Intergalactic Summit

How do you not account for them? They're not in the same situation - the first time, they didn't have the knowledge they have the second time around about how that decision worked out... or 'a few years' of additional experiences to draw upon. So you've changed the conditions under which the decision is being made... and you expect the decision to remain the same?

So you are saying we are all pre-programmed but are capable of rewriting the program or create a new program on our own. Will the rewriting or creation of the program be initiated without an external stimulus or must there always be an external stimulus?

I know very well how 'similar' and 'same' differs. However, I also understand that often times people will make the same decisions for 'similar' situations, never mind the slight changes in parameter. I also understand that there are people who always apply different decisions for the exact 'same' situations even if the previous decision produced a positive outcome. That was what my first question was about. Are these cases of determinism or free will?

I am no theologian, but I wish to give a layman's view on the topic of 'success' -

Success is not guaranteed for a Faithful individual. We individuals play a part in the works of God's greater plan. For some that will mean great success, for others it will be a life of trial and hardship, for still others it could be anywhere in between.

Eventual success is guaranteed, though trials will exist, for Amarr and the Empire as a whole so long as we are Faithful to Him.

We are a patient people with a mindset that reaches far beyond ourselves.

Time always favors Amarr. Always.

It might be a little late for me to say this, but, maybe "free will" deserves its own topic?

(What Ms. Arrendis has been saying is very nearly my own view, though I've got a wrinkle to add. Just, maybe we shouldn't make one really neat topic the enemy of another by hijacking the thread?)

The primary argument I see against the Amarr Faith is not against the belief in their God, or even against most of the tenets of their Faith. And yet again and again, that's what I see targeted in 'debates'.

The primary problem I've observed others having with it is institutional slavery. But first, on the belief in a God.

God is a nonprovable subject. We cannot prove if one exists or does not exist. We can prove that he is not omnibenevolent, which is a stupid word. But we can never prove that he is omnipotent, omniscient, that he exists, or that these are not true. Therefor, that argument and debate is purely mental masturbation. I, personally, feel that if a God exists, it is either negligent or no longer cares about us, or it has died or moved on. In which case, it is functional atheism. Nondiscomfirmability. Therefore, attacking the Faith on the existence or lack of existence of its God is pointless. What amuses me is that the Republic loyalists, and the Federationists, attack this point so heavily, when their own beliefs are either based on beliefs in equally absent deities, or the belief in a lack of a deity, which can similarly not be proven. Therefore, anyone attacking the belief in God as a primary avenue of attack on the entire Faith should really reconsider their equally untenable position.

As far as the other part, and morals fall into this. My issue is not with Amarr Faith itself. It is with the institutionalization of Slavery in a way that the Empire itself is now dependent on it. It disgusts me to a moral level (leaving out my issues with the other major empires). We can argue back and forth on the morality of it all day, and if we did, I would attack that concept at the most fundamental level, but we'll never get anywhere on this.

Instead, we look at the practical side of things. There is a striking phenomenon that takes place when you try to force a mindset upon a person. We have seen this twice now. People don't like it. They rebel. We saw it a long time ago with the formation of the Minmatar Republic, and again with the Elder Fleet. You can indoctrinate people for centuries but you cannot completely erase their desire for freedom of expression, movement, belief.

The argument that you are "improving their lives" is subjective, at best. You cannot begin to calculate the infinite infinities that goes into making a single life. You cannot calculate what their values would have been were they not indoctrinated or enslaved. However, what you can do, is show kindness, compassion, and respect, and sway people to your Faith by those means. People that join a belief or group out of free will are always more loyal and true believers, and also more moral believers. Psychology is a critical thing to consider here. Then we could also discuss the biological weapon that is vitoxin. We all wail and scream loudly at Napulius's usage of it. I agree, it was a monstrosity. What if holders across the Empire that practice its use gave it up tomorrow? Walked away, similarly? Would you have a similar outcry from the resulting horrors? Or would your outcry be merely 'where have all these holders gone?'. If it is the latter, I would suggest you should examine your own moral code, and your reason for holding slaves. Are you holding them 'for their betterment and the saving of their soul', or because it makes your life easier and assuages some deep-held guilt that you will never be saved unless you somehow 'prove' your Faith? Those in the Republic have no place to criticize this, though, due to the nature of their mandatory voluval rituals in which people are cast aside because of a tattoo marking derived through 'mystic' means. I had a friend who came from one of those outcast worlds. She was an amazing artist, but her life was a living hell when she was there. Her tongue was ripped out by Tribalists for violating her Pale Eye's vow of silence.

Which brings me to a subjective point. People forced by slavery into your Faith are neither true believers nor are they saved nor are they moral, even by your standards. If I put a gun to your head and forced you to save a drowning victim's life, are you a moral person? No, you did it to avoid being shot. Extend that to things like alms, helping others, or even refraining from illegal and violent acts, and you are not moral if your only imperative was to avoid the whip of a slaver, or the shock of a collar. If your mind is enslaved with the use of a TCMC, you are not moral. You are merely following what you are told to do. A person made, by force, to make a choice is not making that choice of moral imperative, but of survival (unless survival is your moral imperative, in which case the Amarr Faith is probably not for you).

This goes for indoctrination over centuries, as well. If over the centuries, you breed or educate out of a populace the ability to think critically, the option to leave the Faith (and slavery), etc, you have not created a moral populace. You have created an ignorant one who does not understand the concepts of being saved, morality, and Faith. You have a populace who's only choices are 'be Faithful or die', or in some cases, 'be Faithful or ???', because they do not understand or comprehend any other options. Again, there's no moral imperative here. They cannot look at something and say, 'I did this because it is moral', they do it because 'I did this and it is all I know'. They cannot say 'I looked at other faiths and visions, and found this to be true'. They can only say 'I was told this is true, therefore it must be'. Therefore, indoctrination does not give true believers, but simply people who don't examine things too closely. Maybe this is your goal, I do not know. But it strikes me as antithetical when you could encourage people to look at other faiths, and let that prove how strong and true their own is.

Ok, I've spent all day getting sufficiently high and I'm now ready to enter this awesome ongoing theological discussion!

I really like your take on this Arrendis as it really spells out the implications nicely. To accept an Omni-God pretty much erases free will as we understand it. Otherwise, you can have free will, but then have to psychologically negotiate an imperfect God (at least those for whom such a concept is important).

I've been toying with a 'third way' idea lately during the time when I'm laying around doing nothing or trying to tune out people I'd rather not acknowledge. The third way is this: What if 'free will' is just our experience of the universe as beings that are not omni? Would that experience really be that much different than 'free will' and an imperfect God? In each case, we don't all of the outcomes and we can't control all outcomes, so there doesn't seem to be much of a difference.

I've always seen this 'determinism v. free will' debate having more to do with threats to our collective egos. Not that I have any room to talk since my head prevents me from getting through most doors. What I guess I'm saying is that people generally don't like to believe that anyone else can control their destiny without at least their tacit consent, that goes triple for many capsuleers that I know. It feels scary.

When you think about it though, our actions are already controlled by various natural forces and realities anyway. In those cases though, I think we've just gotten good at convincing ourselves that we're negotiating with their forces, rather than playing within parameters that we didn't choose.

In the end, only the God knows the truth. We can only interpret. Or misinterpret.

Silence, heretic.

It's no longer surprising to see a Gradient member defend the Sani Sabik, but it's still a vile thing to behold.