romansh

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?

I deal with intolerance within myself. It seems that is the only person I can change so when I deal with someone who I feel might be intolerant I observe my behavior and if I am also doing the same thing.

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

Intolerance is intolerance. It doesn't matter which group it comes from.

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.

where possible the State should not flatten religious expression unless absolutely necessary and the crazy structure our ACA provides coverage separately if employees can't get it from their employer

 

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.

Addiction overrides free will to choose and then to act.

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.

While experience and genetic influence contribute to what i value and to what degree, i do not know exactly how i decide.

The interesting thing genetics (and evolution in general) is a reflection of the environment and experience itself is also very much the environment. Other things might be the way atoms and fundamental particles interact.

So "I" becomes an interesting pronoun.

As for myself, I frequently revisit the of story of The Garden of Eden. Here is a story of a dawning, of becoming. Well, at least as I read it, anyway. It is a human story, very human. Somewhere along the way evolution spawned consciousness. The element of consciousness most important here is that of awareness. I am aware of myself, others, and the consequences of human actions. With that comes ... responsibility? I cannot change the laws of nature, but then, conscious awareness is now a "law of nature". Hmmmm ...

I must admit I like the story of the fall too. But I don't think anyone here is changing the laws of nature ... I'm just asking that we understand them. Our (at least for most of us) understanding of nature is predicated on cause and effect. I don't think consciousness is any different. It would appear our consciousness is very much a historical introspection. Albeit a very recent introspection.

Thinking in terms of good and evil is a pragmatic way of looking at things ... but I don't think the laws of nature actually concern themselves with good and evil. To get back into the "garden of Eden" perhaps we should stop thing in terms of good and evil.

Another version of Galen Strawson's argument

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/your-move-the-maze-of-free-will/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

As I said in the previous post "cannot be fully known".

 

So is it a fair translation to say you don't know whether there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? And what about, do you think there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? You said the universe is not responsible for anything. Are you saying you are a self-made man? (This brings the wag's addendum to mind) Thereby relieving God of an almighty responsibility.

How about this and responsibility?

http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm

As I said in the previous post I am not talking about free will.

 

So the universe and how it unfolds is somehow independent of free will? can we clarify what this discussion is about?

Rom,

 

I will consider you post as a whole later.

 

 

As I said I am the intersection of causes that cannot be fully known. I think the important question is whether there is the possibility for novelty, something new.

Again you don't answer my question Dutch, what part of you is actually free from cause? If the answer is nothing or I don't know fair enough. Whether a limited being can know the full extent of the universe is irrelevant to the question of free will and how the universe actually unfolds.

If the answer is I don't know a belief in free will becomes interesting. If the answer is nothing then we are not talking about free will per se.

Regarding novelty and new ... does evolution create novelty and new creatures? If so, does that mean evolution itself or the universe unfolding has free will? Novelty and new might be important, but that does not mean they are tied to an absence of cause.

There is something about the concept of free will of an independent intrinsic actor that comforting to humans.