Pollux
Member
OT but I despise King James version.
But that's not talking about the book itself but the commandments given directly from God.
Beliefs or Lack Thereof: Q&A
- Thread starter Orayn
- Start date
- Status
OT but I despise King James version.
But that's not talking about the book itself but the commandments given directly from God.
Free will is a concept that dissipates like a smoky illusion when you drill into exactly how and why we think the way we do.
From afar, it's this solid, certain thing. Of course there's free will.
Move closer, examine the function of the mind more... and suddenly, the entire concept becomes nonsensical.
"It's like... well... if that function, and that function and that function is accounted for by the mechanical working of the brain... then this free will which is supposed to be controlling important things... starts to look like it's pretty damn useless.
I mean, what kind of mechanism is free will itself supposed to operate on anyway? And why would so many critical functions operate in the brain, and some of them not?"
Atramental
Banned
I'd like to think that most are aware. I know I am when I do my occasional bashing/trolling.
Why does something being a function of your brain discount free will?
it would be breaking a rich neogaf tradition if i ever actually received a comprehensive reply in one of these threads.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I became a Christian later on. My parents were Christian, but they were that off-the-wall charismatic Christianity. Everything about their faith was utterly experiential so they never explained anything to me. I was never indoctrinated because there was no doctrine being spoken anywhere. I grew up observing all the insanity in that church thinking it was stupid and senseless. As for God, I didn't think about him, I didn't pray, I didn't read the bible or have it read to me, I didn't know the gospel. Christianity was the last worldview I considered as I was looking for answers/understanding of life as a teenager.
That's a very complicated question. I will say in very simple terms: Not as protestants do.
Metaphor. God spoke to people in the way they had to be spoken to.
Well that's pretty hard to determine, isn't it? For some things, such as Adam and Eve, there is a great deal of science that shows us mankind is over 50k years old and such. I think it's perfectly understandable as to why God would give us that story as a lesson of our relationship to him, although it certainly poses some theological challenges to protestants. Even some very intellectual ones to more thoughtful ones like Francis Schaeffer, who based much of his stance on the literal existence of Adam.
However, difficulty in figuring out the details shouldn't necessarily disqualify the entire thing. There is no sense in why that would be the case. Still, while trying to figure out theology in light of biological record, you have different sort of things that are hard to figure out. What about all the stuff with Israel? How many of the stories of that kingdom was real? If you believe God exists, there isn't much reason to believe he couldn't have done many of those miracles, but there isn't a whole lot of record of it all aside from the bible itself... but then there isn't much record of anything back then, and apparently Israel did pretty much get their ass kicked/subjected left and right by everyone else.
So looking at that, and the fact that most of anything taught was passed on to the majority by oral tradition, and even within the Old Testament there were times Israel lost the Torah and forgot about it... it's really hard to determine how much could have been pulled from other religions or how much in other religions could have been pulled from Israelites. They seemed to be pros as just going along with the beliefs of whoever they were among, so I doubt they would have stood out to been recorded much if they were some random slaves who barely followed their own God.
No matter what, in the end you have these Jews with this really freaking old book, and it has a lot of good stuff in there, then some crazy shit goes down with Christianity. It all obviously exists and had for some time. It's a bit loose, fairly mystical, and if you believe that anyone today is actually pleasing God with their faith, then God must be pretty freaking merciful about our limited capacity to communicate, understand, and agree with each other.
As a practical example of that, I believe that scripture holds the doctrine of his name (Yahweh, basically), of knowing him by it, acknowledging it, calling on it, making it famous, etc. as a very important thing. Yet it seems that absolutely everyone has fucked up in that regard, and we can't even be sure how to pronounce it anymore. If people still come to faith, and scripture says that happens by him reaching to them, then he must be understanding and patient, even when they keep calling him Jesus or whatever else.
That's what religion is, so I don't know what you mean. Do you mean like, believing God exists? That's something separate that happened on its own. Why think the bible's God is the God I believed in and not some other religion's God? That gets extremely... well, not exactly complicated, but just long to explain.
