continuation to be "let's explore that a bit more..." or "can you tell me how you felt then...")

Kind of like your "fitting" the words of others to fit your own world-view.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 24, 2007)

Ray said:


> Which "Christian Tradition" are you referring to specifically.



The evangelical/fundamentalist tradition for one - from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" until today.  There are traditions such as U/U which do not hold with the existence of hell, but they are in the minority, at least in America.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359



Ray said:


> What is infinite punishment? Infinite length of time, infinite pain?



The infinity that most Christians seem to be referring to is infinite time, not infinite pain.  However, even finite pain for an infinite period would be pretty much indistinguishable from infinite pain.



Ray said:


> I'm not sure what infinity is.



It has a well-established mathematical definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Mathematical_infinity



Ray said:


> However I know this much: If I draw a geometric ray (or am lucky enough to come across one in actual experience) at the end which has the "starting" point is finite; if I travel to the other end of the ray it is infinitely far from the "starting point." Had I not known better, I might have thought that the entire ray was infinite.



I am not sure what this means or has to do with our conversation, but the entire ray would be infinite.



Ray said:


> Why ask what my "theory" of divine justice is?



Because you said the theories I was talking about were not your theory.



Ray said:


> I believe in the "law of justice" and the "law of mercy." I believe that we will be judged according to the light and knowledge we have received.



I am not sure what this means.  Does your concept of judgment extend to hell or infinite punishment?  Even if not, as shown by the poll above, 70% of Americans do believe in this type of judgment.  Thus, my comments about "most theories of divine justice" is an accurate one by the numbers.



Ray said:


> You are very mistaken; I carry no pain from my fathers action.



I am glad to hear it.  I am however now at a loss about why you would quiz me on the responsibility your father has for his actions when I was discussing the concept of God judging sinners with an infinite punishment considering the inborn tendencies science tells us we have.  As I said before, if you wanted to discuss something else like what human societies should do with your father, you should have said so.



Ray said:


> If you hold fast to your beliefs that we have no free will then there is nothing that can be considered exculpatory since their is no guilt and there is no fault.



I wouldn't say we had no free will.  I would say however that we have a lot less control over our actions and destinies than most people are comfortable believing.

For that matter, if you do hold with free will, how do you reconcile an omniscient God who knows the future with the existence of free will?  Both cannot be true.



Ray said:


> I only bring up my father's malady and the effects it may have had on me, my three siblings and my mother to see if you had a reasonably logical response. But I didn't see that; I see an attempt at long-distance amateur pschchoanalysis ("It was pretty clear to me from your initial response that you are carrying around a lot of pain from the actions of your father..." I was expecting your continuation to be "let's explore that a bit more..." or "can you tell me how you felt then...")



A logical response to what?  I was discussing divine punishment - those were the very words you quoted when you made your comments about your father.  How else am I supposed to interpret your comments?  My response was perfectly logical, and did not involve 
"shoehorning" your comments into my beliefs.  The amateur psychoanalysis came later - for which I apologize.

If I say "The death penalty is a bad idea." and you say "Well, what about my brother who killed 36 people?" shouldn't I assume your comments are actually about the death penalty and not something else? 



Ray said:


> Kind of like your "fitting" the words of others to fit your own world-view.



This is absolute nonsense, as I have explained above.  This sort of response, an inability to appreciate what I am saying, is what led me to believe that your experiences with your father had colored your response to me.


----------



## Ray (Oct 24, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> The infinity that most Christians seem to be referring to is infinite time, not infinite pain.  However, even finite pain for an infinite period would be pretty much indistinguishable from infinite pain.


I think that's probably a fair conclusion.


Empty Hands said:


> It has a well-established mathematical definition:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Mathematical_infinity
> 
> I am not sure what this means or has to do with our conversation, but the entire ray would be infinite.


It was only to make you think about infinity.  Surely if you stood at the point where the ray began, wouldn't you conclude that it was not infinite.  I'm really trying to understand what you mean by infinite punishment, not what wikipedia editors or most Christians mean.


