Chronological Dualism

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

There seem to be three main ways to think about our mortal situation.
First (Nature): that free will is only an illusion, derivative of the principles of uncertainty and incompleteness.
Second (God): that causation is only an illusion, derivative of a necessary synchronicity among competing perspectives of free will.
Third (Dualism of God and Nature): that both free will and causation are inextricably necessary, yet derivative of an interpenetrating intelligence, which manifests through an array of Elohim (God) and interdependent, logarithmic functions (Nature).

I intuit and prefer the third way. I believe it better respects our existential feedback loop, which protects our chronology by synchronizing an entanglement of both uncertainty and incompleteness, in respect of any notion of pre-set or post-set determinism.

That is, our feedback loop entails a dual involvement of: a source of empathetic choice making; and a source of defaulting indifference.

To my taste, any reasons for rationalizing the first way of thinking are insufficient, because it cannot sufficiently rationalize the principles of uncertainty and incompleteness, and it is indifferent and without value for inspiring us to respect any common source for moral empathy.

To my taste, any reasons for rationalizing the second way of thinking are also insufficient, because I cannot imagine a God whose great intelligence should be chained to the joyless, mind-numbing task of perpetually minding every leap of quanta and every piece of minutia.

The third way, however, is consistent with an intuitive acceptance of empirically irresolvable principles. And, it accepts that we can neither measure nor empirically prove what God should want, but that we may, with humble, courageous, and receptive hearts, seek in common empathy to intuit what God may want.

In any event, all purely empirically based arguments about what I should believe about any ultimate aspect about morality cancel out. Thus, to decide how to tip the scales about what I should believe, I must resort to intuition based arguments. The best intuition based argument would seem to be the one that is consistent with intuition or, at least, not inconsistent with intuition, not trumped by any better logic, not falsified by empiricism, and not a hindrance to legitimate pursuits under the scientific method.