Yeah, obviously, since I'm basically a heretic to Protestants with my loose views. You think that makes me a lot of friends in Christian circles? Yet I guess since I'm not an atheist you think I'm not being critical enough, or not holding myself to critiques enough or following their logical progression deep enough. To that I have to say: It's not that simple. Sorry.
We've yet to find any part of the brain that doesn't behave in a deterministic way. That is, every choice a person makes is caused by a chain of events that are not random in the strictest sense of the word.
there is treatment
its called reason
and depending on how much god talks to you, Thorazine
Here's an honest question to believers from a former believer. This came up a bit in the Romney thread and in convos with my still mormon friends.
I was once a mormon and one thing that gets slammed down your throat plenty is "Integrity" and living what you believe. When I was a mormon I might not have been a great mormon, but I worked really hard to have integrity. In large part it was that belief in integrity that lead me to leave the church.
That being said, when I hear someone's a strong believer (such as Romney or something) I hold them to a very strict standard of integrity. A standard that is stricter than people that might not have strong belief in anything. So when Romney sits on a board of a company that makes a huge profit on porn I hold it against him as something that shows a lack of integrity. Whereas if he were atheist or even hindu I wouldn't. My friends seem split on this. some agree that it's totally fair to hold people to what they profess to believe. While others think it unfair.
My view of it is pretty simple, if you believe you are the city set on the hill, then you'd better act it. Is this unfair?
I was once a mormon and one thing that gets slammed down your throat plenty is "Integrity" and living what you believe. When I was a mormon I might not have been a great mormon, but I worked really hard to have integrity. In large part it was that belief in integrity that lead me to leave the church.
That being said, when I hear someone's a strong believer (such as Romney or something) I hold them to a very strict standard of integrity. A standard that is stricter than people that might not have strong belief in anything. So when Romney sits on a board of a company that makes a huge profit on porn I hold it against him as something that shows a lack of integrity. Whereas if he were atheist or even hindu I wouldn't. My friends seem split on this. some agree that it's totally fair to hold people to what they profess to believe. While others think it unfair.
My view of it is pretty simple, if you believe you are the city set on the hill, then you'd better act it. Is this unfair?
Pollux
Member
TheKaeptain
Banned
I know. I'm asking how do you feel about it? Does it still matter even it is said that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the old testament?
Sorry about the weird wording of my original post. Was trying to cook and write at the same time.
No. Its good you called him out on it. I think if you claim that you're something, you do it, or you do it to the best of your ability. No one should be exempt from being called out.
Well, firstly, we still know very little (relative to the overall picture) about how the brain functions. Still, I view a human being as just being a manifestation of the brain. Just because we can explain why they made those actions (chemically speaking) doesn't disprove free will to me. Clearly, the way our brain processes and makes decision are different for most people (otherwise, all of our decisions would be EXACTLY the same), but I don't see how just because we can explain (or even manipulate beyond their original, untouched brain) where those decisions came from, that free will doesn't exist.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
No, there are plenty of times I think of stuff as just random fortune and sometimes I think God himself made something to fail. What is my basis for when something is just life happening and when something is God? Intuition founded in my passive observations. Sorry, but I'm not a computer analyzing and processing every tiny detail according to strict logic. It has never been my personality and I have no idea how anyone can function like that. Hell, I don't even think in words 95% of the time, not unless I'm communicating with someone or preparing to do so,
Why is that egotistical? Infinite divided by population of the world is still infinite. It's no trouble to him to be personal. I don't see why he would bother creating us to be what we are if he wanted to be impersonal.
IIRC, the free will debate is supposed to lead to "if there is no free will, how can responsibility or accountability exist?".
For me the simple answer is that it must, if society as we know it is to continue.
Rather pointless debate all things considered. The conclusion that "free will does not exist" is not going to bring anarchy to the world, people will just get on like they always have. It's an interesting thought experiment but is of no practical value.
For me the simple answer is that it must, if society as we know it is to continue.
Rather pointless debate all things considered. The conclusion that "free will does not exist" is not going to bring anarchy to the world, people will just get on like they always have. It's an interesting thought experiment but is of no practical value.
Last I checked, "reason" doesn't cure this supposed psychosis.