Empty Hands said:


> I am not sure what this means.  Does your concept of judgment extend to hell or infinite punishment?  Even if not, as shown by the poll above, 70% of Americans do believe in this type of judgment.  Thus, my comments about "most theories of divine justice" is an accurate one by the numbers.


Really, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "infinite punishment."  I looked at the link to the poll and I don't see anything about "infinite punishment."  

What is "Justice?"   Is it "the maintenance and administration of merited rewards and punishments" as one on-line dictionary says?  If so then how does someone who absolutely cannot control themselves merit either a punishment or a reward for an action?  And if someone absolutely cannot control themselves, why would you think that "divine" justice would merit a reward or a punishment? 

What is "Mercy?"  Is it "compassion or forebearance shown esp to an offender"?  

My belief that a person will be judged according to the light and knowledge received means, for example, that an 6-year-old who steals would necessarily be held to the same standard as a 30-year-old who steals.  



Empty Hands said:


> I am glad to hear it.  I am however now at a loss about why you would quiz me on the responsibility your father has for his actions when I was discussing the concept of God judging sinners with an infinite punishment considering the inborn tendencies science tells us we have.  As I said before, if you wanted to discuss something else like what human societies should do with your father, you should have said so.


Again, it was to make you think but I failed..  

To me, your comment sounded like people who have a genetic pre-dispostion {to deviate from the norm} should not be held accountable for their actions.  Of course, not everyone is "legally" responsible for their actions, but if they deviate far enough from the norm then they are still segregated from the rest society. 


Empty Hands said:


> For that matter, if you do hold with free will, how do you reconcile an omniscient God who knows the future with the existence of free will?  Both cannot be true.


On what grounds?  Are you saying that the ability to predict something with 100% accuracy negates free will?

If you have children you will find times when you absolutely know what will result from a course of action they are planning to take.  You will counsel them against the action, but you will let them make their choice anyway (age appropriate of course) and they may learn and grow.


Empty Hands said:


> A logical response to what?  I was discussing divine punishment - those were the very words you quoted when you made your comments about your father.  How else am I supposed to interpret your comments?  My response was perfectly logical, and did not involve
> "shoehorning" your comments into my beliefs.  The amateur psychoanalysis came later - for which I apologize.


If you believe that God should not hold my father responsible for the actions he took as an alcoholic because my father had a genetic pre-dispostion to become an alcoholic, then should I or society also not hold him responsible?  


Empty Hands said:


> If I say "The death penalty is a bad idea." and you say "Well, what about my brother who killed 36 people?" shouldn't I assume your comments are actually about the death penalty and not something else?


You're right there.  I didn't explicitly refer to divine justice, I was really interested in your ideas about responsibility and accountability (whether God or Man should hold us accountable or responsible).


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 24, 2007)

Ray said:


> Surely if you stood at the point where the ray began, wouldn't you conclude that it was not infinite.



Assuming you had the ability to see to the end of the ray (i.e. it didn't end just over your horizon) you would conclude it was infinite if it never stopped.  In a similar manner, one could conclude that the universe is/will be infinite in size or duration even though the universe had a discrete beginning in both time and space.



Ray said:


> I'm really trying to understand what you mean by infinite punishment, not what wikipedia editors or most Christians mean.



Punishment without end.  As usually considered, burning in hell for the rest of eternity.  This is the concept I was commenting on in regards to our inborn tendencies.  Understand, I don't believe in this concept myself, I was commenting on how unjust it would be for God to inflict a neverending punishment on someone for a crime that could not possibly match that magnitude of punishment.



Ray said:


> What is "Justice?"   Is it "the maintenance and administration of merited rewards and punishments" as one on-line dictionary says?  If so then how does someone who absolutely cannot control themselves merit either a punishment or a reward for an action?  And if someone absolutely cannot control themselves, why would you think that "divine" justice would merit a reward or a punishment?



