romansh

Dutch this is not my argument but Schopehauer"s. So you can will what you will? I think not. Here is Strawson's take on this: http://www.naturalis...n_interview.htm My empathy goes out to you Dutch. free will is not about making choices - we all clearly do that. Then again so does my computer. It is about can we freely will what we want to to want - so to speak. There are many ways to have a worldview. Pluralism in all its forms. Various forms of monism, physicalism come to mind. I tend to lean to a flavour of monsim. And regarding our expereinces - here is an interesting take http://www.susanblac...n/question1.htm

I'm on the road at the moment Will give my reply in a few days Have fun rom

For me a belief in cause and effect points me to a lack of belief that there is a separate self. Here is a personal essay I wrote a few years ago: http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/freewill.htm Hope you enjoy rom

George The incest taboo is definitely a mixture of social and evolutionary imprinting. Kitbutzes struggle to survive because even unrelated children growing up together have difficulty marrying. Steven Pinker (How The Mind Works) Happened to be reading this article last night. I thought it relevant to yhe current topic. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428655.700-why-gay-marriage-divides-the-world.html

No I would like to step away from the concept of morality all together.

I agree wholeheartedly here, I find myself back filling all the time. It's what I have been saying so far. We both are coming to opposite conclusions as we speak and we are back filling our intuition with reason. But does Haidt suggest reason can't overcome intuition? If so what is his evidence?

You have been discussing this with quality philosophers then. Well I can't speak for anyone else's mind but my mind is firmly entrenched in the physical. I am pretty sure before I had a body I did not have a mind - or at least what I perceive as a mind now. I suppose my outlook on this and similar issues is quite monistic. ( As opposed to pluralistic or dualistic). And yes I do have a scientific background. Wherever I look I see cause and effect (at least in the macro world). If you have an uncaused phenomenon you would like to discuss I'm happy to oblige.

Just curious, was Sandel critical of the economic conditions that coerce me to go to work every week? When we remove the moral judgement regarding prostitution then we can't help but see commercial sexuality in a more profane light.

I'm not saying I'm not influenced by social and evolutionary conditioning - quite the opposite. I'm just saying, society should try and step away from its gut feels. I'll read Haidt if you read David Eagleman's Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain - it's a deal OK? But I have to admit Haidt did not endear himself to me taking sponsorship money from the Templeton Foundation. It's always a hard call for a scientist to do that. rom

Here is a slightly camp but fun view of what is doing the knowing. I have to admit it is a favourite of mine.

I agree we have a sense of morality. And it is an interesting debate whether whether it is nature or nurture. For me it is clear it is both. Some of our more societally structured rights and wrongs might be considered as ethical. All this is quite interesting. We have cited evolutionary evidence that we have sense of morality and clearly some of our shifting morality is based on societal values. For example wearing a bikini on the beach - in different times and cultures. Here is another example - plainly a societal morality. I would suggest a more of an amoral approach to dealing with these types of issues. Prostitution, bikini wearing, child molestation etc. I would advocate a more pragmatic approach rather than emotional moral response. At end of the day, my sense of morality is purely intuitive. I would hate rely on societal or evolutionary imprinting for my decisions.

Not only are we in different places we can only walk the path we are currently on. This brings out the agnostic in me. If it is beyond our concept of dualistic thought, how can we say god is, is not or perhaps something else with respect to being subject to anything, nevermind cause and effect? Dutch - you had set of attributes ascribed to god in your last post. Just reading Joseph's last post pointing to a transcendent aspect to god. What's your position on this how do we know god is or is not subject to cause and effect? Even a fundamentalist will suggest my heathen beliefs will cause god to have me placed in some fiery furnace for eternity. ( I do understand it is not anyone's position here, but it does illustrate some interpretations of god respond to cause and effect). rom

My favourite atonement theory is: The word comes from at one ment This fits in with John 10:30, the ultimate heresy for some I and the Father are one. To be at one with god

I agree whole heartedly with both of these statements. It seems to me that things must be this way. Dutch let me explore a little further your statement here. In your model Nothing is outside nature, would god fall into this category? In that, is god subject to cause and effect just like the rest of creation?

Welcome Houston Welcome from BC Canada The very small amount of Stephen Batchelor I have read - i have liked. Have fun rom

Interesting - we'll see what the other pundits think of this. 'Unnatural' is something that promotes 'unnatural' behaviour.

Dutch Is that what unnatural means for you - immoral? I will try avoid defining the words for you, feel free to use your own interpretation And for you George, mental illness you define as unnatural. Is this any illness (for example a tumour affecting one's behaviour) or just specifically psychological mental illnesses?

I like the quote Paul. Metaphorically it may be very apt and it points to Picasso's Art is lies quote. It also could be an agnostic fundamentalist position as well. The quote also points to the differences in what we mean when we use the words: have faith, believe, know, think, suspect and probably a few others. Anyway back on topic more or less. End of the day it does not matter (to me) which group did what and when with regards to the Bible. What I need to do is divine what is a useful model for me of reality. Some people will take take the Bible hook line and sinker, others will throw it in the garbage. And then there are the rest of us.

Is man part of nature; is so is there anything he can do that is unnatural? comment: I have started this thread in the past on other fora and it can be quite divisive, So be forwarned. For the record my position is yes and no.

It's not just progressive Christianity. It ought to be all of us, gaining a deeper understanding and awareness of our thoughts and the underlying causes. These causes are there and we are for the most part oblivious to them. In my opion of course

There is a huge genetic component I suspect, I can suggest Robert Wright's The Moral Animal (and The Evolution of God). Having said that there is societal aspect that can overwrite to some degree our primitive programming. This is why I don't think morality whether for fiscal, sexual, etc responsibility should be our touchstone for behaviour. At the end of the day, morality is both genetic (evolutionary) and societal imprinting. This is where our disgust etc comes from. So our intuitive morality has been a useful guide in the develoment of the human race, I would argue there are better tools today. In the Bible there are numerous appeals to casting aside this emotive type of judgement. Admittedly this is difficult. I agree, but the pace of the evolution of human progress and society have far out paced the tools that billions of years of evolution have endowed us with.

How does one celebrate this civil non-marriage union? Sounds pretty non spiritual to me. I think executives have more fun signing a legal contract.

No I'm not arguing that morality is relative. I'm suggesting there may be better tools for dealing with thorny issues than morality. End of the day morality is just a gut feel to what is right and wrong. At least from my perspective.

This is sort of my point - why through the lens of morality? If I were to be in this line of thought, I would aspire my daughter to be a successful prostitute rather than an unsuccessful hooker. That I would not aspire my child to be a garbage collector (dustman) is also neither here no there. We are conditioned from early childhood to what is proper and what is not.