Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Titanscape on 17/10/2011 05:43:47
-
Hi, just wanted to ask, are you forum users theistic, meaning you believe there is a god of some sort? Or agnostic, meaning you or perhaps your dad once believed, but you think you now are officially unsure? Or are you atheistic, meaning you never believed in a god, and perhaps never looked into it?
I think I will add prognostic for knows better. Are you here?
Agnostic. Gnosis is ancient Greek for "know". I suppose agnostic means doesn't know anymore, or thinks knows better. Prognostic for knows better.
-
For prognostic, what do they "know better"? Know better than to have any kind of belief about (a) god(s)?
-
It's really quite straightforward.
Science does not allow itself to prove there are no gods, but science could prove gods exists if a god with some scientific evidence would simply show up to present the evidence. Is that really too much to ask?
-
Prognostic Supercryptid, would mean as you wrote, they think they are more enlightened than to believe in a god. They think the real questions that they think led to belief in a god or gods, are better answered now, and that the morality now comes better from their own consciences with a view of history and other formal studies.
-
Sounds like prognostic would fit under the umbrella of atheism then.
-
When the fetal brain first switches on, it's first experiences become the pattern for its future behavior. Since it has no previous identity, it identifies with this experience, the experience of the womb. But the fetus is not the womb, so its identity is only a belief. Without this belief and the identity it constructs, the person could not function, since your behavior is an extension of who you are. For political or religious purposes, your identity is demanded to be with the state or church. So every functioning human believes, but this belief is hijacked for the power and profit of the pirates.
-
What would you call someone who doesn't believe a word of it (the supernatural bits anyway) but still enjoys singing in the church choir at Christmas?
-
I know some of the congregation believe Jesus wisdom, but not that he was God. I'd say they were agnostics. Although agnostics do not claim to know the origins of the universe, according to Webster's dictionary.
Atheism is merely disbelief in god.
Best use loose definitions.
I would say, if you believe in Jesus' wisdom, but not his deity, and use the best of science for finding the nature and origin of the universe and life, the invented term, prognostic is best.
Grizelda, I think there were and are Christian pirates, but before the pirates there were captains and still are, captains of the hearts. A lot of my friends like Mother Theresa, PJP2, I liked John Arnott and even see the good in the late controversial Frank Houston. I even like the effects of Brian Houston on young hearts. Teaching them some purity...
-
"Or agnostic, meaning you or perhaps your dad once believed, but you think you now are unsure? Or are you atheistic, meaning you never believed in a god?"
Any definition which depends on what my dad once believed is just plain silly.
-
It's cultural, we learn from our fathers. It shows a movement instead of adherence, fidelity. Reasoning as according to trends from our fathers. From fathers comes faith and for some a trend into agnosticism and maybe faith is gone altogether, reasons lost in time, a child chooses not to attend church to find out about god, and is an atheist.
-
Children don't always follow in the footsteps of their parents.
Some become more religious. Some become less religious. Many convert to a new religion. And some are "reborn".
I believe that religion is weakest in the scientific fields. However, while many surgeons have a "God Complex", there are many very religious people throughout the medical field.
-
Like many other
old farts elder members here, I was given Religious Education at school, I was told that 2 + 2 = 4, that blue + yellow = green, that QEI was the daughter of Henry VIII and I waz tort how two reed and rite. Since all of this was taught by my teachers, I took it all as a matter of fact, including the facts about Moses, Adam & Eve, David & Goliath and Jesus. It was not a question of belief.
So I cannot say that I ever had a belief in religion any more than I can say I had a belief in mathematics, art or history.
As a young lad (I can just about remember being young, once upon a time), I became fascinated by dinosaurs. This sort of thing was not taught at school, so I had to find out for myself. It was this that put me on the road to the discovery of evolution, which in turn led me to question the 'facts' I had been taught about God and religion. I suspect others may have come to question the religious 'facts' they had been taught, in a similar way.
So where, in your categories, does this put me? Since I used to say my prayers and sing hymns, does that make me a convert? Or, as it was not a 'belief', as such, but more an acceptance of 'facts' I learnt at school, am I one who never believed?
Personally, I would class myself as an atheist, but perhaps you think I am prognostic.
-
Don_1 you can believe in Dinosaurs and evolution, that is, think it is so. But this does not wipe away the belief in god in all who think evolution is real. There are theistic evolutionists... I have an anchor in Jesus from experiences, but before this at 17 yrs old I still thought there was a god.
Einstein had a concept of a god, but his ideas were not according to his Jewish tradition. It does not have to be Jesus.
What do you think or at heart believe, what's your philosophy?
-
Perhaps I did not make my point quite clear.
I do not 'believe' in dinosaurs, they are a fact of the Earth's history and were, as such, what first led me to question what I had been taught about religion. Many other questions, of unrelated nature, followed.
As for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, it matters not which of the Abrahamic or any other deity worshipping religions is in question.
My point was quite simply that I did not have a 'belief', but simply took that which I had been taught to be fact, where now I see that these 'facts' are flawed and no longer accept them. The same would apply if I had been taught that 2 + 2 = 5, I would no longer accept that which I had been taught to be true.
Indeed, there are other things which I was taught which no longer can be accepted as being correct. For example, I was taught that there were 9 planets, this, by modern standards, is no longer a fact.
