If there is sin in the world because we have free will

[Psychologist]

Then wouldn't Christians have to give up their free will(which for whatever reason they will freely practice it however they want ignoring God's inerrant word) in order to go to heaven? Even in confession, you are expressing your regrets out of free will which means no matter what you do, even if you believe in God, you would still go to hell as long as you still have free will(which is impossible to give up or at least no one knows how to) so there is absolutely no benefit in preaching God.

I do not understand how Christians can continue believing that they will go to heaven when their God has locked their fate from the very beginning.

As far as I am involved in my limited understanding for the "Gospel", "Good News" or "Ευαγγελιομ" (as google translates) it is the core of the Gospel, that, whoever believes that Jesus Christ is the son of G*d and died for our sins.

Whoever this can believe in his heart, does not go to hell ever. Because of Jesus, who is the "open door" and "the pathway" to the father. I think, this maybe hart to grip for people because of its unlimited and undemanding promise.

It maybe sound too easy to be true - and as a scientist I really would agree, because too easy solutions are often not the best solutions...

But, if someone DOES believe this gospel, that may be an explanation for the evidence of psychological studies, that found a significant effect for benefits in health, hope, well-being, life-prolonging effects for religious believers. (What does not exclude other non-religious variables that have the same or similar effects on these variables).

With jewish roots I can say that jews don´t believe in any "hell".

Emm

[brimstoneSalad]

Whoever this can believe in his heart, does not go to hell ever. Because of Jesus, who is the "open door" and "the pathway" to the father. I think, this maybe hart to grip for people because of its unlimited and undemanding promise.

I think you might have misunderstood the topic. Everybody here knows that many Christians believe that- the issue being discussed here is hard determinism, in both a scientific and theistic sense; in the theistic sense, indicated by divine foreknowledge.

If you do not believe that your deity is omniscient, or you reject the notion that omniscience implies foreknowledge, then theistic determinism is irrelevant (although in a philosophical sense, some still believe that material determinism is relevant).

The concept of salvation by faith alone is not "hard to grip" because it is simple. It's unacceptable for many, many reasons (for many, because it is immoral)- simplicity is not one of them. But, of course, that's not the topic here.

It maybe sound too easy to be true - and as a scientist I really would agree, because too easy solutions are often not the best solutions...

Are you a researcher? Because psychologists usually are not scientists, as doctors and mathematicians and "computer scientists" are also usually not scientists. In order to be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method.

Quite to the contrary, the simplest solution are actually preferred. This is often called Occam's razor. However, they are NOT preferred when they are factually incorrect or logically contradictory.

We do not ever (and should never) prefer supernatural explanations for anything, because that is NOT a simple or easy explanation: it is a NON-explanation.
Trying to explain away something as supernatural is choosing to not explain it at all; to accept and endorse ignorance over understanding.

To be fair not all theists are supernaturalists (some believe that divinity functions on natural laws within the bounds of logic, and can be explored and understood by science), but it's very important to understand that supernatural explanations are not only unacceptable, but immoral.

But, if someone DOES believe this gospel, that may be an explanation for the evidence of psychological studies, that found a significant effect for benefits in health, hope, well-being, life-prolonging effects for religious believers. (What does not exclude other non-religious variables that have the same or similar effects on these variables).

Whether something makes you happy or not has no bearing on its actual truth value. I hope you understand that.

That aside, these claims are contentious for a number of reasons.
Using statistics without controlling for variables is generally deceptive, and can quite often be the exact opposite of useful.

Community, social structure, less drinking and smoking and other drug use -- these things are correlated with happiness and longevity.
The great benefit in religious structure (of any kind, Christianity is not special) is in providing people with a social group and excuse to gather and socialize.
There are also a number of severe reporting biases affecting studies like these.

[DLH]

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Eve was deceived, but Adam chose to disobey knowingly out of a fear that he would lose his wife and be unable to deal with that. 1 Timothy 2:14. "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor."

Interesting reference you made there, I was literally just reading 1 Timothy 2:11-15. The quote you stripped from it was clearly made in the context of women's inferiority.

Excuse me for going off-topic, just noticed it. You can ignore it if you want, although I would find it interesting to know how you handle/think about such verses as someone who seems to know the bible very well.

Lets look at what a good study Bible reads on those specific verses. 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Let a woman learn in silence [Or "quietness; calmness."] with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent [Or "quiet; calm."]. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. However, she [literally, "they"] will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind [Or "good judgment; sensibleness."]."

The Hebrew word for woman is ishshah, which literally means a female man. The word is also rendered "wife." The parallel Greek term is gyne which is also rendered either "woman" or "wife."

At Genesis 2:18 Jehovah decided that it wasn't good for Adam to remain alone, and that he should create a "helper" for him or "complement of him." In a historically misogynistic world the position of a woman from a Biblical perspective can be misinterpreted somewhat due to the perspective of that very world view. So, influenced by that view reflects on the Bible. Though the Bible does reflect some of that as it's own portrayal of the world, it is often thought of as having inspired it or in hindsight condoning it in a more negative fashion than might be realistic. Consider, for example, the terms "helper" and "complement" as used in Genesis 2:18.

