EPTFree Will and Religion - Page 27
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. | ||
|
politik
409 Posts
| ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
i chose to write this, me not someone else what im writing here is a direct result of me deciding to write it and my body moving in order for it to be written nothing is forcing or influecing my decision on what to write i choose what gets written out of my own free will another thing i dont get is why people say things like prophecys remove free will thats also pretty foolish, people say that "oh if the end result is pre-ordained then i have no free will" but thats wrong its still your free will that caused it to happen jsut becuase you know whats going to happen before you make the choice doesnt remove the choice, you jsut dont realise that you already freely chose the choice that caused the event to happen and didnt realise it | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:39 NEOtheONE wrote: First of all your opinion assumes a premise which may or may not be true. You base your entire argument on the laws of physics. From a philosophical standpoint, you have to address the issue of the mind-body argument, which you completely ignore in the OP. If mind and body are one and the same, then the laws of physics apply and your premise can follow. If mind and body are not one and the same, then your entire argument is invalidated because the mind does not have to follow the laws of physics. Also, I take the stance of Rene Descartes on this issue, which is they are two distinct things that interact with each other. Article for your reference http://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/ He's emphasized several times that he base his opinion on "what we know about the universe" and at least according to him that would (most likely) be that mind and body are the same. That's my take on his stance anyway. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:57 Forikorder wrote: i dont get why people say free will doesnt exist i chose to write this, me not someone else what im writing here is a direct result of me deciding to write it and my body moving in order for it to be written nothing is forcing or influecing my decision on what to write i choose what gets written out of my own free will another thing i dont get is why people say things like prophecys remove free will thats also pretty foolish, people say that "oh if the end result is pre-ordained then i have no free will" but thats wrong its still your free will that caused it to happen jsut becuase you know whats going to happen before you make the choice doesnt remove the choice, you jsut dont realise that you already freely chose the choice that caused the event to happen and didnt realise it Maybe if you read even part of the last 27 pages then you would get why people say that. It is true that people make "choices," but the point is that people don't have control of their choices. Our ignorance of the causes of a choice cause us to assume that the choice was uncaused. Here's some of my own points, #5 is the important one. On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference. 1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality. 2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary. 3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism. 4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused. 5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On March 06 2012 15:36 shinyA wrote: God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. What does this even mean? This is one of those vague statements that theists throw out, but it doesn't really make much sense. Its typically used to justify bad arguments such as the first cause argument: "The universe has a first cause which was god, but god doesn't need a cause because he exists outside of time". In other words, an illogical statement is used to justify an invalid argument. If god exists and interacts in our universe, say by parting the red sea (which DOES exist in space/time), then he exists in space/time. If he does not exist in space/time of our universe, then he cannot do things such as raise people from the dead. That would involve affecting OUR molecular structure, which DOES exist in space/time. If god is a completely spiritual being with no x,y,z,t coordinate, then he has no impact on our existence whatsoever. If god can interact with us, he is bound by time. Theists don't get to make up rules because the idea of god contradicts basic scientific knowledge. There is nothing in the bible that suggests god is not a temporal being: Creating the universe in 7 days, regretting drowning everyone in the flood after the fact, regretting giving the israelites a king after the fact, etc. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. There are a couple of problems with that statement... - Do theists have free will in heaven? All evil will be gone right? Won't they just be mindless automatons? - This also does not account for natural disasters. Humans can still choose right from wrong, but can do so in a world where earthquakes aren't slaughtering millions of people for free. - Finally, free will is just the ability to make choices. Saying that we need suffering for free will makes no sense. Let's say we lived in a magical garden where everything was happy. I could still make choices. I could choose to take a walk along a stream, or to pick flowers. As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing. For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter. It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it. EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word. Yeah I didn't say no apologist had no answer, I said their answers were poor, just like yours. How is not preventing evil not malevolent? If a warlord is raping and plundering innocent people in africa, and with the snap of my finger, I could render him impotent, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Not doing so makes me evil. Every decent human being out there tries to help out those who are suffering, we just lack the power to make a difference. Similarly, putting adam and