It is a simple case of acceptance of that which you are taught by your superiors, is not a belief. Only in later years and with better knowledge and the ability to discern, does religion become a belief. Only then are you equipped to make an evaluated choice between belief in that which you were taught and rejection.
In my mind, I only ever accepted that which I had been taught, to be fact. Only with the benefit of greater knowledge, understanding and the ability to realise that that which I had been taught, was not fact, but belief, was I able to and understood that I could evaluate the situation and reach my own conclusion. Therefore I would be an atheist rather than prognostic, even though I done all the worshipping business once upon a time.
-
I suppose the history of the individual does not matter so much.
You mention flawed teaching and facts, yes, who knows what children in public schools will learn in 100 years from now.
Some people hold that there must have been an intelligence behind the universe, after saying they are not sure of the Christians creeds. I'd say they gave come through agnosticism and still loosely are. One of my friends is like that, good luck to him. John, the politics lecturer at JIU. Describing us as like little bugs compared to the higher power. Having lost faith generationaly from his father who ran away from home where he was being forced into the priesthood. His friend my uncle also left the protestant body long ago. But studies Descartes.. as a hobby. Is open minded about miracles, but not a believer.
Buddhists say they don't believe there is no god, but they cannot possibly obtain accurate knowledge of god.
Hindus have a rationality going right back to Purusha who still has following of twenty million, that is parallel to Descartes who in the dawn of European rationality rationalized his faith in god. Such statements as I think therefore I am. Have parallels from thousands of years BC. And so Hindus merely need esteem themselves in their philosophy and read it and listen to gurus and they have a theistic rationality. It makes full sense to them.
Purusha is the beginning of Hindu deities. A non created concept, who lost one third of his angels like Elohim. Indicating it is the same root concept.
-
" that is parallel to Descartes who in the dawn of European rationality rationalized his faith in god."
Descartes' so called "rationalisation" isn't logical. Is Purusha's any better?
Anyway, as I'm sure you have realised, while my dad may or may not believe in God, I think it's nonsense. So, by most conventional definitions I'm an atheist. What I believed before isn't important.
However, just to illustrate the problems with your definitions, I used to believe in God, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and monsters under the bed.
I imagine you did too.
I grew out of it as I got older.
Did you?
-
Did someone intentionally send life to Earth?
A while ago there was a question of what we should do if we knew Earth was doomed. On of my suggestions would be to send probes containing bacteria and algae to the far reaches of the galaxy with the intention of spreading the seeds from which life and civilization can grow.
Whether another race intentionally seeded Earth long before humanity evolved, it doesn't mean that they should be worshiped now, nor should one spend hours and days of one's existence to worship an entity that we know nothing about.
-
I did not believe in Santa from about six.
Intelligence behind the universe, would mean before and above time.
I don't understand, we learn from our fathers. I was somewhat abandoned myself though. Still, those brief meetings made a huge difference.
If you know the faith, then you can know better. But if you never knew, they way you encounter the concepts of faith is different.
I am still discovering Purusha. India in many ways is bigger than England. But not sporty.
-
What would be the term for "I just don't care!" God may or may not be out there doing God stuff. There is no direct connection between my life and what God is up to. (My Christian friends would dispute this). For me, I see no godly influence in my day to day life. So whether he exists or not is completely irrelevant to me.
-
What would be the term for "I just don't care!" God may or may not be out there doing God stuff. There is no direct connection between my life and what God is up to. (My Christian friends would dispute this). For me, I see no godly influence in my day to day life. So whether he exists or not is completely irrelevant to me.
That would go in the agnostic category.
An agnostic would say: You cannot prove or disprove there is a god, so we'll never know
You can therefore also have Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists
An AA, like me, says: I don't know if there's a god, but I think there isn't.
An AT would say: I don't know if there's a god, but I think there is.
-
There should probably be another category called "scientist".
A scientist might say it's impossible to prove that no gods exist, but so far, no evidence has been presented that any do.
He might even go further and suggest that, even if evidence for one god is presented, it does not exclude the possibility that there are other gods.
-
Geezer, I do not believe such a category would be relevant. Various scientists can be found who believe in all three of the major groups. There are theist scientists, atheist scientists, and agnostic scientists.
-
The first question should be:
What is God?
or What is A God?
The answer should be that God is the being that did the stuff that the Bible says he did.
Did God create the Earth and all the animals on Earth in 7 days? NO!
Did God create Eve from Adam's rib? NO!
Did God create Man in his image? NO! On the contrary, one would probably conclude that Man created God in his own image.
So... That brings one back to the question:
What is God?
Clearly there was not an entity that was what we should expect God to have been. Perhaps that should be proof enough that God doesn't exist. One could envision the possibility of super-intelligent aliens visiting Earth in the past. But, the argument on whether or not that was truly God would be very complex. And, one certainly has to consider that both humans and animals have evolved over time as well as experiencing catastrophes, independent of God, or our alien brethren.
-
I share Geezers love of church music especially gospel but certainly do not believe in supernatural beings or any other religious beliefs.
ClffordK
Actualy he only spent 6 days on the job.
-
I share Geezers love of church music
It's the Christmas Cantata this weekend. You could nip over and observe the choir, including Geezer, belting out a few numbers.
Come to think of it, Bing Crosby had a place just up the road from here. Must be something to do with the air!