The Hebrew word ezer is rendered "helper," and some consider this an insult to women, but the term is also used in application to Jehovah God himself as being a helper to us and Israel. (Psalm 33:20 / Exodus 18:4 / Deuteronomy 33:7 / Hosea 13:9) The Hebrew word neghedh is rendered "complement," and is not just the assistance in daily work or the procreation of children but the mutual support companionship provides.

When the Bible tells of some of the unfortunate situations that occurred because of the selfish domination of wicked men it doesn't mean that God approved of it. Although Jehovah tolerated various customs among men in their ancient dealings with women he also regulated them in order to protect women. It isn't fair to judge ancient customs by the standards of modern society. They may be repulsive to us but were not generally thought to be back then.

[Psychologist]

Great! Thanks for your reply, brimstone!

First I would like to mention, that I wasn´t trying to "convince" s.o. about reality of G*d or so...

I tried to put religious beliefs in the context of psychological research (which is a current topic not only in germany but also in USA). I am interested in the benefits or "malefits" of religious beliefs and the question of "free will". (Libet, 1979)

I do not think that the vast majority of christians really believes in the Gospel!
Because if they were, they hadn´t to worry about sin or hell or anything like that. But instead of feeling release many christians are, in contrary, obsessed with sin and guilt. That is not "true believing" in the Gospel as the New Testament teaches.

And I am far, far away of proclaiming any deterministic relations.

We know, that in science deterministic relations are rare (even in physics, where scientists operate with variables that are constructs, and not fully defined or even "existing") - second, most relations between variables are correlations and there is nearly always a rest of uncertainty - therefore often experimental (!!) results are published under specification of the confidence intervall.

Occam´s Razor is indeed one of the qualitiy requirements in science. I cannot remember that I rejected this issue in my previous post.

Occams razor means, that you have to choose the most simple explanation whenever you plan an experiment, design a study, build hypotheses and so on. The "most simple" is not "the simplest" explanation - the most simple explanation in a reasonable "range" of simplicity is required!

When I spoke from the benefits of "believing" I did that because I like the idea (and it is scientifically examined in numerous studies in biology, psychology, medicin, p. e. ) of the mind-body-soul-unit. I know, I KNOW that it is NOT proven yet that we have "a soul"! But: Neuroscientists are not able to explain, HOW our brain works altogether, though many is known about our brain yet. AND there is evidence, that our "Feelings" do have an impact on our bodily well-being.

I NEVER statet in my last post something "supernatural". I referred to some fMRT, SPECT, and other under EXPERIMENTAL conditions resulted findings. Says nothing about any existence of any supernatural being. Perhaps it is not important, if there is anyone outside in space or heaven, if religion can help some people in their lifes.

The benefits correlated with well-being in humans is not simply "being happy" as you had summarized it.
In contrary, longitudinal studies in cancer patients found, that religious people had a significant longer life-span than non-religious people. Even if thei absolutely do NOT feeling happy: (Example below)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false

Finally I do not know how you define who is a "scientist" and who is not. Scientists are people, who work with science-related topics, who have a scientific education (University) and their work is defined by empiric methods.
And in this way, psychology is really a science - I am really wondering that you do not know that?

And finally - when I mentioned the benefits of a somewhat "religious lifestyle" I said the same as you did in your answer: Variables, correlated with well-being in religious belifs DO NOT EXCLUDE other variables that have similar (maybe better) effects.

Back to the roots: The question about "free will" of people is in fact a question that is not really easy to answer.
Starting with Libet and by trying to get near to an answer of any possibilities of "free will" or denying the possibility of a "free will" is not discussed in a few sentences because first it is important do DEFINE what a "free will" actually is and how it is measurable.

Science has to stay open-minded. Every so-called "Scientific fact" is a temporal fact, not a fact to all eternity. That is science.

Greetings, Emm

Whoever this can believe in his heart, does not go to hell ever. Because of Jesus, who is the "open door" and "the pathway" to the father. I think, this maybe hart to grip for people because of its unlimited and undemanding promise.

I think you might have misunderstood the topic. Everybody here knows that many Christians believe that- the issue being discussed here is hard determinism, in both a scientific and theistic sense; in the theistic sense, indicated by divine foreknowledge.

If you do not believe that your deity is omniscient, or you reject the notion that omniscience implies foreknowledge, then theistic determinism is irrelevant (although in a philosophical sense, some still believe that material determinism is relevant).

The concept of salvation by faith alone is not "hard to grip" because it is simple. It's unacceptable for many, many reasons (for many, because it is immoral)- simplicity is not one of them. But, of course, that's not the topic here.

It maybe sound too easy to be true - and as a scientist I really would agree, because too easy solutions are often not the best solutions...

