romansh

I think as we get to more "sophisticated" theisms (not my word) like deism, panentheism and perhaps ietsism (the latter being more of a feeling, I think) then closer I think we are to removing those training wheels. Who removes them? That is more like they corrode, wear out and fall off through disuse. I must admit, I like the concept of pantheism ... it is where a theism touches atheism.

Rodge, You view the world as mechanistic, I get that. You seem to think you are not mechanistic ... I get that too. Does your consciousness respond to cause and effect? Speaking personally, sometimes very definitely but then most of the time I am completely unaware of what those causes might be even if they exist. Does this mean I have free will? So you believe you do stuff for absolutely no reason (without cause)?

Yes science is incomplete ... the question becomes do we need to fill that incompleteness. I think the answer is yes, but more in the sense that nature abhors a vacuum than anything else. Some fill this incompleteness with family and friends, some with sports and entertainment, some with arts, literature and music. And some of course fill it with god and designers. In a sense we do choose these things, yes I chose not to be a stamp collector and I chose to stop actively collecting coins. But I did neither of these things consciously. You did not wake up one day and say I choose to believe in god, you just find yourself believing in god. In my case I slowly shed deism and ietsism like a snake sheds it skin. All this is because of myriad of forces that have shaped my life. For me god is like Santa Claus ... a useful concept to get me through a certain stage in life. Perhaps like training wheels on a bicycle; its OK to take off those wheels when we are ready and experience life for what it is rather than for what we want it to be.

I have lived a relatively oblivious life, with respect to free will and materialism. But once thought entered into the matter, one had to give way ... for me it way free will. Sorry could not let go of cause and effect. What were the causes that made you side with free will over cause and effect? Answers on a post card on the free will thread.

This I think is an incredibly accurate observation. I too have programmed myself to think in certain ways. The question becomes who programmed the programmer? For some it is God, for others it is the universe. Some think we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps.

I don't why ... but when discussing free will, quite often people get quite defensive ... interesting. Anyway for those interested this is a good resource for those interested in arguments against free will. http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will And this blog from a quantum point of view brings up the possibility of superdeterminism ...makes interpreting quantum data a little more tricky.

Jen ... if you are going to claim quantum phenomena as non material, then I am afraid you have to claim the whole caboodle as non material ... I have no problem here. The non material responds to cause and effect in a probabilistic way. There is no certainty in the outcome. Hawking and Mlodinow in The Grand Design: and bonus quote regarding Einstein, you may well be right, but I would not bet against him just yet. Our two best demonstrated theories are incompatible. And just as an aside, I have a degree in chemistry and a PhD in Minerals Engineering. My working life I have worked in a research laboratory (sadly applied, at least for the purposes of this discussion). I mention this simply to save you time when presenting basic science stuff , at least for my benefit. But if you think free will is a result of some dice shaker, fair enough. It certainly what I think of as free will.

Thank you Jen, while I might not understand the specific causes to your forgiveness, I do understand there many immediate causes to your world view amongst many nth order ones. I think we have different view of what non material is. For me quantum phenomenon fall squarely into a materialist's world. Quantum phenomenon respond to cause and effect in a probabilistic way. Even Hawking (and Mlodinow) described quantum mechanics as determinism where the probabilities are determined. The Grand Design For me, non material are things that don't respond to cause and effect. Quite often people think of souls as such. In a non free will world people don't need saving, not even the self righteous ... whoever they may be. "Choice" is a tricky concept. Yes I might to choose to hate, in the same way a river chooses its meandering path across a flat plain. I have been married for almost forty years, but I certainly did not choose [consciously] to love her. I just do. In fact I new her for two years before dating, "she was not my type". The same way I don't [consciously] choose to hate people. Incidentally I don't hate any one at the moment and have not in a long time. Regarding love ... you obviously have access to the Newsientist, look up oxytocin. There will be a couple examples where "love" can be induced in the animal world. I can give a brief over view if you do not. Did I criticize evangelical and orthodox Christians? I simply compared my world view with some hypothetical view. Again criticize has two general meanings ... point out/evaluate inaccuracies is the sense I strive for. I have been taken to task before for not being Christian enough on this site. Are we all not Buddhas or Jesus's? That I happen to prefer Carl to the original; so be it, I have no free choice ... I am meandering on the plain.

