Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!uhog.mit.edu!news!minsky
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Freedom and theology (Was Zeleny on predictability)
Message-ID: <1995Sep1.024110.22332@media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <4253ev$kto@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 02:41:10 GMT
Lines: 33
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33031 comp.ai.philosophy:32323 sci.logic:14822 sci.cognitive:9339

In article <4253ev$kto@nntp5.u.washington.edu> mounce@u.washington.edu (R. Mounce) writes:
>I know how this question is formulated in a couple New Testament
>propositions that result in denominational split on this theological
>question.  The fundamental verse is stated in english as: "By grace you
>are saved through faith, and this not of yourself but it is a gift of God
>lest any man should boast."  The question hinges on the reference "and
>this not of yourself".  Does it refer to grace or to faith?  The Greek
>verb is translated to mean that it refers to both grace and faith.  The
>conflict is that James then relates that God wants every man to come to a
>knowledge of Him, but we have the idea already formulated that God gives
>faith through grace so why doesn't he give it to everyone?  The best
>answer I have heard is that we don't know. 
>
>There is a history of philosophy surrounding this question, but it comes
>down to a concern with AI where anyone discussing freedom or choice
>ultimately makes some reference to the self, to me, to a subject.  I.e.,
>freedom to choose by someone not some thing.  If there are only things and
>mechanics, then there is no subject in a logical sense, and the idea that a
>self would have a choice is merely illusion.  The whole concept of a
>subject is based on an observed exchange between subject and object where
>a difference can be described in the between state (caution #1 - watch out
>when the words imply object location) by the subject regarding the object. 
>You can't seem to get behind it all to eliminate the subject because, of
>course, we began even this sentence with the idea that "You" exist. 
>
>A good definition of theology, beyond the enforcement of a particular
>dogma, is that it is the general drift of the scripture of God, or a
>science of things divine.  The assumed axioms are that there is a divine
>quality in life or the things of this universe, and that methodical study
>leads to an understanding. 
>