Are you a researcher? Because psychologists usually are not scientists, as doctors and mathematicians and "computer scientists" are also usually not scientists. In order to be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method.

Quite to the contrary, the simplest solution are actually preferred. This is often called Occam's razor. However, they are NOT preferred when they are factually incorrect or logically contradictory.

We do not ever (and should never) prefer supernatural explanations for anything, because that is NOT a simple or easy explanation: it is a NON-explanation.
Trying to explain away something as supernatural is choosing to not explain it at all; to accept and endorse ignorance over understanding.

To be fair not all theists are supernaturalists (some believe that divinity functions on natural laws within the bounds of logic, and can be explored and understood by science), but it's very important to understand that supernatural explanations are not only unacceptable, but immoral.

But, if someone DOES believe this gospel, that may be an explanation for the evidence of psychological studies, that found a significant effect for benefits in health, hope, well-being, life-prolonging effects for religious believers. (What does not exclude other non-religious variables that have the same or similar effects on these variables).

Whether something makes you happy or not has no bearing on its actual truth value. I hope you understand that.

That aside, these claims are contentious for a number of reasons.
Using statistics without controlling for variables is generally deceptive, and can quite often be the exact opposite of useful.

Community, social structure, less drinking and smoking and other drug use -- these things are correlated with happiness and longevity.
The great benefit in religious structure (of any kind, Christianity is not special) is in providing people with a social group and excuse to gather and socialize.
There are also a number of severe reporting biases affecting studies like these.

[brimstoneSalad]

I do not think that the vast majority of christians really believes in the Gospel!
Because if they were, they hadn´t to worry about sin or hell or anything like that. But instead of feeling release many christians are, in contrary, obsessed with sin and guilt. That is not "true believing" in the Gospel as the New Testament teaches.

And of course you are right where everybody else has it wrong.
If you're a psychologist, you should be able to see the situation a little more objectively.

Different people interpret Christianity differently. There are very few interpretations that can be called more right than others- and yours certainly isn't one of them.

Don't be so arrogant and dismissive of others' beliefs. What if they're right, and you're wrong?

We know, that in science deterministic relations are rare (even in physics, where scientists operate with variables that are constructs, and not fully defined or even "existing") - second, most relations between variables are correlations and there is nearly always a rest of uncertainty - therefore often experimental (!!) results are published under specification of the confidence intervall.

I feel like you're talking about things you don't understand here. You should do more research on determinism.

Occams razor means, that you have to choose the most simple explanation whenever you plan an experiment, design a study, build hypotheses and so on. The "most simple" is not "the simplest" explanation - the most simple explanation in a reasonable "range" of simplicity is required!

No, it means simpler explanations with fewer assumptions are preferred, provided they account for the observations. All other things being the same (the model accounting for all observations), the simplest (most elegant) explanation is preferred.

AND there is evidence, that our "Feelings" do have an impact on our bodily well-being.

That has nothing to do with a soul. That is because our emotions are physical parts of our being, and have consequences throughout our bodies through various effects of hormones.

Perhaps it is not important, if there is anyone outside in space or heaven, if religion can help some people in their lifes.

It is important in some ways, and unimportant in others.

A simple question: Do you want to believe what is actually true, or do you only want to believe whatever you think will make you feel good, no matter if it is a lie, or harms others?

Scientists are people, who work with science-related topics,

No.

who have a scientific education (University)

NO.

and their work is defined by empiric methods.

By the scientific method, YES. By non-scientific empirical methods, no.

To be a scientist, you just need to do work involving the scientific method.

Others may be healthcare practitioners (like yourself), engineers, etc. These are not scientists, because they do not employ the scientific method.

And in this way, psychology is really a science - I am really wondering that you do not know that?

RESEARCH in psychology is a science. It's a very, very soft science (one of the softest there is), but it's a science.
Practicing psychologists are not scientists, unless they are conducting research on their patients using the scientific method.

Are you doing research? If you are only practicing, and not doing clinical research with proper controls, then you are not a scientist. Sorry.

first it is important do DEFINE what a "free will" actually is and how it is measurable.

You will find that it is not a coherent concept in theology.
That is, you can not define it or measure it- it's anti-scientific in that regard.
That is, most people will consider it to be supernatural.

Science has to stay open-minded. Every so-called "Scientific fact" is a temporal fact, not a fact to all eternity. That is science.

There's a saying: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

Science is not and should not be open to the supernatural; it has nothing to do with reason, logic, or anything remotely accessible to science. These things should properly and morally be regarded as false.

Until you can acceptably define "free will" in a coherent and naturalistic way, it not only does not exist but can not exist, because it's logically incoherent.

Free from what, exactly? It's nonsense.

"Free will" is only a useful concept in rhetoric, referring to the retrospective notion of what you might have done (but likely couldn't really have) which exists for the purpose of learning and improvement, and what is in ignorance perceived outwardly as choice due to the unknowns of random and chaotic functions.