Quote of the Day: We are Free

 

We are free because we are not merely objects. We are subjects. We respond not just to physical events but to the way we perceive those events. We have minds, not just brains. We have thoughts, not just sensations. We can react but we can also choose not to react. There is something about us that is irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.  

–Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

This description of the human being is so poignant to me. It’s so easy to get mired in the day-to-day yuckiness, obsessing about our difficulties, and stressing ourselves out. We forget that we are special: we have the power to think, contemplate and reason. We have the ability to learn, grow and improve ourselves, no matter what is going on. We are empowered to not only be successful (which can be measured in countless ways), but to help others achieve their dreams and overcome adversity.

It helps to remember that G-d created us in His image, and sees us as His co-creators; that’s pretty awesome stuff. In that role, we can look to each other to move our lives forward, to move the country forward and to benefit the world.

We are much more than we can imagine.

And we are free to experience it all.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    I like that quote Susan, and I would add that we are subjects with a soul, a spirit that belongs to God.  I was prompted to think of that with all this AI sh– going on!!  I wonder how free we will actually be ….

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    I like that quote Susan, and I would add that we are subjects with a soul, a spirit that belongs to God. I was prompted to think of that with all this AI sh– going on!! I wonder how free we will actually be ….

    Yes, FSC, let’s remember our soul and spirit, too. Your point about freedom is valid!

    • #2
  3. Rodin Moderator
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Fascinating that you posted this, today. My post (also today) on initial thoughts on Dr Jordan Peterson’s latest book, We Who Wrest With God, also takes the “man as co-creators” perspective. No doubt because Peterson is examining closely the Hebrew text and consulting with Jewish scholars. This is in apparent contradistinction with C.S. Lewis’ description of God’s omniscience:

    “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being the He can see ahead and we cannot…But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him” (Mere Christianity p. 170).

    I pulled the quote from an article by Matthew Chicoine that I found while unsuccessfully searching for a different C.S. Lewis quote from my memory. Interestingly, Chicoine explained this quote by referencing his own experience as a father in giving his children certain choices and correctly anticipating which choices they would make. They were free to choose (to “create”) but he knew what they would choose (“create”). He attributes that anticipation not to impinge on freedom, but to correctly predict its exercise. So the question really arises whether God knows the choices that will be made (C.S. Lewis) or whether God can see all of the potential choices and, by knowing mankind correctly, predicts its exercise?

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Fascinating that you posted this, today. My post (also today) on initial thoughts on Dr Jordan Peterson’s latest book, We Who Wrest With God, also takes the “man as co-creators” perspective. No doubt because Peterson is examining closely the Hebrew text and consulting with Jewish scholars. This is in apparent contradistinction with C.S. Lewis’ description of God’s omniscience:

    “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being the He can see ahead and we cannot…But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him” (Mere Christianity p. 170).

    I pulled the quote from an article by Matthew Chicoine that I found while unsuccessfully searching for a different C.S. Lewis quote from my memory. Interestingly, Chicoine explained this quote by referencing his own experience as a father in giving his children certain choices and correctly anticipating which choices they would make. They were free to choose (to “create”) but he knew what they would choose (“create”). He attributes that anticipation not to impinge on freedom, but to correctly predict its exercise. So the question really arises whether God knows the choices that will be made (C.S. Lewis) or whether God can see all of the potential choices and, by knowing mankind correctly, predicts its exercise?

    Again, from Jewish theology, G-d is outside of time, but that is separate from his decision to not know our choices. He could have chosen to know, but chose not to. There are so many times in Torah when people did what they shouldn’t have done. Would G-d have stopped them if he knew what they would do, or would he let their free will reign?

    • #4
  5. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    Yes, we can choose. G-d wants us to choose rightly. Perhaps some of us don’t want that burden, or probably all of us don’t want it at some point. 

    *******

    This post is part of the Quote of the Day group writing project at Ricochet. There are a few days left to signup in January. For those who want to plan ahead for February, the next month’s QOTD signup sheet is here: https://ricochet.com/1775161/february-2025-quote-of-the-day-signup-sheet/.

     

    • #5
  6. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Everyone likes the spirit of Sacks’ comment, but I don’t think it holds up as reason.

    We are free because we are not merely objects. We are subjects. We respond not just to physical events but to the way we perceive those events. We have minds, not just brains. We have thoughts, not just sensations. We can react but we can also choose not to react. There is something about us that is irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.  

    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance.

    • #6
  7. JoshuaFinch Coolidge
    JoshuaFinch
    @JoshuaFinch

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Fascinating that you posted this, today. My post (also today) on initial thoughts on Dr Jordan Peterson’s latest book, We Who Wrest With God, also takes the “man as co-creators” perspective. No doubt because Peterson is examining closely the Hebrew text and consulting with Jewish scholars. This is in apparent contradistinction with C.S. Lewis’ description of God’s omniscience:

    “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being the He can see ahead and we cannot…But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him” (Mere Christianity p. 170).