eve in the garden of eden with a fast talking snake, KNOWING what would happen, punishing them for something that was inevitable, and then punishing their descendants with eternal hellfire is negligent and malevolent. You cannot create a flawed creation and then throw a hissy fit after the fact, that is childish. Just because morality is subjective and nuanced shades of grey does not mean there is no evil. Evil only exists in the context of consciousness. A plant is not good or evil. A human, who has evolved empathy and can understand suffering, defines his own system of ethics, but there is a lot of overlap. The gist of it is, anything that causes suffering to others is evil. Anything that reduces suffering is good. The nuanced shades of grey comes in because the world is a complex place. However, saying that the god of the bible is let off the hook because ethics is far more complex than a simple and naive system of absolute morality is a cop out. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:57 Forikorder wrote: i dont get why people say free will doesnt exist i chose to write this, me not someone else what im writing here is a direct result of me deciding to write it and my body moving in order for it to be written nothing is forcing or influecing my decision on what to write i choose what gets written out of my own free will another thing i dont get is why people say things like prophecys remove free will thats also pretty foolish, people say that "oh if the end result is pre-ordained then i have no free will" but thats wrong its still your free will that caused it to happen jsut becuase you know whats going to happen before you make the choice doesnt remove the choice, you jsut dont realise that you already freely chose the choice that caused the event to happen and didnt realise it If you were without any senses, no touch, no sight, no smell and so on, would you still be writing this? Everything that happens around you, what happens inside your body, everything that you have ever experienced is influencing you up to the very point where you sit in front of your computer to write this. I'm not saying I'm for or against the idea of free will but you can't say that nothing is influencing you. No one is ever seperated to the world around you or what's happening to your body, be it something extreemly miniscule. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On March 06 2012 23:48 paralleluniverse wrote: Here's what I wrote: Perhaps the language was a bit strong, but the underlined part clearly predicates the conclusion that free will does not exist based on our current understanding of the universe. And my later posts clearly show that this is my position. If in the next decade we find and verify new theories about the universe which are not in conflict with free will, then I'll probably change my mind assuming that we also don't find evidence against free will. Ok, how do you know that murder is "wrong". How do you know that murder is bad or evil. Explain how you know what happens after someone dies that you can the give a determination that it is bad or unsavory or ultimately people shouldn't want it to happen. Perceiving something as bad isn't the same as it actually being bad. Good and evil can only exist if there is an ultimate standard that exists outside people. You can't claim murder is wrong on based on religious teachings, and then discount the religious teachings that say god isn't responsible for murders but the person who commits them. Just so you can understand why I'm asking that you prove in the absence of god that murder is wrong, since that is the basic argument you are making against a "good" god existing when evil also exists and is preventable. | ||
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On March 07 2012 04:02 gruff wrote: He's emphasized several times that he base his opinion on "what we know about the universe" and at least according to him that would (most likely) be that mind and body are the same. That's my take on his stance anyway. However, we are still just beginning to understand how the brain works. Furthermore, the OP makes a blatant jab at all religions, which is a veiled attempt at inciting at best, which is baiting people. This baiting is leading to people responding out of emotion. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On March 07 2012 00:38 TheSun wrote: So for the sane and educated persons, its actually pretty common knowledge that you cant neither prove nor disprove god and therefore an atheist is beleifrelated in the same way as a christian is. So yeah there are a lot of dogmatic atheists out there, ask for links if you want. You can neither prove nor disprove santa claus. or odin. or zeus. or any fictional being. it does not mean that they are both equally likely. atheists *lack* a belief in god because of lack of evidence, just like you *lack* a belief in santa for the exact same reason. we do not *deny* the god's existence, that is semantically different. it is not possible to disprove anything. but that doesn't mean we should go around believing everything. you don't either. an atheist would believe in jesus even if he returned from heaven and walked around on water. but he hasn't. there is no evidence jesus was a divine god. a believer on the other hand, would never ever ever ever entertain the possibility that they could be wrong. any contradicting evidence to their belief system is waved aside and ignored. and that is dogma. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On March 07 2012 04:10 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Good and evil can only exist if there is an ultimate standard that exists outside people. You can't claim murder is wrong on based on religious teachings, and then discount the religious teachings that say god isn't responsible for murders but the person who commits them. Just so you can understand why I'm asking that you prove in the absence of god that murder is wrong, since that is the basic argument you are making against a "good" god existing when evil also exists and is preventable. I addressed this in a previous post, but to add to this: no christian can possibly argue for absolute morality, because the god of the bible ordered and committed genocide multiple times. not to mention slavery, misogyny, racism, stoning people to death for breaking the sabbath, etc... every time it is brought up, theists simply argue: "gods ways are above our own, who are you to judge him" if morality is absolute, i absolutely can judge the actions of bible god as evil. the fact that theists have to defend genocide kinda pokes holes in their statements. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:48 liberal wrote: Anyone find it baffling that some people can't distinguish the difference between understanding a concept and calculating the behavior of trillions of subatomic particles? Issue is the result computed would not be the weather tomorrow as people expect it, it would be the list of possible weathers with probability of occurence. (which is how an actual meteorology map is made today, although the main factor so far is still the error margins in the initial state and in the model) | ||
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
I think it's people, not religion, that need free will. | ||
|
ThePol002
Canada90 Posts
The "Laws of Physics" affect how the energies (bound into elements etc.) of our universe interact with each other as they progress through what we call "time" -- the discernable (and seemingly continuous) progression of that matter through a one-way sequence. Therefore, seemingly, the end result of those interactions will be predictable, and therefore is predetermined. With that said, my opinion is that we are made from the elements of this universe into living "machines" -- built from the universe's parts, but seperate from its inherent predictable (random) environment. We are evolved functioning molecules, and we have the perception and real ability to choose how to act based on our circumstances. Now, you'll say that that constitutes predetermination -- that our environment will always be the same at a certain point. I would answer by referring to the OP: where he said it did not matter whether the predetermination was "random" or "conscious (?)" [or at least that we cannot tell which]. This to me is an extremely important distinction, as all predeterminists agree that they cannot fathom the outcome of this equation. What evidence do you have, if the determination is random, that we do not have the ability to make a free will decision, within our circumstance? What if we truly CAN will our choices into existence? What if the determination is in fact being made by us? At the point when a functioning machine decides one choice of action over another, what alarm sounds? What law of physics is BROKEN by the idea that we can focus our electrons to a purpose? I mean you can't attribute my decisions directly to gravity -- although you could say that I have to stay on the ground most of the time. I mean the more basic elements of the universe are still following the laws of physics and will be unaffected by this "Free will" dilemma. Random quantum physics or whatever. But are the neurons in our brains really subject to relevant randomness equations? And if so, what is it to be alive? ARE THE CHOICES WE MAKE REALLY DETERMINED BY THE RANDOM-MOVING MOLECULES THAT WE OBSERVE, or more by THE CONSCIOUS ACTIONS OF OUR COMMUNITY ETC? and if the latter, does that not mean that we have been making free will decisions, with implications, for time immemorial? If you were omnipotent, you could see the outcome and determine the proper way to move the pieces such as to produce that outcome. But as living beings, we are subject to TIME and to ENVIRONMENT (physics). We are bound to those constraints -- so my concept of "free will" is confined to the constraints as well. But WITHIN that environment, and that timeframe, I am free to make decisions independent of the universe. You can call that predeterminism, but its not -- no one is controlling this flow, and no one knows how it ends. We truly make our own path in this universe, each of us subjectively. I would agree to predeterminism, if it wasn't so apparent to me that I am making my own choices within this environment, (composed of randomly predetermined molecules, lets say) and that the subtle differences in my life as a result of my choices [which don't break the laws of physics by any means] -- those are the "free will" determinations that I am glad to have in my life. I mean time travel has never been proven. We can't say the future exists yet. If it doesn't, then there's no such thing as determinism. | ||
|
Artisian
United States115 Posts
There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 07 2012 05:01 Artisian wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Physics make's any particularly bold claims on the mind-body issue. There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters. Yes, there is so little we know about the brain. The fact that people repeat such things, with what appears to me some satisfaction, is very telling. People like ignorance in science as a prop for their beliefs. Here is what we DO know about the brain. Surgeries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Injuries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Drugs affecting it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Changes in the environment a person grew up in have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Genes have been shown to influence behavior and personality. The point I am making is that people are their brains. Affecting the brain, affects the mind. This is undeniable. In the face of this undeniable fact, people start leaping to absurd conclusions. For example, suggesting that the brain influences behavior but does not determine it. What do you think influence means? It means plays a hand in determining it. Once we accept this, then we can reject the notion of "free" will. Obviously it is not free if it is determined to any degree. What other leaps in logic can we make to deny the inevitable? Quantum mechanics? Unexplained behavior? Jumps into Epistemology to deny logic and reason itself? Feelings? This is all that has been presented in favor of the notion of free will. We could provide literally thousands of examples in the literature of science which suggested that the state of the brain determines behavior and decisions. What evidence is there to the contrary? Not one shred has been presented here. Do decisions control the chemicals in your brain? No, of course not. Decisions aren't laws of nature. The chemicals in your brain determine your decisions. Pure and simple. | ||