-
God is to Christians three persons who self exist, have infinite knowledge and strength. And some do not interpret the six days of creation as being literally earth rotations. There are Christian evolutionists.
God also is not material and in finite space. God is more broadly present. Above time...
Can God make a rock bigger than for Himself to lift it? I'd say he could, but that would be foolish. It is like He made an large egg and has to lift it slowly. But it will be lifted.
Ancient humans would all have spoken the same language and believed in the same god. Genesis' Elohim and India's Purusha both lost one third of their angels. They must have the same root. Neither were known to be invented.
When did primitive men devise philosophy and construct god? Or is it innate? Are we to think man before controlled fire had no faith?
-
The first question should be:
What is God?
or What is A God?
God did not create Mankind.
Mankind created God.
God is the overarching concept to group all things we don't understand yet ;)
As Science is growing, God is shrinking.
-
ClffordK
Actualy he only spent 6 days on the job.
Oh, I forgot
Did he manage to make a PUB or SPA in those first 6 days too?
There is always the question whether God-Days are like Dog-Years.
-
God is to Christians three persons .......
It took Christians quite a long time to arrive at the 'Holy Trinity' concept. About 300 years.
It was conceived to circumvent a major problem that Jesus (if such a person ever existed) had posed. By all definitions, of the time, the Son of God would be divine, a God. This conflicted with the One God theory, which was very basis of Judaism and Christianity.
It was just another 'divine' problem that theologians had to invent an explanation for, to maintain some credibility to the whole 'God' theory. Needless to say, Jews totally reject the concept of both Jesus and the Holy Trinity.
As Nizzle has said, ‘God’, and therefore religion, was invented by man to answer questions he could not answer at the time, but gods and religion presented their own problems, for which man had to invent answers.
The 'One God' of the Jews, Christians and Muslims was not the first god to be invented, nor the last.
-
Using mythologies to explain the nature of consciousness to mankind - the mythologies are incorrectly interpreted by religions as being about, well, religion. The trinity modification shows the progression of consciousness throughout our life. The womb as the initial archetype (god), the breast as the first cliche (Jesus), and our bonded mate as the last kick at the can, sort of a refresher course to last us until we are finished (holy ghost).
-
Hi mates I don't often come over here for a chat because I am too busy with other things like the virtual U3A but I've just picked up on this one. You don't have a category for me! I am an out and out atheist. I do not believe in any sort of God or afterlife or that there is anything outside of the basic and observable laws of physics chemistry etc i.e. there is no such things a paranormal events everything that happens without exception is normal.
However, I do believe it is important to have a religion. Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live. I also believe that it is vital that one interacts with other people in relation to this this and regularly spend some time in contemplation of one's activities in relation to this ethical system. The performance of communal rituals is also a helpful community strengthener and discipline of thought. As a result of this I am a practicing member of the Church of England and go to church most Sundays usually at 8am out of convenience. The reason I chose C of E was firstly because it is the main local brand and secondly because they confirmed me as a member after I had explained my position clearly!
When it comes to forms of words and creeds etc it is important to remember that almost all religious writings make a great use of metaphorical statements and once you understand the underlying aims of the metaphor the wording is quite acceptable.
-
I like Soul Surfer's reply, about valuable things in the Church of England.
I say about theology. It is a man made construct an "ology" made from direct line tradition and scriptures. So ideas from the fringes of the early church were rejected and the successors of the apostles who were not Jewish, explained the faith with logic, in face of disputes. So they only revealed that Christians always believed in three persons in God. For example, not in one place, there is a word about the Spirit having feelings, elsewhere, a will, and again somewhere else, a mind. Logically, he is a person.
And the early church tested the Apostle's writing by the Old Testament and the Spirit. Names like Elohim, rendered "God" in English is plural, and it is used in Genesis together with, "Let us make man" arguably, not referring to angels. And it is written in the OT, "Listen Israel, the Lord your God the Lord is united."
The Jews are people descended from those who did not hear much about Jesus first hand, or from the many who did not believe in Jesus. Many of us would be descended from the thousands of Hebrews who became believers and went to Europe.
Although logic is western thought, the Jews also have theology.
-
However, I do believe it is important to have a religion. Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.
Then you are surrendering your own thoughts about how we should treat each other to the teachings of your religion. You say it defines your ethical system, why is this important? Is it more important to have a defined ethical system than a good ethical system? You say you don't believe in god, and so must know that religion is man made. Why would you think that bronze age men knew best how run a society?
-
CliffordK makes a good point, "What would A God be?"
Everyone's evaluation of what they believe is based on their interpretation of this.
We all know, that the rules of science, are NOT nature's rules, but our own, written versions of what we observe. And being of complex construct, we have found over time, that "the laws" have to be modified from time to time, and NO, the world is NOT flat.
It's been very much the same with religion.
We see even here, that our interpretations can be pretty flat. God manifests in concepts with physical characteristics, angels, devils, heaven and hell (as simple examples), because these are the best we can do with the the limited conceptual tools we have.
Are we atheists because we believe God is a purely emotional need (that wouldn't do), or because extremely limited definitions fall short (neither would this)?
Why do we believe or not in God? Such would have to be accompanied by WHAT it is that we do or do not believe in.
The simple definition "God as a superior being" is a flat one. Surely not good enough to stand as a basis for belief.
