@
JS
I don't think I see human beings and decision making the same way you do. I don't really think of rationality as something that exists in fine gradations with each individual either a little more rational or a little less rational than the person standing next to them. In my book, anyone who can generally be trusted to make reasonable decisions is rational. I'd put something over 95% of all adults into that category.
I recognize that pretty much all of those rational people will make poor choices over time. I know I certainly make poor choices from time to time. The fact that people are generally reasonable and sometimes make poor choices is part of what I think of as being human. It is simply the state that pretty much every adult I know lives in.
Doesn't that do a pretty good job of describing the world you see around you - lots of people who are fully capable of living their lives making a bunch of decisions that are different from the ones you would make? Does it seem more likely to you that it is a function of everyone being either more or less rational than you, or does it seem more likely it is simply the result of different people being different?
For me, I accept that it is different people being different and I respect their right to make those choices without it forcing any sort of judgment from me about who they are as a person. And make no mistake, that is the result of the method you propose. If everyone is either more or less rational than you, you are making value judgments about how "good" of a person someone is based on their decisions relative to your understanding of them. You make yourself the ultimate adjudicator of right and wrong. Seems like an awfully heavy burden to me. I prefer to accept others as my full equals even when I disagree with decisions they have made.
Do I think my choice of God is better than choosing "not God"? Absolutely. But that doesn't make me better, smarter, cleverer, more clear-headed, or anything than the person who chooses "not God". They have their reasons and I respect that. Given the opportunity, I am happy to discuss those differences with the hope of showing them how wonderful the choice of God is, but that isn't the same thing as rejecting their ability to reason because they are in a different place from me with respect to that belief.
As for the rest...
Quickly (so I don't go crazy wondering if we are talking about the same thing), let's define "existential belief", which is a term that has nothing to do with existentialism and with which I've been struggling a bit just because my brain wants to tell me that it does. If I understand you correctly "existential belief" is any belief a person holds based on their interpretation of such overwhelming evidence that is becomes impossible in their minds not to hold that belief. e.g. Aldin interacts on a daily basis with his wife of 23 years, his belief in her existence is existential belief.
And on to your numbered entries: Boy do you open fun cans of worms. I'm not convinced whether or not the angels (including Lucifer) have free will. I don't think that's particularly clear from the Bible. It is clear that they are not human, were not created in God's image and do not take part in being redeemed. Anything I said beyond that would be pure speculation.
Your #2 has a correlation/causation problem. Getting caught up in the avalanche was only correlated to my choices, it isn't in any way a product of them. I'm really not entirely clear on where you were going with these. It seems you may be allowing for non-deterministic choice, but I'm not certain. Can you clarify?
~Aldin, still getting notifications