[QUOTE=Liberal]
The mind is just an extension of the brain, and as I explained in quite some detail, I’m not really that interested in whether there is physical free will. I suppose it would be the same as if God moved my toes, or caused me to trip on a rock. It really doesn’t matter whether a person is a theist or an atheist in terms of free moral will. So when my epiphany happened, all that changed was a part of an animal. I had always valued goodness, just as I’m sure you do. The only difference is that now it all makes sense to me. And for you, I’m sure you have your own life experience that makes sense of the world for you. We don’t have to be enemies.
[/QUOTE]
But I don’t think someone is my enemy just because I think she/he is wrong. In fact, I really don’t think I consider anyone to be an “enemy”.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I know it’s hard to keep in the forefront when you’re not used to thinking in this way, but God’s interest is your aesthetical choices, not your mechanical choices. Therefore, He gave you a universe that is neutral so that you can make it do your bidding. And this is where actions come in. The spirit makes a moral decision and commands the brain. The brain then commands the body, and the decision is carried out by an action (or inaction, as in leaving someone to die of thirst in a desert, for example). So God isn’t leaving poisons out for you to drink. He is leaving building blocks that you then form into either poisons or delicacies, and hand them out or consume them as you see fit.
[/QUOTE]
But part of the indifference of the world lies not just in that we can use aspects of the world to harm each other, but that the world often harms us unbidden. When bombardment by natural radiation causes a genetic mutation that gives someone agonizing cancer, or when a parasite such as Onchocerciasis causes someone agonizing pain, itching, and blindness; or when the Black Death causes 1/3 of the population of (pre-antibiotic) Europe to die in terrible pain, then I question God’s benevolence. In this thread, you focus on choice; but my post above focused on those evils that are unchosen, and are not freely inflicted by any human. My question to you was, if (as you concede) suffering and pain are tragic, why would God make the world indifferent to human suffering in a way that often results in tragedy? Of course, this is merely the familiar problem of natural evil.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
No one could ask for anything more than that. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
You’re welcome.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I draw the line between the spirit and the animal. When I use the term free will, I mean specifically free moral will — the freedom of the spirit to make moral choices. The body merely carries out (or fails to carry out) what the spirit demands.
[/QUOTE]
Okay - but is an inclination towards skepticism ‘spirit’ or ‘animal’? How about the memory of enjoying a summer day? How about the emotion of enjoying that summer day? The ability to analize a mathematical equation?
Inventing a division between spirit and animal is only interesting if you can determine which abilities, impulses, preferences, and tendencies come from which part, at least from a discussion-of-free-will perspective. We nowadays know that some will-creating influences are physical, which ruins the clean dichotomy from a free will perspective anyway.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
And before you ask, I will say that the mechanism for this is unknown to me. But I suspect that it has something to do with the brain’s limbic system. As Ramachandran has pointed out, we cannot really know whether the brain is manufacturing God or God is calling out to the brain whenever we detect religious experiences coming from the temporal lobes. And science cannot tell us because science cannot investigate God. It has been shown that the limbic system can be sort of short-circuited by things like epilepsy, drugs, or even manual stimulation. But this proves nothing theologically.
Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way “inferior” to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence – the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion – to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.VS Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain, “God and the Limbic System”, pp 184-185
[/QUOTE]
First, I’ll note that I consider the statement “And science cannot tell us because science cannot investigate God” to be false by definition, which seems to unravel most of the rest of this witnessing here. Yes, there are indeed many aspects of the human brain’s functionality that are not understood. This does not imply that magic is causing the not-yet-understood behavior, any more than ignorance about lightning’s causes implied that lightning bolts were smelted on Vulcan’s forge.
(And an argument for God regarding the limbic system is just a God in the Gaps argument; God is not made more probable by reducing the set of areas that he can be speculated to influence.)
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I realize that he isn’t very popular here, but CS Lewis once said that God so values goodness that were there a creature more good than He, He would worship it. 
[/QUOTE]
Since I am not a dualist, not in the slightest, I’ll end that discussion, since I understand where you are coming from now, and arguing about it isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. I do have one question. My limited understanding of Christianity is that salvation is only available through Jesus. I understand that your version of Christianity has Jesus as the ultimate good, but does it include the transformative factor? It would seem to me that in your view the spirit can grow into good, since the spirit can always change, having free will. A spirit that either started as good or became good would achieve salvation without the intervention of Jesus, though it might be represented as closeness to God.
If a spirit cannot achieve the good without intervention, doesn’t that represent a limit to the free will of the spirit?
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
As for your earlier points about free will and our genetic and subconscious stuff, it seems to me it’s definitely a mixture of the two. It’s seems absurd to suggest that we’re not at least driven towards certain inclinations, perhaps inexorably, based on those elements. On the other hand, it would seem equally facile to suggest that we have NO free will whatsoever WITHIN those constraints.
