romansh

Hi Elen I agree with you, but I have this theory ...If two lenses point to essentially opposite points of view then one or both of them are wrong. For example if I believed the Earth was six thousand years old, but every scrap of scientific evidence points to a 4 billion year old earth, then either my belief is wrong, the scientific interpretation is wrong or both. And this is deference to Paul's relativism. I did not say I did not have a choice. I said I cannot make this choice... Here is an experiment for you ... for the next five minutes please choose to a god disbelieving atheist ... just five minutes. I suspect you can't do it. We don't actively choose our beliefs ... at least generally so. I would argue it is our surroundings that make this choice for us rather than an innate choice that is in us. I am not in an environment that is conducive to beliefs in Christ and gods in general. My past has also conditioned me to be somewhat skeptical. Of course that might change. But then equally possible, something might click in you and might see things from a more skeptical point of view as well.

Are you using Internet Explorer? If I use Chrome or FireFox as my browser things behave more normally.

Hi Elen I suspect the free will debate predates Christianity. I am not a Christian any more than I am an atheist. The free will debate is not about whether we make choices or not. I think it is clear that we do. Using your example of free will means the choice to go with God and to go with Christ. I cannot make this choice, for me it any belief in a vaguely literal sense in Christ is a nonsense. How can I freely choose to go with God (a personal god) and Christ? So the free will debate is more about the how and the mechanisms behind our choices. And once we start using phrases like mechanisms for free will we start having a hard time reconciling a belief that we freely chose to go with Christ as opposed to we were caused to go with Christ. Welcome to the forum rom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS5Q-9uNCLU Interesting but I disagree with Dennett ... He is always interesting

When I behave like a jerk and contemplate the behaviour I find that my contemplation is also a result of my education, past experiences, and the general state of my biochemistry of my brain/body complex. I have been very definitely been conditioned not to be perceived as a jerk. So that there is conflicting conditioning built into us, is not terribly surprising.

I can't quite see how what you said is substantially different to what I said: Why? Because I don't think I am a self made man. Any tolerance or intolerance has ultimately come from outside of my self. My environment still pressures me to be tolerant or intolerant as the occasion arises, My biochemistry still does its stuff that can be seen or interpreted by others as tolerant or intolerant Are not you origin, background, education, experience, social, history and other causes components of your environment?

Soma Looking at these sort of things emotively might point to such a conclusion. So you think these Germans would actually believe that their behaviours are generated by mirror neurons for which they themselves consciously grew?

While this is a useful way of looking at things, I think ultimately this has to be false. Why? Because I don't think I am a self made man. Any tolerance or intolerance has ultimately come from outside of my self. My environment still pressures me to be tolerant or intolerant as the occasion arises, My biochemistry still does its stuff that can be seen or interpreted by others as tolerant or intolerant

True The question remains ... do we tolerate the intolerant? And if we think of someone as intolerant what is the point of pointing the intolerance out?

my apologies Rhino I missed your response as being a joke. mainly because people do think that making choices is sufficient evidence for free will. As Joseph said ... no harm done.

Is this stigmatizing new Atheists? New atheism is as hateful as any fundamental religious movement.. Can you find an example of this so called New Atheist hate?

Rhino For this misses the point of the free will discussion completely. Nobody is arguing the case that we don't make choices. It is about the mechanisms (nature) of those choices that is interesting. I cannot choose to believe in a literal Father Christmas, can you? I used to accept that I had free will, I no longer accept that. In what sense did I choose to accept and not accept free will?

As a fairly devout agnostic, I can sympathize with this point of view Mike. Any of the literal interpretations make no sense to me either. But some of the other interpretations make interesting food for thought. We don't have to swallow these hook, line and sinker either. I was never strongly indoctrinated into Christianity. Vaguely deistic in my early twenties and that passed too. Reality is far more interesting than any concretized god ... A belief for a concretized god could be considered as an adult version of a child's belief in Father Christmas. The latter gives us a sense of community, good will and oneness. If an adult can shed their concretized perception of Father Christmas and still retain their sense of oneness, then religion has done its job. It is a bit like the metaphor ... taking a boat to the yonder shore ... there is no particular need to carry that boat on your journey further. To answer question 1) ... I think the origin of morality is twofold ... evolution has given us a capacity for the sense of morality, in the same way evolution has given us a capacity to sense the colour red. This moral capacity is filled with societal mores. Empathy that is primarily evolution, I would argue. 2) I will let those that care about such things answer this question.

On another thread Minsocal asked Where am I connected? In an unfolding universe the answer would be everywhere. Just that some connections are closer or more immediate. The pattern that was your cat has faded to beyond recognition or definition of a cat. Condolences Minsocal by the way.

My experience is the judicial system is fairly logical given the axioms it works in. But one is allowed to question the axioms, don't you think? Who is flattening religious expression? This to me seems a broad rhetorical statement. The Hobby lobby quite reasonably have taken a legal (and no doubt political) approach to their concerns. But are we not allow to ask, why a religious approach is allowed to over-ride what is essentially a medical issue? This is what the more secular world is asking?

Regarding transfusions While letting courts decide is a reasonable option, you avoided my question(s), do you think individuals have the right to deny medical insurance to their employees for procedures they disagree with on moral grounds?

Dutch I am not as familiar as I could be with the ins and outs of US healthcare system and all its legal vagaries. My apologies. If a particular procedure is considered a bona fide medical tool then why should an employee and family be prevent from having access because of the employer's beliefs? If an employer objected to blood transfusions on religious or moral grounds would you object? I find the whole thing around health care in the States a mess. So my question is would we allow every quirky belief or morality to have a veto? Presumably in the name of diversity? If businesses were private organizations run for members then bakers could do what they like, so long as it is in within the laws, statutes and constitution. If the business is open to the general public then I would expect them to treat people with dignity and with a reasonable degree of equality.

Even what we call dead and inanimate unfold.

Valid point Soma .... but not for one moment do I believe these are intrinsically separate. As a scientist I can find myself being mislead that the contents of my solution are intrinsically separate from the beaker. Some times it is a useful approximation sometimes it is a miserable fail. To iterate ... the things I take apart are not intrinsically separate.

I would add it the same family of lobby groups that block a more inclusive universal health care and then handcuff Obama care. You apostate you Dutch.

I find it strange hoping for at one ment and then divvying things into bits and pieces like, mind, body, soul and god.

If the States had a national health service, should individuals within that service apply their beliefs to people they are serving? Is not the employer acting as an agent on behalf of the state?

The problem with metaphors, their interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. We may try and get the original author's intent, but who is to say that is the most accurate interpretation?

The more I think about the concept of sin the more bemused I get. I suspect the concept of sin that is promulgated in western society by the more orthodox Christian denominations has mislead society more than any other aspect of its teachings. The original sin, I think, was to think in terms of sin. OK I know there is a logic problem here, but I think most will get my drift. Genesis three shows us 'the' or a way, the Bible is peppered with references to not to judge. And yet our society remains judgemental.

Obviously 'addiction' is a chemistry that over-rides our body's chemistry. Some might argue quite accurately, I think, that I am addicted to the topic of free will. Is my body chemistry addicted to discussing the subject, I think so. Could I somehow break that addiction? Again I think so, but only by developing another one. Also a matter of semantics ... free will itself is not about the ability to choose. We do so all the time. But it is about whether there is some intrinsic self that is independent of cause making those choices.