That concept of justice sounds good as a starting point.  However, the entire thrust of my argument from the post you quoted is exactly in line with your questions - behavior not in control of the individual does not merit divine punishment, especially neverending (infinite) punishment.  Actually, even if we were in full control of our actions, I don't think you could perform an act terrible enough to merit neverending punishment.



Ray said:


> To me, your comment sounded like people who have a genetic pre-dispostion {to deviate from the norm} should not be held accountable for their actions.



Not by God, no.  Not with his promised punishment of hellfire for eternity anyways.  However, that is entirely separate from the question of human responsibility and human actions (which is why I didn't mention it in my original post).

In human society, as a matter of principle, it is irrelevant if we have free will or not.  Holding people responsible for their actions is the only way to hold society together.  Even sociopaths are deterred if they think they will be caught.  As for the insane, we do not punish them _per se_, we confine them for our safety and theirs until they are deemed no longer a danger.  All of this is easily defensible and completely separate from the notions of divine justice I was discussing.



Ray said:


> On what grounds?  Are you saying that the ability to predict something with 100% accuracy negates free will?



Absolutely.  If there is only one potential pathway that the universe can follow, which God set in motion when the universe was created (which has scriptural support), then you have no free will.  You have no choice if no other choice is possible.

As for myself, I don't think the universe runs this way.  We definitely have inborn tendencies and the rules of cause-and-effect are always in effect, at least at the macro level.  However, science has shown us that the Universe has a great deal of true randomness going on beneath the surface, especially at the quantum level.  Call what I think for now a middle ground between free will and predestination.



Ray said:


> If you have children you will find times when you absolutely know what will result from a course of action they are planning to take.  You will counsel them against the action, but you will let them make their choice anyway (age appropriate of course) and they may learn and grow.



Yeah, but you don't _know _like God is supposed to know.  Your children might surprise you.



Ray said:


> If you believe that God should not hold my father responsible for the actions he took as an alcoholic because my father had a genetic pre-dispostion to become an alcoholic, then should I or society also not hold him responsible?



Not at all, they are completely separate questions.  For us humans, it seems to work best if we hold people responsible for what they do, except for obvious cases like insanity.  Maybe at the bottom of things us "normals" have no more choice than the "insane", but if so we can't tell.


----------



## Ray (Oct 24, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Assuming you had the ability to see to the end of the ray (i.e. it didn't end just over your horizon) you would conclude it was infinite if it never stopped. In a similar manner, one could conclude that the universe is/will be infinite in size or duration even though the universe had a discrete beginning in both time and space.


That's a pretty good answer. You are standing with the end of a rope in your hand...it proceeds through a hole in the wall, a hole which is just large enough for the rope to go through with no light showing around the rope...is it infinite in length? I assume there is no rope that is infinite in length based on experience...and based on experience I conclude that if I have an end in my hand, then it cannot possible be infinite (or without end).

You and I do not have the ability to see infinitely far to see the infinite distant end of a ray. So if you have the starting point of the ray in your hand...

We've talked the two ends of the ray to death (the starting point and the infinitely distant point) so lets talk about our experience in the middle of the ray...we look to the left, we look to the right and the ray continues in both directions with out end. In other words without beginning and without end.


Empty Hands said:


> Punishment without end. As usually considered, burning in hell for the rest of eternity. This is the concept I was commenting on in regards to our inborn tendencies. Understand, I don't believe in this concept myself, I was commenting on how unjust it would be for God to inflict a neverending punishment on someone for a crime that could not possibly match that magnitude of punishment.


I do not believe in a punishment without end...I do believe that missing out on a good thing that I otherwise might have had to be a real bummer; and if I miss out forever, then it'll be an endless regret.


Empty Hands said:


> That concept of justice sounds good as a starting point. However, the entire thrust of my argument from the post you quoted is exactly in line with your questions - behavior not in control of the individual does not merit divine punishment, especially neverending (infinite) punishment.


I agree with you. You are advancing the thought that divine justice is endless punishment for people's actions even if they are not in control of themselves.

