romansh

Soma

When a pendulum swings and reaches a peak on either side, it has stored it's energy as potential energy despite it's velocity being zero. A weight on a table presses down on that table.

What you call inaction is an arbitrary frame of reference.

Getting involved is the universe at work also, however, involvement is optional. Not getting involved is the universe at work.

 

I suspect we are talking about two very different things when we say free will.

Does God have free will?

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.

That seems an accurate description of my experience of this particular aspect of the universe. But if we are simply manifestations of the universe unfoldinf, is it worth working out for your 'non self' what it all means?

Is this not ultimately the Hindu concept of Dharma ... a duty to live one's life?

Campbell discussing dharma ...

You perform your duty to support the universe. The universe is alive. The Sun performs its duty, the Moon performs its duty, the mice perform their duty and cats perform theirs, the brahmins perform theirs, the sudras theirs, and by this - everyone performing his duty - the universe is held in form. By following your dharma you hold the universe in form.

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?

I would echo Joseph's comments on the use of everything is as it should be.

Ultimately I don't think we choose our wills, desires,wants, beliefs etc consciously. We somehow take them onboard. For example I chose to come to Canada and thought about it way back when. My passport and career made it relatively easy. Where did my desire to come to Canada come from? And yet I feel I made the choice consciously and planned for it. Where did my desire come from?

Meant to act ... again where does meaning come from? I think it is trite to say we give our lives meaning, whatever it is that is a simplification. Does the an unfolding universe have meaning, other than the meaning the unfolding universe has given me to give it? Yes the 'bad' things are universe unfolding. I would build a levee on a flooding river the same way I would lock up a pedophile.

Getting involved or for that matter not getting both are actions and both will have reactions. We all take on a model of the universe (or perhaps a worldview). We will live that worldview, one way or another.

In the meantime ... if free will is false and the universe is monistic in nature, then I think we cam deduce that the self, consciousness, the division between life and nonlife, meaning/purpose and morality are illusory at least to some degree.

As the unverse unfolds we will walk our paths. We might think we have chosen that path, but that choice is not what it seems. I think one of our problems is that language by its very nature is a dualistic but useful concept. And here I am trying to explain a monistic concept using dualism

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?

What exactly is will for you Paul? And what does free will mean for you? If free will is simply an ability to make choices then yes we have free will; but by that defintion so does my computer.

Questions we can ask ourselves include at what point in life does a spermatozoa and egg gain free will, why is that certain arrangements of star dust, as a limited set of biology, have free will?

I think I understand your question and I think it is a valid one.

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.

It depends what you call 'evidence' Rom.

Evidence - perhaps data that supports a particular hypothesis.

Yes we are influenced, but this alone proves nothing of the inability to have free will.

Here we go again ... I am not in the proof business.

but that doesn't stop them from choosing to do things like walk through a gate, or not.

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.

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 mention consciousness - do you think that is independent of the physics and chemistry ... alcohol and hallucinogens in general would argue differently?

This I thought was interesting ... a zebra fish's larval brain firing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9S2r64QuQ

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?

Paul

Point 1) ... No one is claiming conclusive evidence. But are you denying there is evidence? Also no one is claiming it is just biochemistry (or just any one thing). We respond to our environment and our responds to us. The phrase you are behind your biochemistry wil require some evidence, for as far as I can tell none exists at the moment.

I think I feel the same emotions as most people ,,, guilt, love etc. So when you ask do feel responsible there are two sort of meanings. The most common is associated with things like guilt and pride. The second is more factual ... eg the sun is responsible for most of the life on this planet. I am certainly responsible in the second sense, and I feel responsible in the former sense. There is no intrinsic me, literally everything that I am has come from outside of me. My genetics, my body, my experiences: they are not an intrinsic me.

Pragmatically this allows me (the non intrinsic me) to cut people some slack, it allows me to cut myself some slack. This does not mean if I do some criminal act, I should be let off the hook. But it does imply any retributive punishment is not warranted. My punishment should be based on things like, my likelihood of re-offending, the severity of the crime, safety of the public, the need for a societal deterrent,

I have too to work now .... might get back to you tonight ... otherwise Sunday

rom

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.

I am not sure I understand the question completely, but I will have a go anyway.

Our perceptions are just that perceptions. They are a reflection of our universe. Your perceptions might be different from mine simply because the universe is unfolding unevenly.

We make choices all the time; so does the computer you type on. It is just that the choices that we are making are not free. Are you denying that the underlying biochemistry in the brain (and elsewhere) is responsible for the choices we make? This of course is a gross simplification, but in essence it does not make the choice you make anymore free, just more complex. This applies to your feelings, will, perceptions and thought in general.

All this leads to something similar the Buddhist concept of not-self.

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.

To hammer home my point (if I may)

Harm our our planet, natural, beneficial ... these are all perceptions, perfectly valid ones of course.

If a gamma ray burst from a nearby star, caused the exinction of human kind, would that be natural, beneficial to life forms on Earth and could it be considered harm?

Campbell proposed three broad classes of religion

1) Ones that embraced the great circle of life - to go all Lion King on you. These are typified by the early aboriginal religions.

2) Those that want want to minimize the impact on the Earth ,,, Jainism and some Buddhist traditions are exemplars.

3) And finally those that want to make this Earth a better place, The Abrahamic ones are classic examples of this.

Personally I go for 1) as a guiding light. Veganism I would class as a 2) and if you put a 'should' in there somewhere it becomes a 3).

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?

They might matter to other people who have strong bias one way or the other. But our choices do have effects ... I am not denying that. For example if tomorrow I flipped a switch and everyone went vegan ... what would the consequences be, especially to all the existing farm animals?