[/quote]
This is more or less what I think also. Even if our conscious mind is a puppet of our subconscious, our subconscious still has free will. Mine does all sorts of things by itself, so I accept it as part of my mind. It seems to me that saying we’re totally at the mercy of genetics and environmental conditioning gives a very Newtonian mechanistic view of the mind, and which I think is just as simplistic as the same view of physics. Even if you can explain a decision post hoc based on influences, I think it is still free will if it is impossible to predict it before.
There are some views of the universe where time is an actual dimension, and where all things happen at once, but all matter (except photons) are constrained to travel their world lines. In this universe it looks from the godly view that nothing has free will, but all matter thinks it has, being unable to look ahead.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
This is more or less what I think also. Even if our conscious mind is a puppet of our subconscious, our subconscious still has free will. Mine does all sorts of things by itself, so I accept it as part of my mind. It seems to me that saying we’re totally at the mercy of genetics and environmental conditioning gives a very Newtonian mechanistic view of the mind, and which I think is just as simplistic as the same view of physics. Even if you can explain a decision post hoc based on influences, I think it is still free will if it is impossible to predict it before.
There are some views of the universe where time is an actual dimension, and where all things happen at once, but all matter (except photons) are constrained to travel their world lines. In this universe it looks from the godly view that nothing has free will, but all matter thinks it has, being unable to look ahead.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I remember that, its a pretty exciting notion to me.
On the earlier point, are you saying that the conscious mind may be 100% a puppet of the sub? I’ve tended to see it as influenced very heavily but not totally…otherwise wouldn’t that mean every single decision is essentially subconscious?
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
But part of the indifference of the world lies not just in that we can use aspects of the world to harm each other, but that the world often harms us unbidden. When bombardment by natural radiation causes a genetic mutation that gives someone agonizing cancer, or when a parasite such as Onchocerciasis causes someone agonizing pain, itching, and blindness; or when the Black Death causes 1/3 of the population of (pre-antibiotic) Europe to die in terrible pain, then I question God’s benevolence. In this thread, you focus on choice; but my post above focused on those evils that are unchosen, and are not freely inflicted by any human. My question to you was, if (as you concede) suffering and pain are tragic, why would God make the world indifferent to human suffering in a way that often results in tragedy? Of course, this is merely the familiar problem of natural evil.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe there is a natural evil. I believe the universe is amoral (neither good nor evil). I believe that on a physical level, people are no different than asteroids or jellyfish — stardust, basically. I think our emotions serve as a mechanism for dealing with tragedy. And grief can seem to make it all the worse, like a stinging antisceptic poured onto a wound, until we can recover and be whole again. Sometimes we never do. There are theories about the yin and yang of pain and pleasure, that you could not know the latter without the former. I don’t know about these one way or the other, but I do know that the essential person you are cannot be harmed, except by you. I don’t know how old or infirm you are, or whether you’re a couch potato or a daredevil. But even if you’re young, fit, safe, and confident, your body is dying. And, as an evolutionist, you know full well that your physical appearance in all this isn’t even a blip on the radar. Here. Then gone. The only good or evil that you encounter while you are here comes from within the hearts of other men — free moral agents — making moral choices just like you.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Okay - but is an inclination towards skepticism ‘spirit’ or ‘animal’? How about the memory of enjoying a summer day? How about the emotion of enjoying that summer day? The ability to analize a mathematical equation?
[/quote]
Animal. All of them. They’re all brain things. The spirit is concerned with moral aesthetics, good and evil, and commands brains to do its moral will. If rocks had brains, spirit could make them into good or evil rocks.
Then we are at an impasse, I’m afraid. I do not know how effectively to communicate with someone who is of the opinion that science can examine the supernatural. It may as well be the case, as far as I’m concerned, that you think rationals can express all roots.
I wonder if you’d be more likely to get a coherent answer to this good question if you rephrased it by asking why god would make the natural world amoral.
I don’t see what harm would be done if nature didn’t cause suffering of any kind even if it is the kind of suffering that doesn’t harm your core spirit, particularly in those cases where that suffering leads to immediate painful death from which the victim learns nothing.
It seems to me that the fact that I’m dying and entropy rules isn’t the same as felt suffering.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
But part of the indifference of the world lies not just in that we can use aspects of the world to harm each other, but that the world often harms us unbidden. When bombardment by natural radiation causes a genetic mutation that gives someone agonizing cancer, or when a parasite such as Onchocerciasis causes someone agonizing pain, itching, and blindness; or when the Black Death causes 1/3 of the population of (pre-antibiotic) Europe to die in terrible pain, then I question God’s benevolence. In this thread, you focus on choice; but my post above focused on those evils that are unchosen, and are not freely inflicted by any human. My question to you was, if (as you concede) suffering and pain are tragic, why would God make the world indifferent to human suffering in a way that often results in tragedy? Of course, this is merely the familiar problem of natural evil.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Then we are at an impasse, I’m afraid. I do not know how effectively to communicate with someone who is of the opinion that science can examine the supernatural. It may as well be the case, as far as I’m concerned, that you think rationals can express all roots.