-
However, I do believe it is important to have a religion. Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.
Then you are surrendering your own thoughts about how we should treat each other to the teachings of your religion. You say it defines your ethical system, why is this important? Is it more important to have a defined ethical system than a good ethical system? You say you don't believe in god, and so must know that religion is man made. Why would you think that bronze age men knew best how run a society?
Bronze age men, in a sense were clean, less sophisticated machinations and guile, even a kind of innocence. The culture of evil thought was then in idolatry.
Modern science has root in ancient natural philosophy, logic also. So why not justice and ethics. They developed sometimes in the same schools and universities. It's root is bronze age, a good thing, well tested! But our ancestors either knew of or developed it, perhaps by trial and error.
Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.
We sit on the shoulders of giants and walk a well worn path.
-
/snipped
Bronze age men, in a sense were clean, less sophisticated machinations and guile, even a kind of innocence. The culture of evil thought was then in idolatry.
I don't think there is much evidence for that view. Some of the stories (and they are not much more than that) which we have received from bronze age civilisations show them to be very similar to us in guile, intrigue and perfidiousness.
Modern science has root in ancient natural philosophy, logic also. So why not justice and ethics. They developed sometimes in the same schools and universities. It's root is bronze age, a good thing, well tested! But our ancestors either knew of or developed it, perhaps by trial and error.
the scientific method is very in opposition to the ancient method of acquisition of knowledge - it it based upon repeatable observations not a priori innate knowledge
Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.
Whilst our justice might have more of a claim to be English our ethics spring from various roots all around Europe both ancient and modern
We sit on the shoulders of giants and walk a well worn path.
I presume we don´t both sit and walk at the same time.
-
Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.
Whilst our justice might have more of a claim to be English our ethics spring from various roots all around Europe both ancient and modern
Indeed. In Scotland it happens to be Roman, and the Romans were polytheists.
-
Scientists don't always use science to determine a resolve in matters of faith. Like Catholic Doctors. They sometimes join a guild or association. And there are some who replied in faith to Dawkins.
The Bible is a good basis to look for a definition of god. It mentions God and gods, and the god of this world.
Collins Cobuild dictionary says,God, the name given to the spirit or being who is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the world, especially by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Webster's mentions the universe and omniscience and supernatural powers.
I would describe God as the first existence, making order out of not only disorder but of nothing except himself. Creating space, time and matter. Self existent. A grand planner, ordering justice and love. A relational being. Omnipresent, mighty.
-
Collins Cobuild dictionary says,God, the name given to the spirit or being who is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the world,
Wow! That pretty much settles it then.
I am converted...... Praise be to Collins God.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fbowing%2F2.gif&hash=bcb35f58b56db9f8918c773ad3ccccd7)
Apologies to the religious, I would not normally poke fun at your beliefs (everyone is entitled to their beliefs), but this apparent assertion by Titanscape that Collins/Websters dictionary is evidence of the existence of God, is astonishing.
-
If there was a creator of the universe.
And, the 9 × 1021 stars.
Do you think the "creator" would care whether people go to church every Sunday to worship him? Would he even be bothered by the Earthlings any more than a kid might be bothered by the ants in an ant farm? Does one even care if the ants in one's ant farm worships the owner?
-
The dictionary is not evidence for God's existence, some earlier posters complain of no definition of what a god is.
To some people the size of the universe means there must be a god, to others it means there cannot be one. Stars can't relate and respond... persons attract God's love. God being omniscient and omnipresent can relate to us. That is why we exist.
The universe helps one see how big God is. And how much he has for us. And we may have neighbours...
-
How can anyone take seriously the idea of a god who creates evil people and then punishes them eternally for being evil? Gods were invented as authority figures which moral philosophy (often rather bad philosophy) could be tied to in the hope that it would carry more weight. It worked: most people have a reverencial personality, as can be seen from the many fans of royalty and celebrity. They go wild at the sight of actors, and yet actors are just people with no personality of their own (in most cases) doing a mindless job - the real stars should be the writers, but they are rarely noticed.
So, if you're a bit of a philosopher and have ideas about some rules that could improve the way people behave to make the world a nicer place, what should you do? You tell people what your ideas are, and they ignore you, pointing instead to some half-baked garbage linked to some phantom or other which scared them once upon a time by shouting back at them when they called into a cave. Clearly the way to make an impression with your philosophical ideas is to tie them to a spirit, and the bigger and more powerful that spirit is, the more seriously your ideas will be taken, though you may need a bit of luck to get your god established as the market is already well stocked. Still, if the ideas are attractive, it might be able to force its way through just by dint of having the best philosophy built into it.
How can we impress our audience? Let's throw the latest science in wherever we can. We can describe how babies are made, a man planting his seed in a woman as if she is a flower pot and the seed growing into a baby. We don't mention the egg, of course, because that won't be discovered until the 1800s.
How can we prove that our holy book really comes from God? We write it in hypnotic verse and then issue a challenge to anyone out there to put together a verse of their own of the same quality and power as any one of ours. When someone meets that challenge, we up our challenge to three chapters. When someone meets that challenge, we up our challenge to a whole holy book. When someone points out that they could easily meet that challenge too if they could be bothered to put the time in, we change our challenge to a new one and draw on logical misreasoning to give it power: God made a fly, but you can't, therefore our holy book comes from God. Go and make a fly to prove us wrong!
