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

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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.

Hi Rob Speaking as a devout agnostic, I don't quite see it the same way as you. I like Joseph Cambell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden Story - Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining a knowledge of good and evil. So to get back into the Garden of Eden (metaphorically speaking) we have to give up thinking in dualities: ie no more Jesus/Judas, God/Satan. Ditto for man and God. This is what was meant when Christ said "I and my Father are one". We too should endeavour to be Christlike. Be one with God and not merely have the holy spirit in us.