Pollux
Member
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. Are you saying: how do I feel that the Bible isn't the literal Word of God?
If so, then it doesn't bother me at all. The Bible is more of a set of moral guidelines and stories to point you in the right direction, (except those 10 commandments those are absolute) rather than something like the Quran which says "this is how you will live your life and these are God's laws".
As for the things SAID by God that are prophetic in nature, I believe them. e.g. "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased."
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Eh, we do know a lot more about the brain then people usually mean when they say "we don't know a lot of how the brain works".
As for why we don't make all the same decisions: mathematically its pretty likely that every human being who has lived until this point has had an utterly unique brain due to the sheer number of environmental factors both before and after birth.
cutmeamango
Banned
Again then, in my conceptualization: Free will is estabilished in the choice of act. It precedes the act and happens even if you act our not.
Forgot who said that you may think of anything but your act will end up being defined by past actions. But I don't believe that is deterrant of free will, because free will comes prior identity. And that why change in 'behaviour' or 'personality' means nothing to free will.
Maybe if we regress to prime mechanics we will end up in deterministic settings, but even so there are infinite possibilities in those settings that we would have to visit set theory and it would say
determinism = free will.
But if I had to see it metaphysically, where free will is tied to the I, I'd say free will is a constant that deterministic nature hinders it's achievement.
And wait what, having studied cogntive ergonomics, saying that we know (emphasis on know
) a lot about how the brain functions past certain biological aspects is not true.Last I checked I wasn't being literal
I understand, but what I'm telling you is that I believe that we are just manifestations of our brains (when it comes to making decisions, I mean). Why is it that just because we can explain it, that it means free will doesn't exist?
I would get it, if humans were static, but clearly, we are not. We can reason. People change their views through rational debate or thought. Even on fundamental things, such as religion. Thus, the brain must not be a static machine. So, just because we can figure out some of its function, or how to manipulate it, it doesn't mean free will doesn't exist.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Yeah that's what I am asking. I am not in the clearest state of mind right now to be posting anyways.
Pain meds bro.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Then I have to ask what your definition of free will is, because it seems like you're saying that people are deterministic in their actions. To me that is incompatible with the idea of free will.
With that said, the one form of cognitive dissonance I readily embrace is acting as if we have free will. I don't think its even possible to overcome that.
Pollux
Member
Ok. And I hope you feel better/get better soon.
Simply, to me, free will is the ability of an individual to make their own decisions. To me, the brain is part of that individual.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But what is a decision?
If we are the product of previous influences then a moment of seeming decision doesn't actually have any variance to it: we think that we are choosing between different options, but we're actually going to choose one specific one as determined by past influence.
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that individuals don't weigh options and make decisions, but that the decisions aren't generated ex nihilo.
I meant egotistical if you believed god was looking out for just you.
The work around is; well, he's looking out for you as your personal butler/cheerleader... but he's doing it for everyone else at the same time! He's not a limited resource, therefore, it doesn't matter how mundane my issues are.
If I understand you correctly, in your hierarchy of values hypocrisy is worse than indifference?
As a morally lazy person, I think someone who declares his beliefs and then tries to live by them is brave. He makes his actions accountable to others, and so can be judged against them. Someone who doesn't say a thing can contradict himself again and again while no one is the wiser.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Basically this. There is a process to decision making, where the mechanisms of the brain generate weight for possible actions based on past experience and select one action to take, but there doesn't seem to be any part of this process that is affected by anything other then deterministic material reality. (or as deterministic as the universe may be, there might be some random chance down at a quantum level)
Because your brain matter operates in accordance to the same laws of physics that drive all other matter in our universe.
i.e. it does so in a 'predictable'* and mechanistic fashion.
*quantum uncertainty isn't so much a thing about the irregularity of the universe - so much as it is, the inability to measure the regularity of the universe at those scales... and also, at the scale of the particles of interaction in the brain (molecular bio-chemistry), quantum phenomena doesn't apply.
Nor does quantum probability indicate that there's room for 'free will' in there... it just means there will be deterministic probabilities; rolling a dice doesn't exactly give the dice free will, if you know what I mean.
I disagree. Sorry, but neither one of our sides has any evidence, lol.