|
RoberP
United Kingdom101 Posts
| ||
|
Mtuhk
Finland129 Posts
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: *snip* I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case. I'd like to interject with the notion of emergent systems. Emergence is a natural phenomenon in which complexity - and even completely new modes of operation - arise out of multiplicity. While our brain is inherently bound by the laws of physics, the way it operates can't really be simplified (at least not yet) to particle physics. This is not to say "free will" somehow defies causality. No, cause and effect are still safe. The cause however may not be as simple as interactions between particles. These interactions happen, of course, but the way our electro-chemical "mainframe" otherwise know as the brain works may be able to resist some action potentials willfully or subconsciously. Action potential is a key element of how neurons fire and the way this potential is inhibited or accelerated is understood at the level of a single neuron and it's synapses, but not so much in the entire interconnected neural network. In my oppinion we make choices in light of our tendencies, rooted deeply in our genetics, our psychological development and our past experiences. We have some understanding as to how our brain works when we make decisions, but we can't fully understand exactly what goes on in the ol' noggin' during our thought process. However, even if we accept the idea of free will, i'd say that a lot of our decisions aren't as "free" as we'd like to think. Most of the time we act due to stimuli (usually in a manner that is fairly easy to predict if we have a lot of information about the person and how he has acted before in similiar situations) as is very much the case with Starcraft 2 for example. Now i was about to go on about cartesian dualism and what exactly do we mean when we say "When I make a decision..." but i think that derails the whole subject a bit too far. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On March 07 2012 05:15 liberal wrote: Yes, there is so little we know about the brain. The fact that people repeat such things, with what appears to me some satisfaction, is very telling. People like ignorance in science as a prop for their beliefs. Here is what we DO know about the brain. Surgeries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Injuries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Drugs affecting it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Changes in the environment a person grew up in have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Genes have been shown to influence behavior and personality. The point I am making is that people are their brains. Affecting the brain, affects the mind. This is undeniable. In the face of this undeniable fact, people start leaping to absurd conclusions. For example, suggesting that the brain influences behavior but does not determine it. What do you think influence means? It means plays a hand in determining it. Once we accept this, then we can reject the notion of "free" will. Obviously it is not free if it is determined to any degree. What other leaps in logic can we make to deny the inevitable? Quantum mechanics? Unexplained behavior? Jumps into Epistemology to deny logic and reason itself? Feelings? This is all that has been presented in favor of the notion of free will. We could provide literally thousands of examples in the literature of science which suggested that the state of the brain determines behavior and decisions. What evidence is there to the contrary? Not one shred has been presented here. Do decisions control the chemicals in your brain? No, of course not. Decisions aren't laws of nature. The chemicals in your brain determine your decisions. Pure and simple. People are not just their brains. Influence means to give input, but input can be rejected or can error. Essentially your argument is that humanity is a really complex computer program, but the thing about really complex computer programs, is that they have tons of errors and glitches. Input 1 will not always give Output 1. Three people with similar genetics, backgrounds, and environments can become 3 completely different people. Why? Because all of these inputs are simply predispositions (tendency to choose one option or set of options). The person may be slightly more likely to choose an option, yet the person may choose otherwise. A person with all of the genetic factors and environmental factors for addiction can become something other than an addict. Why? Free will is the answer to why. | ||
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
Then again, defending free will by demanding such explanations...is just as much of a straw man as simplifying our minds to "some mechanical determined stuff" | ||
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
It begs the question, then, why a benevolent creator would not have chosen a different design--one in which even fewer evil course of action were within our capabilities, or, indeed, none at all. For example, if human biology were designed to be less fragile, our opportunities to harm and kill each other could certainly be reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, without otherwise affecting our ability to exercise free will, to whatever extent it does, as a factual matter, exist. And this is to say nothing of "evils" which are largely unrelated to human decision-making processes. Thus, free will fails to adequately explain evil even if we assume that it exists in the way that apologists would have us imagine that it does, and so, at least for the purposes of that debate, speculation about free will versus determinism strikes me as wholly unnecessary. | ||
| ||
