PaulS

Hello Larry, and welcome to the forum. I admire the steps you have taken and how you have found things for yourself. I look forward to your participation here (I see you've jumped in already - terrific). Cheers Paul

So Rom, would you accept that it is the universe at work for one person to try and convince another they should change their ways? The other person's non-free will may require that they stay their course and not change ways. Both people are carrying out their respective 'universe unfolding' journeys. So both are fulfilling their 'roles' in the universe? It would seem then that whether our will is free or not, it is irrelevant to how our lives are carried out.

Yes, it's all very 'Matrix-like', Joseph. No easy answers and yes, some sound assumptions to suggest free will may be an illusion. Rom's arguments are similarly strong. The bit that I haven't got my head around (hence the new topic I started here - http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3463-the-universe-unfolding-and-our-part-in-it/) is how non-free will 'fits' in the big picture of things. Disclaimer - I acknowledge not knowing how it fits doesn't rule out it existing of course. But it would seem that if our will is not free, then why should we be held accountable for our actions, or doing anything in the world?

free will noun noun: free will; noun: freewill 1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. I acknowledge though that our free will is influenced, even directed at times, by our environment, our cultural and societal settings, our experiences, and our thoughts in general. Nonetheless, we still have a will that often we choose to direct. Maybe your computer has free will too. So? We may not understand how our bodies seem to develop on auto-pilot, but we can demonstrate where will can alter the bodies actions (yoga and meditation seem to influence bodily functions). So it would seem that we can express some control. I think our free will develops as our brain develops. A human may have limited free will in the early stages of life, or maybe it is acting consciously, albeit subconsciously or not to our understanding.

A not uncommon theme on this forum is that we are 'one' with the universe. We are intimately entwined in the universe, not two separate entities but us and everything else, all as one. Some comments to reinforce this have been 'everything is as it should be'. My confusion with this arises from our life as it exists now. There are things going on in this world that would seem to harm and cause angst. There are things that contribute nothing to love and in fact to the opposite effect, contribute to hate, anger and violence. If the universe is one and acting exactly how it's meant to act, then my logic suggests that all the 'evil' things that are happening are meant to happen. Cruelty, hate, war, paedophilia, crime, racism, homophobia, etc etc, are all the universe at work aren't they? If I have that understanding correct (and maybe I don't) then shouldn't we simply let all these things happen and not get involved?

For me to have free will, I must become in some way independent of creation. I certainly don't think I am and quite frankly neither do I want to be. Couldn't one have free will within the confines of creation, thus making free will independent but also an integral part of ongoing creation?

Here we go again ... I am not in the proof business. By 'proof' I mean that the data is inconclusive - yes environment 'influences' our choices but just as we can't be sure that we are making choices because of other influences, similarly we can't be sure that we aren't making choices by this mechanism we are referring to as free will. This is a common misconception about free will, It is clear we make decisions about walking through gates or not. The discussion is about how we make decisions, not whether we make them or not. Do we make them independently of physics, chemistry, genetics, experience, threats, beliefs, the situation etc. Let me iterate ... free will is NOT about whether we make choices or not. I understand that it is not about whether we MAKE choices, but whether those choices are MADE independently. What I am trying to point out with the chickens is that even with only say 24hrs identical life experiences, some demonstrate different choices than others which would indicate (to me) that something other than physics, chemistry, genetics, experience, threats, beliefs, situation, etc is at play. But as science reveals, we only seem to utilise a very small portion of our brain, at least from what we can currently tell. This is an old wives tale ... we night not know exactly how we use our brains, use them we do ... but their use is not independent of a 'mechanism'. The word mechanism does imply a machine like status.. Now if there is no 'mechanism' to your decisions, what does that imply? You're right, we do use most of our brain (we think). But what we don't understand is why only 10% of our brain is neurons whilst the other 90% is glial cells which encapsulate & support neurons. What's not understood is how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. So far, there's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Basically, we only know how 10% of our brain works whilst the rest remains a mystery. You mention consciousness - do you think that is independent of the physics and chemistry ... alcohol and hallucinogens in general would argue differently? I think the data is inconclusive to support the hypothesis that consciousness is not independent of physics and chemistry. Some substances and circumstances may affect our consciousness, but I think there might be more to consciousness than chemical reactions and physics.