Free will makes perfect sense to me, but maybe it's because I let go a long time ago of the idea that Materialist cause-and-effect is the only set of laws operating in the universe. While you may have let go of it you may have grabbed on to something that is non existent outside of a concept. I know you don't agree with me, Romansh, and I know you keep pressing the point that we don't have free will, whereas I continue to maintain the opposite position. Yes I know we can't help ourselves Of course we're all part of the universe and subject to its causal mesh. Here I agree with you whole heartedly. But having free will isn't equal to (or the same thing as) having the power to alter reality by making new choices. If you're talking about the ancient idea that human beings can be mini-Gods by understanding and using "the laws of the universe," that's not free will. I am not sure that I understand you completely here. For me free will implies that we are able to act independently of that causal mesh, no more no less. Me personally, I understand that I am completely embedded in that universal causal mesh, to the point that thinking of myself as an intrinsic self (I) is a nonsense.. That's just old-fashioned narcissism operating under the guise of Ancient Near East Wisdom, with its modern versions including Prosperity Gospel, the Power of Positive Thinking, The Secret, and related works. I briefly came across a study that realistic thinking was more beneficial than positive thinking which in turn was better than negative thinking. Free will means that you have the right to choose how you respond emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, and physically to all the outside forces and events you have no control over. God given right? I don't think I have any universal right to choose. I do have this huge inability to not to choose. Free will means you get to choose whether to hate or to love, to hold grudges or to forgive, to hang onto addictions or to work towards healing those addictions, and so on. Here you confound choice with free choice. But funnily enough when I love someone there was nothing free about it, When I hate there is nothing free about that either. For example Donald Trump, no matter how hard I try, I don't know how to like him. Having said thatthere is nothing to forgive as he is a product of the same causal mesh as you and I. We are just in different locations. Addiction disorders often create the impression that we have no free will. But a recent book by neuroscientist Marc Lewis (The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction Is Not a Disease) provides evidence that addiction is a choice. Not a simple choice, but a cumulative choice. (Lewis was himself a drug addict in early adulthood.) Likely Lewis confounds choice with free choice. I can recommend Bruce Hood's The Self Illusion and Sam Harris's Free Will. Free will is about emotional and spiritual maturity, not figuring out how to make the universe bend to your will. The absence of free will is about understanding the casual mesh shapes you emotional and spiritual maturity and understanding how the universe has formed your will. Embracing a view of the universe that blends both Materialist and non-Materialist physics shows you pretty darned fast that NO human being is in charge of the universal energies and fields. Blending nothing with materialism leaves pure undiluted materialism. But orthodox and evangelical Christians do seem to believe we are in charge. Hence our need for evil and forgiveness. An enlightened traditional Christian might happily forgive Donald Trump for his wayward ways. Whereas in my worldview there is nothing to forgive. That`s God`s job. Give me Carl Sagan over Jesus any day.

Rodge recently intimated (quite accurately I think) that we cannot reconcile materialism with free will. A little more difficult to understand, at least for me, why would a belief in free will win out over a belief in cause and effect? When I faced this conundrum late in 2007, I quickly realized free will is a concept that simply does not make sense, and that I am not a mini-God implementing my divine choices. I am very much part of the universe and its causal mesh as it unfolds ... even if "I" is not quite what it seems.

I get what you are saying Rodge ... Look at it through a materialist's eyes; essentially all our ideas, thoughts etc come at us as photons, vibrating air molecules or perhaps even senses in our skin. We simply reflect them back in touch or vibrating air molecules. We are complex mirrors ... or at least can be looked at that way.

Rodge welcome ... I think we have incomplete access to the truth. Objectivity and subjectivity are essentially two sides of the same coin. Photons hit a mirror (objective), the photons are adsorbed, refracted, reflected, whatever (subjective) An outside observer of this phenomenon will see it as objective, but any explanation from that observer is subjective, especially if I disagree with the explanation.

Well I must admit I am having problems here. The word is turning into something like transcendence (beyond all categories of thought). For me a pointless concept. But I suspect the word may point to something like this: When I say tree, I might be pointing to concept or perhaps an individual tree. Regardless that tree is made up of a huge number of atoms and that tree is doing all sorts of things. It is bringing in carbon dioxide through its leaves, nutrients and water through its roots. It is photosynthesizing light, carbon dioxide and water in to sugar. Which in turn gets converted in to a variety of products which are used for growth and replication. The tree is fighting off parasites and infection. In the roots there is a huge symbiotic community that help take part in helping the tree do its thing. There is not single "tree bit" within the tree. We treat trees as a noun, Whereas in reality they are a collective verb. They are a bit of the universe unfolding in unison.

A couple of interesting posts, I thought. What do we mean by non duality ... philosophically this landscape can be divided into pluralism, dualism, monism and nihilism? I tend to lean toward monism myself though I can see a reasonable argument for nihilism. Having said that dualism and pluralism can have there uses. If someone were to ask directions to a street I would definitely give my instructions in dualistic language. The scientific method tends to be pluralistic, isolating systems and studying them. Having said that the resulting theories (at the bleeding edge) tend to be monistic or nihilistic. I am comfortable with "illusory" ... if we believe our illusions then it becomes delusory. The division between life and non life, I see as a continuum on some chemistry scale where arbitrary divisions are placed so that it is easier to schedule class times [tongue in cheek]. Astrobiologists have a hard time defining life. We can get extremely crude definitions pointing to the problem ... eg systems that are far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Rebirth ... there is also the interpretation where we are being reborn every moment. This leads to the concept of there being no intrinsic self (not self, I presume). If there is no intrinsic self, dependent origination is true then free will is difficult to defend. While it may be a red herring, but so long as we continue to see the world in hues of good and evil then I for one think it is worthy of further exploration. Well I used to be Tom Dick and Harry, then I started thinking about existence. Struggling to get back to being Tom Dick and Harry.