You could point out that our decisions are simply chemicals in the brain, but like I said, I believe the brain is part of the individual, and we are just manifestations of it. It's not static, and can change its views on various issues. I know I didn't answer anything, but this debate will end in a stand still, due to the very nature of it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Could you explain what you mean here? I'm not sure what you mean by the terms "individual" and "manifestation"
Atramental
Banned
Out of curiosity...
Hindu-GAF, which god do you find yourself praying to the most?
Edit: I believe I saw one of you with a Ganesh avatar.
Hindu-GAF, which god do you find yourself praying to the most?
Edit: I believe I saw one of you with a Ganesh avatar.
cutmeamango
Banned
But if there was an optimal way to reactions, determinalistically so you would end up seeing little to no variations in the outcomes. Entropy, quantum mechanics and so on so far proves that is not the case. If we were to say we can determine infinite processes, the mere presentation of infinite processes would represent free will, or randomness. That's why on a metaphysical level this discussion is always regarded to an I.
Can you actually answer the question? The conditions that ghst was referring to all have physiological identifiers. How is it fair to ask why religion should be excluded from this categorisation when in fact, there's no evidence for its inclusion?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Randomness does not equate to free will. In fact it works against it: if the outcome of an event is determined randomly then there is no intelligent external agent choosing between outcomes.
It's difficult for me to explain, but it always seemed to me that in these types of debates (historically and contemporary), people speak of the individual as some metaphysical being, separated from the body. My point is simply that our outwardly expressions are simply manifestations of our brain's functions. However, that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist, to me. I could understand if our decisions were static, but they're not. They change, simply due to rational thought or debate.
For instance, if someone was devoutly religious. You could make him change his mind simply through a rational debate (it's possible). You wouldn't need to mess with any chemicals. To me, that is a manifestation of free will.
Your language is a but opaque, but if I have it right you are postulating the existence of the multiverse, where each universe contains within it every permutation of existence as we know it. The fact that these universes exist, means free will must exist, because the alternate realities implies randomness, which you equate with free will?
Am I getting it right?
staticneuron
Member
There was a TEDtalks about something similar and I thought it made perfect sens (I cannot remember the date or title I apologize) but basically the talker broke it down that our relative goodness basically comes out of our desire for reciprocation. You help others and hopefully one day when you are in need, someone may help you. His point was that it was something we have had to deal with for so long it may be hardwired in our behaviors and traits.
But society as it is now highlights something interesting. There are very few people that seemingly "sacrifice" to help and those that do can be recognized as those that desire reciprocation or may be for religious reasons (bettering oneself, pleasing deity, and/or opening a path to glory).
I don't think it is fair to even bring it up as an "atheist" thing. Chances are it is a personality trait of the individual. Some people, religious or atheist, think their POV is fact and when presented with someone who doesn't see the same "evidence", they get confrontational.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Sure, I agree that people can change. They change due to external influence. They change because of the interactions of their brains with new information. I guess we agree.
Pollux
Member
This is something I've had a great deal of a personal struggle with, but religious folks, how can you reconcile a benevolent God who is omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent, as one who allows people to either not believe in him? If belief is the primary requirement behind a good afterlife, or Heaven (if you will), then how could that God allow someone to be damned to Hell? Would it not be better for that person, in God's eyes, to have never existed at all than for them to go to Hell?
But then it comes back to free will and all that.
But then it comes back to free will and all that.
But they don't have to is my point, and I think that is where we disagree, fundamentally.
Have you ever read the Grand Inquisitor chapter from the Brothers Karamazov?
They don't have to, but even then, that is a deterministic outcome because whether or not they change their mind has to do with past factors and experiences, which can be continuously traced on an atomic level to the beginning of the universe.
Choice exists not just when you change your mind, but when you choose not to change your mind, something you're doing at every moment of every day.
This is the gist of the determinism argument.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well they always change in one fundamental way: they have memory of the information that they didn't have before.
Weather or not that knowledge of information causes any major changes in behavior is, to me, a complex reaction involving prior information and how that information has affected the brain and its predispositions.
Pollux
Member
Nope...can I read it online?
- Status