romansh

There are couple of things I see differently here Starr: 1) I do not somehow see human activities as somehow separate from nature ... Man, his motor car and greed are part of nature as far as I am concerned. 2) The original sin is not a rebellion against god, but starting to think in terms of good and evil, ie Tasting the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I would argue Genesis 3 is relatively clear that we should not think in terms of good and evil. How somebody dying a dew thousand years later stops us from thinking in terms of good and evil is a bit beyond me.

Not to derail Paul's burka thread ... do the women who wear such clothes have a free choice? Here the word free could have a sociopolitical meaning or a more philosophical meaning. You can find people who can argue quite eloquently for and against. On a slightly more philosophical level how do people find themselves with a particular world view? Some people simply grow into that world view, some perhaps after many years research and study find one that resonates with their experience and after the fact they say yes I choose this world view. Others continually search. I suppose there are other models. The point being yes we can argue the women have been brainwashed by a patriarchal world view and that they should be liberated. But if we have an understanding that we too have been brainwashed by circumstance (the universe unfolding) our approach to liberating women who have succumbed to burka wearing changes.

A couple of general questions ... Why on Earth would I want to make choices that are somehow without cause (reason)? ... as opposed to purpose Is there any part of me or my actions (or anyone else fort that matter) that are not without cause? Soma might argue for some quantum phenomena causing me and my actions, but is this really what we mean by free will when we speak of such a thing? Joseph has expressed my point of view quite nicely ... And I am not sure how I can turn compassion on at will ... I either have it or don't for a given situation. I might be able to go through the motions of compassion which is OK as far I can tell. I find understanding is a better tool, but then I cannot understand situations at will either, but I can understand there are a myriad of causes behind every thought and action. No one single cause other than the universe unfolding. The expression, there but for the grace of god go I, sums it pretty nicely. It is an understanding that if my particular bit of the universe had unfolded in a similar way I could also be responsible for an act I disapprove of. It allows me to cut some slack for others and for myself.

Yep ... I would agree the ability to perceive and reason has given us an evolutionary advantage. On my way now .... rom

If we apply our understanding of how we perceive colour, we can be very skeptical about whether the colour purple exists or any colour for that matter. Colour is a perfect example of why we should treat our perceptions with care and perhaps a pinch of salt. ................ Going to be on the road for a few days

Mundane and miraculous I think are just states of the brain ... which in turn is a state of the universe unfolding. Our language is dualistic ... we divide things into is and is not. We end up believing the products of our language. The universe for me is a source of awe. And when I look deep inside of myself I see the universe quietly staring back at me. In essence that what monism is for me.

Except Christ and God John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

What about believing in what you experience? I am not sure about this .... Personally I am very sceptical of my experience. Here is some reading that seems to agree with my distrust: Sleights of Mind by Macknick and Martinez-Conde The Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain David Eagleman The Self Illusion by Bruce Hood Subliminal: How your unconscious rules behavior by Leonard Mlodinow The Ego Trick: What does it mean to be you? by Julian Baggini

The OP reads like an agnostic call to arms .... Regarding the mundane and the miraculous ... its all one, is it not?

Did not Bohm and Bell (who carried on with Bohmian mechanics) believe that the universe was causal (deterministic) although in a probabilistic way ... as opposed to the more orthodox interpretations of quantum theory?

So what you are saying here Elen is that you have some wants that are stronger than others, are you not? What Strawson is asking is, are you responsible for who you are (in an ultimate or absolute sense). Whether we take on responsibility or not is really not the issue when discussing free will. While this is valid a definition of free will as any other Elen, the central question remains ... what caused you to take up responsibility? We (as a society) tend to be derogatory of people who don't take responsibility for their actions, don't we? Another way to look at the problem of free will is, does our body chemistry cause us to have thoughts? If so, can "thoughts" cause body chemistry? If we believe the latter then we have a dualistic view of the mind and body problem. This dualistic view is difficult if not impossible to reconcile from the scientific point of view.

Elen ... We don't live in the past or some future. We live in the now, even when we think about the past or the future. That you say you don't know if you want to fit your thinking is my point exactly ... You don't really control your wants. OK you can have multiple layers of want but this results in an infinite regress. eg: http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm Regarding truth ... I am not sure I have an unfettered access to it, but I do think I have some degree of access, and when viewed through the lens evidence and logic then, concepts like free will I think are found wanting.

The word religion comes from the Latin to reconnect. The question for me becomes to reconnect to what? God, the universe, the community, to family to one's self, to the atoms we are comprised of. Do we need an orthodox religious belief ... speaking personally ... definitely not? I don't even need to view life through some mythical perspective.

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?