Welcome to the forum, Bryan. I really like that you see Christianity as but one path of many. All to often following Jesus is portrayed as the one and only rule book to follow which is a major impediment for many who haven't grown up within such a culture. To recognise that following Jesus is but one way, allows us to embrace others for the sake of love and not for the sake of needing to convert them or even protect others from them. I'm sure you will enjoy it here and look forward to your participation. Cheers Paul

You're right Elizabeth concerning some people actually not having the choice to be vegan. Amazingly enough we could grow enough grain and cereals in North America's land mass alone to feed the entire world! Alas, the world just doesn't work that way currently. Our disconnect with meat and the animals killed for our consumption cannot be overstated. Add this to our increased affluence and the average American eats about 200lbs of meat per year, which is about 40% more than the 138lbs consumed per person in 1950. Also, US consumption is about 3 times that of the average world citizen. With industrial agriculture being the single largest industry contributing to climate change (even worse than transport and all the vehicle emissions in the world) it's only a matter of time before we seen the environmental silliness in growing meat instead of plants.

Welcome to the forum, Elizabeth. Spong will go down in history as one of the most influential Christians ever. He has helped me and many others reconsider the bible and look at it in a way that makes much more sense than the so called 'traditional' view. Cheers Paul

It depends what you call 'evidence' Rom. Whilst environmental factors influence our choices, that doesn't mean we aren't free to make choices. Yes we are influenced, but this alone proves nothing of the inability to have free will. I would even argue that our life experiences/influences allow us to analyse situations and actually make choices. Similarly, whilst genetic predisposition may influence a person, again that doesn't rule out the ability of making choices. You mention genetic imprint on chickens. I'm not so certain that is as you say. Yes they attach to the first thing they see upon hatching, but that doesn't stop them from choosing to do things like walk through a gate, or not. From day one their individual behaviours vary (I've seen this with my own chickens) even though their societal influences in the 24hrs since hatching have been identical. As you suggest, the strongest argument against free will may be the chemical reaction one. But as science reveals, we only seem to utilise a very small portion of our brain, at least from what we can currently tell. So I can't so easily rule out the body's happenings as robotic. We 'think' we aren't making decisions with our current understanding of consciousness, but I think that falls far short from the possibility, and perhaps even the likelihood, that 'we' aren't making our own decisions in relation to what chemicals, and amounts, are released and when to 'stimulate' these reactions. All that said, even with free will I can cut people some slack. Because people make bad free choices doesn't mean they are bad, perhaps they just need more experience, information and/or influence to make better choices. Even with free will I don't think retributive punishment makes any sense - walk a mile in someone else shoes comes to mind. It doesn't mean as a society we have to allow/accept their bad choice though.

Animals may be able to sense that I am no threat to them Joe, but I might hold off on entering any actual lion dens for the time being. I'm not sure if my mind is more clear as yet. Sometimes I think it is, other times I think it's pretty busy! I have a lot going on in my world at present which complicates things, but which I think is all the more reason to try and regularly practice some set-aside meditation time. At least I'm hoping that will help slow my head down a little.

Thanks Soma, I ensure plenty of leafy greens and legumes are in my diet so protein isn't an issue, and I take a liquid B12 supplement daily. I have lost 10kgs in the process (over 3 months) and that's without any sort of dieting other than making sure I eat a plant-powered diet. I have always struggled with weight, in the sense that I was recently up to about 30kgs (66lbs) overweight, and any 'diet' I tried worked in the short-term (1 month) only to rebound on me with my weight going up again. Now that I am focussing on eating healthy rather than denying myself so as to lose weight, I find the weight is falling off by itself. I do also feel more at peace that no animal has to die or suffer for my food choices. That's not an "I'm better than anyone else" statement but a personal one that for me matters to me. I know not everyone else feels that way about killing animals for food and that's their path. I'm also at a place where I feel ready to learn practising meditation too. Wish me luck! Cheers Paul