I believe that a just God mightl punish us for those things that we do that are wrong, that we know are wrong, that we can actually understand are wrong and choose to do anyway. I believe that my life is a learning experience, learning slowly how to become more in control of myself and my actions - though probably never perfectly acheiving it. There are some people who are assuredly not accountable for their actions and I believe that a just God will judge accordingly.


Empty Hands said:


> Actually, even if we were in full control of our actions, I don't think you could perform an act terrible enough to merit neverending punishment.


From what I could see in a few web searchs, my bible dictionary and topical guide, it looks like the idea of hell being without end is not completely agreed upon. 


Empty Hands said:


> In human society, as a matter of principle, it is irrelevant if we have free will or not. Holding people responsible for their actions is the only way to hold society together. Even sociopaths are deterred if they think they will be caught. As for the insane, we do not punish them _per se_, we confine them for our safety and theirs until they are deemed no longer a danger.


You've completely swung me around to be in agreement with you on this. 


Empty Hands said:


> All of this is easily defensible and completely separate from the notions of divine justice I was discussing.


Now I understand where you're coming from. You believe God's punishment is endless and painful. I believe that not each person deserves the same "out come"--pick two people maybe Hitler and someone not so bad--if we were the judge (and we're not) then maybe they wouldn't get the same "punishment." I believe the possible outcomes are as varied as the brightness of the varied stars in the sky...and I believe that's God's plan (as well as a really bright, shiney place; bright in comparison as sun to the stars); and maybe a place as bright as the moon. I believe that utter darkness is reserved for the devil and his angels.


Empty Hands said:


> Absolutely. If there is only one potential pathway that the universe can follow, which God set in motion when the universe was created (which has scriptural support), then you have no free will. You have no choice if no other choice is possible.


That opens a big discussion. Suffice it to say that I believe that I have free choice to a point, certainly as I make decisions the "possibility branches" diminish (for example, I'm 50 and not a MD, it's pretty certain that I will not start medical school, finish medical school, complete a residency, etc to become a Doc).


Empty Hands said:


> As for myself, I don't think the universe runs this way. We definitely have inborn tendencies and the rules of cause-and-effect are always in effect, at least at the macro level. However, science has shown us that the Universe has a great deal of true randomness going on beneath the surface, especially at the quantum level. Call what I think for now a middle ground between free will and predestination.


You're right for sure that there is a lot of randomness going on in the universe. I don't operate on the quantum level. 

I don't have the option of controlling that rude driver who runs a stop sign so fast that I can't prevent a collision. And I can't control whether I will live or die in the collision. But there are plenty of things that I can control, like how I respond, like if I get angry when someone says or does something to me, like if I'm able to forgive and forget (I wasn't always).


Empty Hands said:


> Yeah, but you don't _know _like God is supposed to know. Your children might surprise you.


 You don't know how much I wish it were true.


Empty Hands said:


> Not at all, they are completely separate questions. For us humans, it seems to work best if we hold people responsible for what they do, except for obvious cases like insanity. Maybe at the bottom of things us "normals" have no more choice than the "insane", but if so we can't tell.


See, we're pretty much in agreement, except you believe that God's punishment is endless and painful (but I don't think you don't believe in God?) and I don't believe that God's justice is necessisarly punishment, nor endless (but I believe in God). And I believe that God is merciful, forgiving the broken hearted sinner.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 25, 2007)

You are correct that for us humans, we have no ability to perceive whether a stretch of time or distance is infinite.  As for God's punishment, I only go with the notion of infinite punishment because that is what a great many believers believe, which I think is strongly challenged by what science tells us about ourselves and the universe.  Granted, not all believers (like yourself) believe in this concept, but I'm not talking about them.

You are also correct in that I don't believe in God or his punishments myself.  I was only commenting on how many believer's notions of divine punishment would be unjust given what science tells us about ourselves.

If there is a God and punishment, I hope you are right and not them!

Thanks for the discussion!


----------