We have an idea to reduce the carnage of the blood feud, so we tie that to our god. Our god, we claim, gives us the rule that we can only kill one member of the rival family in return for one of ours being killed rather than killing many of them. Our god allows me to kill the son of the man who kills my son, even though his son is a really good person who does not approve of what his father did. We point out in the text of our holy book that people will object to this, but we insist that it is right because it will reduce the total amount of carnage. This is a pragmatic and very human fix for the blood feud problem. A real god would insist that the only person who should be killed is the original killer, and he'd do the job himself with a bolt of lightning before the original killing ever took place. Even so, we don't need to worry about morality - our fix is worth a go, so let's just go with it and hook the unthinking masses with it.
Oh, and if they get ideas about our religion not being true, let's kill them - we don't want them drifting away to anything more rational than our half-baked philosophy.
-
God doesn't create evil people, the assumption is incorrect. Assumptions usually are. People are free, that is the idea, we are given responsibility. Unlike smaller creatures.
Talking about blood feuds goes beyond assumption. This is not rational thinking.
The idea people believe a philosophy by trickery of one who says he got the ideas from god, can you give an example?
Christian faith rests on powers, not only philosophy. The cross of Christ is not really a philosophy.
In order to grow and be prepared entry to Heaven and God's presence, we need choose good amidst the choice of evil and receive power.
Why are all religious philosophers said to be half baked?
-
God doesn't create evil people, the assumption is incorrect. Assumptions usually are. People are free, that is the idea, we are given responsibility. Unlike smaller creatures.
People who are "evil" are not to blame for being the way they are - they do not have free will. Many holy books even go on about God "hardening their hearts" as an explanation for why they turn bad. There is simply no valid excuse for sending anyone to hell.
Talking about blood feuds goes beyond assumption. This is not rational thinking.
I took it directly out of a holy book, one of the biggest ones. It lays down the law that the blood feud is allowed so long as you don't kill more than one member of the other family in return for one of yours being killed. It lays this down as a God-given rule, justifying it on the basis that it's for the best, despite the evidence from other cultures today where it is completely outlawed and demonstrably leads to far fewer innocent people being killed. This makes it more than clear that one of the big religions is man made and did not come from God.
The idea people believe a philosophy by trickery of one who says he got the ideas from god, can you give an example?
I just gave you an example of one. You want more trickery? How about throwing a stick on the ground and having it turn into a living snake that slithers away? That's in your holy books. What's that doing in the Bible other than to con people into believing a message is valid because it is manifestly backed by supernatural powers? It is actually a real magicians' trick and not just a fantasy: if you hold up a ground snake (not a tree snake) vertically for a while, it will black out and go rigid. You can then coat it in wet earth and let it dry to disguise it as a stick. So long as you hold it vertically, it remains in that state, but when you throw it on the ground it soon recovers, cracks the earth off itself and moves away. (Tree snakes have their heart just below the head, whereas ground snakes have theirs in the middle.)
Christian faith rests on powers, not only philosophy. The cross of Christ is not really a philosophy.
Religion is a massive package of very little other than philosophy, and the stuff about the cross is swimming in philosophy too. Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, they say, but I've never needed that extreme kind of saving as I've never done anything bad. That's why I rejected religion as a very young child - it insulted me by telling lies about me, and I was determined never to let its lies become true. God, by contrast, is a mass murderer, so why would I want to give him the time of day?
In order to grow and be prepared entry to Heaven and God's presence, we need choose good amidst the choice of evil and receive power.
There are genetic factors which make it more likely for some people to turn bad, and upbringing factors which do likewise - get the wrong combination of these things like Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, the boys who killed James Bulger, etc. (all brutalised in childhood) and you don't have much hope. We do not choose whether we are good or bad - we have no free will. If we're lucky, we are driven away from wanting to do bad things, but it is not to our credit that we are good any more than bad people are to blame for being bad.
Why are all religious philosophers said to be half baked?
Because the laws they come up with which they then push through their made up religions are riddled with serious faults. They doubtless mean well, and they may well bring about an improvement in society when their faulty laws replace earlier faultier ones, but because they tie them to a perfect supernatural source they get stuck with those faulty laws forever (or at least until someone starts up a new religion which is sufficiently attractive to overpower the old one).
-
People who are "evil" are not to blame for being the way they are - they do not have free will. Many holy books even go on about God "hardening their hearts" as an explanation for why they turn bad. There is simply no valid excuse for sending anyone to hell.
People have choices, and can choose evil, and change their minds. I did. At least I quote Solomon, "Discipline and self correction lead to life." And there is the whole teaching about grace for sin leading to life.
Jesus taught cleanness, murder, adultery, fornication, thefts, slanders, blasphemies and lies are unclean and love is clean and does no harm, but builds up in acts of kindness..., so if you are characterized by uncleanness you would do harm, you won't enter life. But if you have grace, you have a way out. Each to his source returns.
Hitler was an interesting case, as one who was psychopathic, his conscience destroyed as a boy, outside his choice. He was impaired of that organ that gives the ability to change one's mind in an absolute turn around. And he wanted power at the same time. His guilt depends on his not humbling himself in admission to insanity.
I struggle right now to recall and describe why God hardened Pharaoh's heart. It had some purpose to set Israel free with power. Surely there is mercy for Egypt, as it can be said they'd have repented if they had Jesus's teachings and works.