Evolution of farm animals is somewhat directed at the moment, but what would happen to these animals? Would we castrate them all and let them live out their lives. Thereby causing the extinction farm animals and change of the current landscape of farmland. By flipping that switch I would responsible for some kind of "bad".

If you don't want eat meat, fair enough, but I would argue against using the word should. Should is the first step towards dogma.

ps

As an after thought ... I need to be careful here ... my not using should could become my dogma, if you see what I mean.

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

If it matters to you, then fair enough. I'm sure to someone somewhere your food choice will matter also. But the universe itself will continue to unfold whether or not you have lamb with your mint sauce.

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

I would extend choice to evert activity full stop. We make choices in the same sense a river chooses its path as it meanders across a plain. That we see things as good or bad is interesting, but I think we will find good and bad matches our desires and fears ... so to speak.

This is really closely related to the free will thread and I do not wish to derail this thread.

Just make sure it is not written by the Discovery Institute though ...

Paul

The short answer - if you want to.

From Campbell/Nietzsche:

But when the camel is well loaded, it struggles to its feet and runs out into the desert, where it is transformed into a lion — the heavier the load that had been carried, the stronger the lion will be. Now, the task of the lion is to kill a dragon, and the name of the dragon is “Thou shalt.” On every scale of this scaly beast, a “thou shalt” is imprinted: some from four thousand years ago; others from this morning’s headlines. Whereas the camel, the child, had to submit to the “thou shalts,” the lion, the youth, is to throw them off and come to his own realization.

Welcome Slash

As a part time resident agnostic let me say hi.

Atheist is one of those funny words ... technically I suppose I am one, but the concept of god is not that important to me, so it would be odd for me to define myself in terms of something that is of little interest. Now how we handle knowledge is far more interesting and more relevant to our everyday lives. (At least to me).

Can I recommend Karen Armstrong's The Case for God to your friend. It won't convince any non-believer but it has some interesting views about religion. (Armstrong describes herself as a Christian).

Anyway ... welcome again.

rom

I think anyone who fights for a belief non-belief are starting from the same point, fear. The quest to know is the learning to doubt. Faith, Belief and Non-Belief contain doubt because one does not know so has faith in it or a belief in it. The religion or ideaology that does not have doubt is dead because the followers are not growing or learning without entertaining doubt. I feel it takes courage to look again and again at one's beliefs and nonbeliefs.

Well as an avowed agnostic I would advocate for at least strong caution to belief,, are you suggesting I am fearful?

The faith that I have seen from fundametalists does no openly contain any doubt and uncertainty. That to me is a more fearful response. To openly admit and see areas of doubt and uncertainty, is that not a strength?

As a scientist I do not fear uncertainty, I maesure it.

I think we might be using nonbelief slightly differently.

Now on a pragmatic level, everyday I make choices, I wonder if I fill after the fact the reasons for the choices and they pass as beliefs.

The New Atheist and the fundamental Christian are the same.

I would disagree with this statement.

They have a common cause (as in effect) but then we all do.

They might have common traits (strident perhaps)

They might both debate (for and against) a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example I can't think of one prominent New Atheist who suggests a metaphorical interpretation is not more reasonable than a literal one.

Atheism itself is not wholly characterized by belief, but more so by a lack of belief.

Hope this helps Soma

This reminds me of one of Joseph Campbell's anecdotes ... where religious people of various stripes got together at some conference. The monks from the various faiths got quite well and had an understanding of one another. Whereas the theologians were stuck in their own doctrines/dogmas.

Not suggesting we should become monks or anything.

Rom,

 

I don't think everything is able to be scientifically verified beyond doubt. For instance, I could probably make a fairly good scientific argument that child abuse impacts negatively on the victim's adult life, but there are perhaps also victims that are not harmed.

 

Similarly, there are many instances of religiously indoctrinated children carrying harmful religious baggage throughout their life, and others who don't carry such baggae, even though both have turned their back on the religion they were indoctrinated into.

 

Paul

Paul

Your first sentence carries a major misunderstanding (sadly even amongst scientists sometimes). Science does not provide answers that are beyond doubt and uncertainty. Science generally provides us better models of our existence than say chicken entrails or astrology. It provides a model based on cause and effect, and past observation. It does not always provide an accurate prediction

George EP Box, All models are wrong, but some are useful. This is a useful mantra for scientists and mere mortals.

My point was, that in science the hargey bargey of scientific discourse (usually polite) moves closer to the truth. We will never get there and sometimes we even take a wrong turning. Science should be viewed over centuries not today's headlines or even decades.

So perhaps we can argue religion is moving in the "right" direction with some bumps like literalism. Have you read The Evolution of God by Robert Wright? An interesting read.

How can i even be sure by the mere sentence you have used to understand the implications it contains without further dialog and then still will i not be found lacking?

 

Joseph

I agree, we can't be sure. Sure we can be wrong. Take the title of this thread ... it can be read in two ways... New Atheists that exhibit hate or it could be about the hate that is exhibited towards New Atheists. I guessed it was the former and the post clarified it for me.

I have no problem with labels so long as there is a clarification that goes along with them. But quite often it is the underlying emotion that is embedded with label that we should watch for. On some fora (some people's minds) a New Atheist is a derogatory term that reflects the mind set. And of course the converse is also true.

Going off topic here ...

Being Jesus inspired ...

While I might not be directly I may be indirectly ...

I personally prefer Christ inspired ... although I understand Christ is mythical character and probably a composite of real people and various traditions. Incidently ... you may enjoy this a compilation of what Weyler thinks can be actually ascribed to Jesus.

I accept that Hitchens disagreed with the lady. Not overly preoccupied on the how, but more on his reasons for him doing so.