I would deny that there is any conclusive evidence concerning the underlying chemistry of the brain that accurately identifies just why the brain's biochemistry makes our 'choices' the way it does. We can demonstrate the science of it happening perhaps, but not whatever is behind it. Maybe 'you' are behind your biochemistry and we can't demonstrate that yet. But that aside, with the universe unfolding unevenly, how does that actually play out in your life and making decisions? Do you then feel absolutely no responsibility concerning the decisions you make, because after all, they're not your decisions? Or do you mean to say that the decisions you make, which aren't actually yours anyway as they are really the universe's decisions, don't matter so que sera sera? ,

But Rom, Can they simply be 'perceptions' if I don't have free will? In line with your free will essay and thread, it would seem I am not making the choice to observe things this way.

Soma, I like that concept of Satva Guna (although I'm not so sure that dairy can really be included in our modern world as this industry does cause harm to the organism that provides the milk). Allowing all sentient beings to live a peaceful life is central in my reasoning for dropping animal products from my diet, however I find our society is so animal-product-centric that it is almost impossible not to somehow participate in treating animals as commodities, but I'm working on it. Cheers Paul

I see, Rom. Yes, the word 'should' does threaten dogmatism. Perhaps if I used words such as 'would it be more beneficial to mankind if...?', or 'does eating meat harm our planet?', or 'is eating meat really our natural way?', etc. I see how the use of the term 'should' turns all of those questions into a potential dogmatic threat rather than generate discussion and genuine reflection.

Too true Rom, the universe will continue. But I am still confused. Are you suggesting our choices matter or not? Your first post seemed to me that you were suggesting choices matter only to/for the choice-maker. Am I understanding you correctly?

Thank Rom, I am still trying to understand what you mean about making food choices. Are you suggesting it matters not what our choices are in this regard other than for our own self-realisation? Paul

Soma, So the killing of animals didn't play a part in your decision, just the health choices? I'm curious because I sense that you like to practice peace, yet I see our animal agriculture industry an anti-thesis to peace, certainly for the animals but also for the individuals involved. Surely nobody can enjoy driving a bolt through a cows head, or slitting another animals throat, or running thousands upon thousands of live chickens through slaughtering facilities hour upon hour. Surely there must be a human toll? Cheers Paul

Rom, Would you extend 'choice' to every activity in our lives, or are you selective about what you say people should be allowed 'choice'? For instance if society thought killing animals was just as 'bad' as committing paedophilia, and made laws against eating meat, does it then become less a 'choice'? Cheers Paul

Thanks very much for those thoughts, Joseph. I like that perspective. I don't think we can call killing other beings humane though, whichever way it is portrayed, but I can appreciate where you're coming from. Certainly less cruelty is better than more cruelty.

Welcome Slash, I myself would probably label as an agnostic who sees a lot of merit in some of the teachings of Jesus, or as attributed to him anyway. That's not to say there isn't just as much merit in the teachings of other leaders of religions such as Buddhism and Islam, it's just that I'm not very familiar with those and don't have a burning desire to research them. I'm glad you have joined this forum and I think you will enjoy the participation here. It's nice to know that TCPC is viewed as approachable from atheists and Christians alike (well, some of them both anyway). Cheers Paul

A topic guaranteed to spark debate - what do people think about eating meat and eating/using animal products (dairy, leather, blood & bone fertiliser, etc)? Should Christians respect God's creatures and not kill them for their own use, or did God give humans 'dominion' over animals so we could eat them? Even taking God out of the equation, where do you stand and why on using animals for food and/or other purposes? Disclaimer - I am a recent convert to a predominantly vegan diet because I finally allowed myself to acknowledge that I felt that killing animals was an injustice to the animals and ultimately cruel. And this from a guy who has killed his own animals for food, killed them for control (foxes & rabbits), spent school holidays on a dairy farm, and who felt ripped off if I didn't have meat in my lunch and dinner! Cheers Paul

Welcome Jones, I hope the forum here is beneficial for you. Cheers Paul