    I pulled the quote from an article by Matthew Chicoine that I found while unsuccessfully searching for a different C.S. Lewis quote from my memory. Interestingly, Chicoine explained this quote by referencing his own experience as a father in giving his children certain choices and correctly anticipating which choices they would make. They were free to choose (to “create”) but he knew what they would choose (“create”). He attributes that anticipation not to impinge on freedom, but to correctly predict its exercise. So the question really arises whether God knows the choices that will be made (C.S. Lewis) or whether God can see all of the potential choices and, by knowing mankind correctly, predicts its exercise?

    Again, from Jewish theology, G-d is outside of time, but that is separate from his decision to not know our choices. He could have chosen to know, but chose not to. There are so many times in Torah when people did what they shouldn’t have done. Would G-d have stopped them if he knew what they would do, or would he let their free will reign?

    Regarding today and the future, we are free to act however we choose. However, when looking at the past, we see the hand of God in every choice we made.

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    • #8
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, superficial. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    Typo on “supernatural”?

    (Do we blame autocorrect? I’m sure autocorrect deserves it.)

    I didn’t get the impression Sacks was saying that “There is something about us that is irreducible to material, physical causes and effects” was a conclusion from his preceding sentences. It looked like an explanation of a viewpoint to me, not an argument.

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, superficial. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    Typo on “supernatural”?

    (Do we blame autocorrect? I’m sure autocorrect deserves it.)

    I didn’t get the impression Sacks was saying that “There is something about us that is irreducible to material, physical causes and effects” was a conclusion from his preceding sentences. It looked like an explanation of a viewpoint to me, not an argument.

    Oh, it was a typo, all right!! I did mean to repeat supernatural. And I think it expanded on what he’d already said, and wasn’t intended to be an argument.

    • #10
  11. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    Puh-leeze. He said “irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.” That is super-natural. That is what he was “simply saying.”

    • #11
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    Puh-leeze. He said “irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.” That is super-natural. That is what he was “simply saying.”

    Why assume that all natural things are physical?

    Some very important philosophies, e.g. Aristotle’s, say otherwise. It’s not old-fashioned either; every hylomorphist philosopher says natural things include non-physical things. Hylomorphism is the majority view in the history of philosophy, and still a (currently minority but important) position these days.

    • #12
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    Puh-leeze. He said “irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.” That is super-natural. That is what he was “simply saying.”

    Anyway, the important thing is: I think he did not mean it as a conclusion. Supernaturalism or not–it was further elaboration of his view, not a conclusion to the preceding sentences.

    (Had I world enough and time and a page or two of context, I could reconsider this!)

    • #13
  14. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    Puh-leeze. He said “irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.” That is super-natural. That is what he was “simply saying.”

    Anyway, the important thing is: I think he did not mean it as a conclusion. Supernaturalism or not–it was further elaboration of his view, not a conclusion to the preceding sentences.

    (Had I world enough and time and a page or two of context, I could reconsider this!)

    I understand your … objection, I guess, I know there’s a better word. I was hoping to hold you in abeyance while I responded to Susan’s thread, which was easier to handle.

    • #14
  15. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    How about if I sidestep the supernatural question and say instead 

    I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural other-than-physical because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance.

    • #15
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance

    He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.

    How about if I sidestep the supernatural question and say instead

    I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural other-than-physical because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance.

    I’ve never known anyone to say that.

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    What is your issue about supernatural? Here is a definition:

    The meaning of SUPERNATURAL is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. How to use supernatural in a sentence.

    When we connect with G-d, relate to him, and some people even speak with him, is that not supernatural? Why don’t you tell me what you think instead of just criticizing Rabbi Sacks?

     

    • #17
  18. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Fascinating that you posted this, today. My post (also today) on initial thoughts on Dr Jordan Peterson’s latest book, We Who Wrest With God, also takes the “man as co-creators” perspective. No doubt because Peterson is examining closely the Hebrew text and consulting with Jewish scholars. This is in apparent contradistinction with C.S. Lewis’ description of God’s omniscience:

    “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being the He can see ahead and we cannot…But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him” (Mere Christianity p. 170).

    I pulled the quote from an article by Matthew Chicoine that I found while unsuccessfully searching for a different C.S. Lewis quote from my memory. Interestingly, Chicoine explained this quote by referencing his own experience as a father in giving his children certain choices and correctly anticipating which choices they would make. They were free to choose (to “create”) but he knew what they would choose (“create”). He attributes that anticipation not to impinge on freedom, but to correctly predict its exercise. So the question really arises whether God knows the choices that will be made (C.S. Lewis) or whether God can see all of the potential choices and, by knowing mankind correctly, predicts its exercise?

    Oh, I don’t think God has to “predict” anything. He knows, and is not limited by time.

    • #18
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.