It lays down the law that the blood feud is allowed so long as you don't kill more than one member of the other family in return for one of yours being killed. It lays this down as a God-given rule, justifying it on the basis that it's for the best, despite the evidence from other cultures today where it is completely outlawed and demonstrably leads to far fewer innocent people being killed. This makes it more than clear that one of the big religions is man made and did not come from God.
Which god? And which book? I only acknowledge the Christian Bible.
That's in your holy books. What's that doing in the Bible other than to con people into believing a message is valid because it is manifestly backed by supernatural powers? It is actually a real magicians' trick and not just a fantasy
Moses did more than just a snake trick with the snake and later moved just under three million people from slavery, after some major plagues. The Bible accounts too much power to Moses, a pillar of fire by night, from which came a voice, angels, battles...
Elijah used fire from above to destroy some idolatry... Paul the apostle used gifts, they weren't tricked, these things were tested by them. They knew if their secret thoughts were revealed...
Religion is a massive package of very little other than philosophy, and the stuff about the cross is swimming in philosophy too. Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, they say, but I've never needed that extreme kind of saving as I've never done anything bad. That's why I rejected religion as a very young child - it insulted me by telling lies about me, and I was determined never to let its lies become true. God, by contrast, is a mass murderer, so why would I want to give him the time of day?
To enter life, you have to be perfectly holy. Philosophy comes after the cross, and you don't need much of it if you don't like it.
Your culture of what is right and wrong and how to teach children aright comes from Jesus, in the cross is prevention and cure.
God does not murder anyone, He is not hateful. Dying of old age is not murder. Soldiers killing is sometimes, not murder, killing in self defense in not murder...
We do not choose whether we are good or bad - we have no free will. If we're lucky, we are driven away from wanting to do bad things, but it is not to our credit that we are good any more than bad people are to blame for being bad.
People can totally change of their own volition and determination, and be corrected late in life. Newton, the author of Amazing Grace is an example. Paul the apostle another, I have made the choice myself and keep self correcting. Our childhoods are a strong influence, but we can decide.
They doubtless mean well, and they may well bring about an improvement in society when their faulty laws replace earlier faultier ones, but because they tie them to a perfect supernatural source they get stuck with those faulty laws forever (or at least until someone starts up a new religion which is sufficiently attractive to overpower the old one).
Moses did bring an improvement, law. Jesus corrected errors within it, according to the original design. Moses' law came with an oral law.
Jesus gave grace and truth. The law still useful. A progression back from the evil and ignorance of Adam and the ancients we are descended from. Like a painting, where you must let part dry before the next part is placed in. Cultural learning. Holiness the objective, non higher than Christ.
-
It isn't important to point out which religion the blood feud thing related to (Islam), so I won't.
People have choices, and can choose evil, and change their minds. I did.
They choices they make are not made through free will - they are driven into making them though genetic and environmental factors.
-
I wonder what a good psychologist would say about free will? I have beliefs, ideals, admiration, conscience and weakness, and wrong examples from a young age. Inner conflict, and I really look at myself and examine myself sometimes and make changes. I think the inner conflict itself is the hardest thing to overcome.
But also recall turning to Jesus with everything I had, and making a complete turn around, resulting in the memorably rewarding clear conscience! That fuels my fight. That is why I am a theist, helped by tradition and revivalists, but experiencing this from Jesus anchors my belief in Him. Not just dry theology or seeing God in nature...
-
Ah the Free Will nut. Much more complicated than I was aware of. Some branches of modern science, especially Neuro-Scientists, have concluded that free will isn't all that free. Then there is the view from physics.
Stephen Hawking on Free Will:
Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles, regardless of whether or not free will exists.[51] Physicist Stephen Hawking describes such ideas in his 2010 book The Grand Design. According to Hawking, these findings from quantum mechanics suggest that humans are sorts of complicated biological machines; although our behavior is impossible to predict perfectly in practice, "free will is just an illusion."[48] In other words, he thinks that only compatibilistic (deterministic) free will is possible based on the data.
There is apparently quite a debate going on between scientists and philosophers about what free will is, and how real, or unreal it is. Here is another example from Nature Magazine.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html#B1 (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html#B1)
It seems patently obvious to us as individuals, that free will in the short term is available to us. We can choose to do things, and choose to not do other things. Science is suggesting that Free Will, the big picture, however, is largely an illusion. The debate between science and philosophy goes on.
-
We make decisions about everything we do based on one rule: we always try to do the best thing. There's absolutely no freedom in that beyond the random (when we can't determine which choice is the best), and we aren't good at making random decisions either because we don't have a random switch in our heads.
Anyone who believes in free will needs to show that we break the above rule - a single example will do, no matter how simple it is. I hope someone can do it, because I like the idea of free will, but I don't believe it can happen.
-
We make decisions about everything we do based on one rule: we always try to do the best thing.
Really? Where is your data to support that comment?
-
We make decisions about everything we do based on one rule: we always try to do the best thing.
Really? Where is your data to support that comment?
It is all that people ever do (unless they can find a way to do random). People don't like or dislike things out of free will - their likes and dislikes are out of their control and drive their behaviour (and that forces them conform with the rule which I stated - don't make the mistake of thinking the rule is the driver, because it's really more of a consequence).