Progressive as to regressive? For me the term means continually evaluating the direction of where we are going in terms of new understanding we have gained. Whereas regressive (or more accurately static) is sticking to some past interpretation and resisting change. in truth regressive positions change too, but I might argue the change resembles Brownian motion. As to the blog ... I am firmly convinced of dependent origination (arising). If this world view is true, then things like free will are hard to explain, yet Buddhists apparently appear to believe in free will. Rebirth ... I do not believe in literal sense. I cannot help but think it is a nonsense - in this I have no choice. I can accept rebirth as a metaphor, I am being reborn every moment. Some events have much greater impacts on my rebirth than others. I don't require other beliefs. The middle way ... I have seen some people use this as tool of persuasion. When two opposing views are proposed. One is asked to find a middle ground. What happens is the asker does not move to the middle ground only the askee is expected to move. Not an expert on Buddhism. Occasionally follow Stephen Batchelor's ramblings.

While I understand your question Lee, I think you are looking at it in the "wrong" way. Western civilization is evolving and a critical part of evolution is death. And to quote Joseph Campbell "Unless there is death there cannot be birth." I think I got the quote close enough to his intent. Everything is a result of cause and effect (perhaps with the exception of quantum effects). Books ... I can't give you specific suggestions ... but in a general way, I would recommend reading about evolution as it applies to biological and non biological systems.

soma I agree and like the concept of going to war with compassion, but our leaders are manipulating the masses with the whip of fear and hate. I don't get the sense that Obama is getting the fear and hate whip out. Trudeau my new "leader certainly is isn't. And what do we expect our leaders to do other than advocate for the positions they have come to? They can do this by leading by example, appealing to our reason, but ultimately they have to appeal to our wishes and fears. We all manipulate ... your posts (and mine) are a form of manipulation. You have put a negative connation on the word (I think). I still don't know how to get the other side to the table and after they leave how do you know we can trust them?

At this moment we are fighting power with power creating more power and it is not working and has not worked in the past. I can find examples of where talking has not worked: For example from The Neville Chamberlain School of appeasement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls First, we must take responsibility for causing the chaos and then realize they are humans just like we are and with that attitude people will in turn open up. Before we can do take responsibility for causing chaos, we have to understand the nature of cause and chaos. When we talk of attitude and similar we are living in our minds ... not necessarily the best reflection of reality. We can go to war without hate or fear ... we can go to war with compassion. But I suspect it is easier to get funding for hate than compassion.

I am sorry soma there is something that bothers me about your post(s) and it touches back to my monism comment. You say things like: Chaos rained on Iraq mostly caused by the Sunnis after that. I get what you are saying ... but this is ultimately a highly dualistic (perhaps pluralistic) interpretation. Again I get that you have been "caused" to have this view point (and I have been caused to have mine). For me the "Unity" you spoke of earlier is like the modern circular evolution trees we see. Each country, society, individual, etc are position on that ever expanding circle. All is interconnected to each other and the past. This is true (for me) at either the quantum level or the aggregated quantum world we seem to inhabit. Sometimes I tell a story about how a wave knocked me down when I was three years old and how that event shaped my life. While the story is true in the sense commission, it is almost completely a fabrication in the sense of omission. Christ did not "say" not to have enemies, just that we love them. Having said that I am still not sure what you are proposing ... Who is going to sit at the table and more importantly how are we going to persuade any of the many sides to that table?

Fair enough ... what mechanisms are there to bring ISIS to a table and what are the positive attributes of ISIS that we should feed. Why would ISIS want to come to a table if they think they are winning and why would essentially a "Western" ideology work? Do we need to take care that we don't feed the negative aspects at the same time inadvertently?

I had an opportunity to spend ten nights in Iran back in 2000. Iran is not what is portrayed in our nightly newscasts. And depending on one's perspectives it can be "worse" and "better" at the same time. The one striking memory I have when returning to Heathrow, women wearing chadors getting on the plane immediately disappearing into the bathrooms and emerging from their cocoons in skinny jeans and generally in western apparel. I like Bohm, I like his approach to quantum phenomena, but I find his more philosophical ruminations close to impenetrable. What I think you and he are describing is monism and I am aligned with that world view; though I have sneaking feeling nihilism might have a truth in it as well. Pluralism (philosophical) and dualism can be useful so long we are not married to them, and accept them at times as useful approximations. So what does walking in the middle of the road look like in more real world terms?

Just curious. From an Progressive Christian point of view, what is an appropriate response to the recent events in Beirut, Egypt, Paris and now, Mali?

I would phrase it differently because there is very little that we can be certain of as a human Jesus. I would say ... the myth of Jesus should be evaluated with care, ...

How to teach your children: Teach them to be evidenced based. To critically review the evidence. If necessary come to a hypothesis. Review if the hypothesis agrees with the existing evidence. Review what predictions the hypothesis might make see if new evidence agrees with the hypothesis. If it does not go back to point three and make a new hypothesis. If it does agree look for new predictions and go back to point five. Be aware at some point that your hypothesis might become your worldview. Be aware that your worldview might be useful but it could be subject to falsification with new evidence. Tread lightly.