Free Will and Religion - Page 31

On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:

I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.

I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.

I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.

On March 07 2012 20:45 paralleluniverse wrote:


I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe. This is simply true in the sense that if free will exists, everything we know about the universe would be wrong. It would imply that the human brain can bend the laws of physics and can rearrange the of motions of particles according to whatever we will. Therefore, such a discovery would fundamentally contradict and rewrite all we know about physics. It is not a stretch to say that the free will I talked about in the OP is unscientific, unproven, and as false as fairies and gods.

Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.

Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.

You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies.


You've essentially cherry-picked certain parts of the Bible while ignoring the parts that do not conform to your worldview. In the process you've made many seriously false claims.

Saying that the barbaric rhetoric in the Old Testament is to show us what not to do today is simply delusional. The Old Testament calls for the killing of homosexuals, the repression and mistreatment of women and the mass-murder of people. Nowhere does it say in the Bible: "oh, by the way, where it says to kill all the unbelievers, we really put that in to show you that that's what you shouldn't do". You can find references for all these evils I mentioned in the Old Testament here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641920-the-god-of-the-old-testament

Also, you've just made that up. It is not the mainstream view of the Church that the Old Testament was written to tell us what not to do. The Old Testament was written by men thousands of years before our time, and it's a direct reflection of the cruel and misogynistic social attitudes of the time. You've essentially cherry-picked the parts which expresses social attitudes that you agree with and classified the others as not to be taken at face value.

Moreover, the vilification of homosexuals in modern society is led proudly by the Church and it's homophobic followers. Therefore, this reserve-psychology strategy is not only untrue, but utterly failing too.

Your defense of the Genesis creation is absolutely unscientific. You claim that Genesis says the earth was created in 7 equal lengths of time, but this is completely erroneous. Here's some real science for you, the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, not over 7 equal lengths of time. Indeed, Genesis goes further to claim that God created light on the first day, and divided the water from the skies on the second day. There was no Earth at that point in time for the universe to be divided into water and sky. On the fourth day he creates the Sun. So where did the light on Earth on the first day come from? On the 5th day he makes living creatures and birds. What about evolution?

These ideas are utter and completely unscientific. Furthermore, they are in direct contradiction with rigorously verified and tested science. And yet you claim this old tome to be a work of perfection. No, it's a heap of falsified nonsense. You've also latched onto an ambiguous passage about the earth being round, even though another poster has already shown that to be an inaccurate interpretation. If it was known in the Bible the earth was round so many years ago, then why wasn't it explicitly and zealously preached in the text of the Bible, as opposed to being merely referenced in one obscure and ambiguous line?

You further assert that there is archeological proof of events in the Bible. But this again is cherry-picking what there is and isn't proof of. There's proof that the person Jesus existed. But there's no proof that his birth was immaculate, no proof that he walked on water, no proof he rose from the dead. There's no proof because these claims are absurd and would contradict all of modern science. There's archeological proof of dinosaurs. Where's that in the Bible? It's not in the Bible because the writers thousands of years ago weren't aware of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The fingerprints of unlearned men from an ancient era are all over the morally reprehensible, unscientific nonsense that is spouted in the Bible.

The most disingenuous of your arguments is that the immaculate conception of Jesus is a miracle and therefore doesn't need proof. This just goes to show that your personal quest for scientific explanations of biblical claims is a dishonest sham. You accept what can be explained away with wishful thinking, such as the Fall of Man due to free will (although I've shown why this is false), while dismissing what can't be explained as a miracle, thereby needing no further explanation.

You search for interpretations of the Bible to make them conform with each other and with the world around us, or at least in your mind. You've done it here, and you've done it in the "bugs with 4 legs" argument. It is truely insulting that you do this, yet claim to be rational and scientifically minded. This is the antithesis of science. Science makes hypothesis, verifies or falsifies it by experimentation, and then refines it. Science does not deduce truth by semantically interpreting and reinterpreting debunked texts to suit the worldview we want.

Of course, there are far more flaws, intolerance, and scientific untruths in the Bible than merely what you have alluded to in the quote and subsequent posts. The homo sapein race has been on Earth for 200,000 years, in the first 198,000 years before the Bible, when our ancestors were murdering each other with stone tools, dying in child birth, worshiping hundreds of different false gods, what did God do? Where was he during this 99% span of human existence? He was a no show because he didn't exist, the Abrahamic God was invented a few thousand years ago and the evidence for this is reflected in the simple-minded and archaic myths of earlier generations.

On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.

To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.

I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.

I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.

I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.

But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.

Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.

I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.

Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.

On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:

I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.

I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.

I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.

On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.

To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.

I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.

I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.

I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.

But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.

Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.

I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.

Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.

On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:


There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.

Why?

Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?

I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?

Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?

Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?

If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.

"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."

On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:


There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.

Why?

Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?

I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?

Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?

Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?

If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.

On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:


There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.

Why?

Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?

I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?

Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?

Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?

If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.

"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."