It isn't free will that makes me refuse to eat tomatoes - the slightest taste of tomato makes me feel sick, no matter how much I'd like to be able to eat them. The same applies to jam.
I listen to music from groups like Inti Illimani, Rumillajta and K'Jarkas because I happen to like it, but I didn't choose to like it. I avoid most pop music because I hate it, but again it was never my choice to hate it - life would be much easier if I didn't hate it and I'd have a much wider choice of music to listen to. I used to like classical music, but I went off it after being pushed into study it at school - a mentally-ill music teacher created such a bad atmosphere in her room (the most dismal room in the school - no wonder she was depressed) that I now associate classical music with that atmosphere and can't stand it any more. None of that was my choice.
If you offer me a little cake off a plate with two cakes on it of different sizes and I know that you're intending to eat the one I leave behind, I will take the inferior one because I don't want to appear greedy and because I value your friendship.
If I have a choice to make about where to go on holiday and narrow things down to just two options, one of which looks as if it's both less expensive and more fun, should I try to demonstrate that I have free will by choosing the more expensive holiday? No - I always do the best thing for me. I may choose the more expensive holiday and lesser amount of fun if the cheaper one is environmentally destructive or rips off the poor locals in some way, but that's because I would not feel happy about being selfish and doing wrong.
So, if you believe in free will or disagree with my rule for some other reason, it's your job to provide a counterexample. The data that supports my comment is everything that people do (other than making purely random decisions). You would be able to blow that out of the water with a single counterexample, but you won't be able to find one - no one ever has.
-
I think of the transition from parent arranged marriages for wealth to marrying for love.
I find I choose good, but have weaknesses and inner conflicts.
-
David, I do believe that free will is largely an illusion. The part I was questioning was that we always try to do the best thing.
You made a significant change in your rule in the second post. In the first you said "We always try to do the best thing". In the second you said ".....I always do the best thing for me."
I think the latter statement is much more accurate one.
On another tangent to this discussion, it concerns me to take this philosophical concept of a lack of free will too far. Likes and dislikes are not completely out of our control. We can make choices on an individual basis, even if the big picture is that free will is largely an illusion.
After all, if we really had no free will at all, then it would be wrong to hold people accountable who, say, murder another person. How can we fault them if they had no choice in the matter.
-
I think of the transition from parent arranged marriages for wealth to marrying for love.
Which is driven by people's experiences of being forced to marry the wrong person - they don't want the same for their own children. If it was down to free will, why would there be a drive for change in any specific direction?
I find I choose good, but have weaknesses and inner conflicts.
That's because you're often having to go against some of the things that are trying to drive you in different directions - you have to make a choice, and you always go for the one you reckon is most likely to be the best or least worst option.
-
David, I do believe that free will is largely an illusion. The part I was questioning was that we always try to do the best thing.
I would put "entirely" in front of the "an".
You made a significant change in your rule in the second post. In the first you said "We always try to do the best thing". In the second you said ".....I always do the best thing for me."
Well, I'm not entirely sure which wording is best, and it isn't hugely important as the rule itself is derived from something more precise relating to actual drives. My earlier wording was influenced by the idea of altruism and covers situations where a parent might die to save their child, though that parent would be so upset if the child died instead that the rest of their life could be hellish. In a situation where someone is driven to leap into the icy sea to try to rescue a stranger and it is likely they will die in the attempt, they probably would be better off not doing it as it's less likely to haunt them for the rest of their life, but they make a rapid decision based on the way their brain's been set up to respond to events.
On another tangent to this discussion, it concerns me to take this philosophical concept of a lack of free will too far. Likes and dislikes are not completely out of our control. We can make choices on an individual basis, even if the big picture is that free will is largely an illusion.
So are you saying I could make myself like tomatoes? I have wondered if I might be able to do that just by forcing myself to eat little bits of them, but why would I bother when it's easier not to? They're a very healthy kind of food, so maybe there would be something to gain from it - that could drive me to try it, but again it isn't free will because it's just a matter of competing drives fighting it out for supremacy.
After all, if we really had no free will at all, then it would be wrong to hold people accountable who, say, murder another person. How can we fault them if they had no choice in the matter.
It's a matter of pragmatics. No one is to blame for anything they do, but some people are dangerous and need to be kept apart from society for the protection of others. The risk of punishment is also a driver which helps control people's behaviour, so there is plenty of justification for holding people to account. I used to hate a lot of people that I considered to be really nasty, but I don't hate anyone any more and I no longer see them as nasty - I just see them as being unfortunate in the way their brains are constructed or the way they've been programmed, and I feel sorry for them if they can't get away from being what they are. They can't help it.
-
We have choices. Good or evil... careers. It can be predictable but sometimes we don't even know ourselves. We have a choice. Yet no one does only good, we are bound, but depending on how much we want it, we can resist, strongly and wisely.
Computers and robots do not have free will.
-
Computers and robots have choices too. Some of those choices will in the future be between good and evil, and hopefully they'll all be programmed in such a way that they can only do the former. They certainly won't be driven by selfishness as they have no self to favour. People do, and that is what leads to many of them doing bad things - they're doing what they think is the best thing for themselves and it doesn't bother them if other people get hurt. Other people have more difficulty doing wrong because they feel unhappy if they hurt others, and that's why it isn't to their credit that they are good - being bad or even just the idea of it feels unpleasant to them. Those who do evil probably assume that everyone else is like them and that the way to get your fair share of the good things in life is just to grab everything you can get and never mind how you do it because it'll all balance out. When it comes to a career, you will either go for something that you want to do because you like it (or dislike it less than the alternatives), or because it's well paid. It's all down to simple calculations as to what is the best for you - no room for free will.
-
David a question. If someone has a rough day and is in a crappy mood, does that person have to remain in that bad mood because of the events in that day, or can they choose to not be in a bad mood despite the bad events of that day.
-
Does anyone choose to be in a bad mood? Bad moods evolved to train you to avoid things that aren't good for you - they motivate you to try doing something else. If you're stuck in a situation where you have to put up with a less than ideal life for extended periods and have no way out, you're probably going to be stuck with the bad mood. But you do want to get out of a bad mood because it isn't pleasant, and there are some tricks that can be used, such as alcohol. You appear to be suggesting that you can use free will to escape from the bad mood by simply deciding not to be in a bad mood, but if you have the ability to get out of a bad mood that easily, it isn't a demonstration of free will - the bad mood drives you to try to get out of the bad mood, so if there is such an easy way for you to get out of it, clearly you will take it. For most people there is no such easy route - the bad mood persists unless they do something substantial to distract their thoughts away from its cause.
-
You appear to be suggesting that you can use free will to escape from the bad mood by simply deciding not to be in a bad mood....
I'm not suggesting it. I am stating it. One can choose to not be in a bad mood simply by deciding it.
-
Well, if you can get rid of a bad mood that easily, that's great, but what's it got to do with free will? If you don't like being in a bad mood and you have an easy way to get out of it, you'll be driven to take that route. Of you like being in a bad mood, you'll be driven to stay in it, but you might decide to get out of it because you realise you're not showing your most attractive side to the people around you, so again you're driven to lighten your mood. So, ask yourself what your motive is for deciding to switch out of your bad mood, then come back and explain how that demonstrates your free will.
-
So, ask yourself what your motive is for deciding to switch out of your bad mood, then come back and explain how that demonstrates your free will.
My choice to change my mood despite my situation is not an example of free will? My motive is obvious. Despite a bad situation, I do not want to be in a bad mood over it. Why have a bad moment ruin an entire day? So now I have explained my motive and shown a demonstration of free will. By making a choice.
Our motives help us define our choices. Being capable of making choices are examples of free will in action. You seem to be suggesting that no matter what choice we make, it's the only choice we could make and therefor it isn't free will.
Choices are not set in stone; not predefined, not predestined. Pick a situation, and one has multiple options on how to react to that situation.
If one is capable of picking from a range of options, that means one is choosing, being capable of choosing is a demonstration of free will.
-
So, ask yourself what your motive is for deciding to switch out of your bad mood, then come back and explain how that demonstrates your free will.
My choice to change my mood despite my situation is not an example of free will? My motive is obvious. Despite a bad situation, I do not want to be in a bad mood over it. Why have a bad moment ruin an entire day? So now I have explained my motive and shown a demonstration of free will. By making a choice.
What you've done is identify what drives you to make your decision to get out of your bad mood - it would ruin an entire day if you didn't. So, in what way does it make sense to say that this demonstrates your free will when the decision has been made for you by this drive? You might, of course decide to stay in the bad mood in an attempt to show that you have free will, but then all you'd be doing is responding to a drive to back up your belief in free will.
Our motives help us define our choices. Being capable of making choices are examples of free will in action. You seem to be suggesting that no matter what choice we make, it's the only choice we could make and therefore it isn't free will.
Our motives compete against each other and our decisions are then made according to the stronger total weight of desire to do one thing rather than the alternatives - the only times we go against that are when an error occurs somewhere (usually due to rushing a decision and not measuring the weights properly) and we find ourselves doing something we really shouldn't have chosen to do.
Choices are not set in stone; not predefined, not predestined. Pick a situation, and one has multiple options on how to react to that situation.
One has multiple options, but one always goes for the one which appears to be the best one. Often it may not be the best one, but you can't be bothered thinking it through and just go for the first one that looks as if it will do - in such a case the drive that wins out may be tiredness or laziness, so it is the best option on that front and you've made the judgement that that's the most important consideration.
If one is capable of picking from a range of options, that means one is choosing, being capable of choosing is a demonstration of free will.
Computers can pick from a range of options, but there's no free will about it. A multitasking operating system, for example, may have hundreds of threads waiting in a queue to be run, so it has to work out which to run first. It will look to see if they are high or low priority, and may go for the first high priority thread in the queue. Now, you could say it doesn't have a real choice because it has no option other than to run the first high priority thread in the queue, but you're just the same when you're working out which task you should carry out first - the highest priority one is the one that you should do first. The rules you operate by are more complex though, so if it's a task you dislike you may put it off and do something of low priority instead, but there you're just being driven to avoid starting on a task by your dislike of it. Ultimately you have no more choice than a computer - a computer could be given rules written for it which make it put off doing the high priority tasks too. The big difference is that the machine wouldn't actually like or dislike anything whereas you do, but that would make no difference to the way decisions are forced by the setup of the system.
Edit: the free will discussion now jumps into its own thread:-
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43037.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43037.0)