[/QUOTE]
It is not that science can examine the supernatural-it is that there is no supernatural for science to examine. There is natural that we have discovered, natural that we have yet to discover, and natural that we may never discover due to time restraints or lack of interest. There is no need or evidence for any other category, and until there is a reason to think otherwise.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
It is not that science can examine the supernatural-it is that there is no supernatural for science to examine. There is natural that we have discovered, natural that we have yet to discover, and natural that we may never discover due to time restraints or lack of interest. There is no need or evidence for any other category, and until there is a reason to think otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you have a religion after all. Lacking need or evidence to think otherwise, you are convinced of your position, as though a lack of need or evidence is itself evidence of something. Strangely, you already know the essence of things you have not yet even discovered. And most amazing of all, you can already categorize things that no one will ever discover. Truly, you have made science to work in mysterious ways.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yes, you’ve understood me correctly. Thanks.
[/QUOTE]
If the real person is the soul,and just spirit, why is the body responsible for the soul being lost? Shouldn’t the soul be responsible for the body? If the soul is not life, then where does life go after death. I see no difference between human death and the death of animals. It is only a definition by religion. is it not?
Monavis
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Sounds like you have a religion after all. Lacking need or evidence to think otherwise, you are convinced of your position, as though a lack of need or evidence is itself evidence of something. Strangely, you already know the essence of things you have not yet even discovered. And most amazing of all, you can already categorize things that no one will ever discover. Truly, you have made science to work in mysterious ways.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, you’ve got it in a nutshell. My lack of belief in the supernatural due to the fact that nothing supernatural has been shown to exist is a religion. And my lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus due to the fact that nothing about him has been shown to exist is also a religion. Might I add that I also belong to the Church Of Oz Is An Imaginary Place.
sigh
[QUOTE=monavis]
If the real person is the soul,and just spirit, why is the body responsible for the soul being lost? Shouldn’t the soul be responsible for the body? If the soul is not life, then where does life go after death. I see no difference between human death and the death of animals. It is only a definition by religion. is it not?
[/QUOTE]
I can’t answer your question, sorry. I don’t really understand it, and if it is what I think it is, I haven’t given it any thought.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Sounds like you have a religion after all. Lacking need or evidence to think otherwise, you are convinced of your position, as though a lack of need or evidence is itself evidence of something. Strangely, you already know the essence of things you have not yet even discovered. And most amazing of all, you can already categorize things that no one will ever discover. Truly, you have made science to work in mysterious ways.
[/QUOTE]
No, he’s simply pointing out the obvious. Or what should be obvious. “Supernatural” isn’t a category that makes sense, except as one that means “things that are impossible”. If something exists, if it’s real, then it’s natural. Or either natural or artificial, depending on which definition of “natural” you are using. Rocks, gods or black magic; if they exist, they are part of nature.
It has nothing to do with “essences”, but with what the word means. The main reason to call something “supernatural” or a similar term, as you wish to, is to silence debate and forbid rational discussion. To claim that it doesn’t need to make sense or require evidence because it’s in a special category, the “supernatural” category.
And as always, the burden of evidence is on the side that claims something exists; in this case, “supernatural” things. Disbelieving in something because there’s no evidence for it is not a religious belief, no matter how often the religious try to claim it is.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Yup, you’ve got it in a nutshell. My lack of belief in the supernatural due to the fact that nothing supernatural has been shown to exist is a religion. And my lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus due to the fact that nothing about him has been shown to exist is also a religion. Might I add that I also belong to the Church Of Oz Is An Imaginary Place.
sigh
[/QUOTE]
That’d be right if that were what I said. Apparently, there is simply no way I can communicate with you because I cannot recall there ever being an exchange between us on this issue that consisted of a mutual understanding and respect. Can you? And so, restating what I already have would be a waste of time. In fact, I will not be surprised if your response to this post has not interpreted it in some strange way that takes me completely by surprise. **Voyager ** understands what I’m saying. **Sophistry and Illusion ** understands what I’m saying. **SentientMeat ** has always understood what I’m saying. But **Der Trihs ** does not. **9thFloor ** does not. And you do not. Or at least pretend not to. You’re a smart man, Czar. I’m disappointed in you.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
**Sophistry and Illusion ** understands what I’m saying. **SentientMeat ** has always understood what I’m saying. But **Der Trihs ** does not. **9thFloor ** does not. And you do not. Or at least pretend not to. You’re a smart man, Czar. I’m disappointed in you.
[/QUOTE]
You confuse “not understand” with “disbelieve”.
“Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that’s simply what the word ‘supernatural’ means.” — Arthur Strahler, geologist, Science and Earth History, a “massive critique of scientific creationism”.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
“Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that’s simply what the word ‘supernatural’ means.” — Arthur Strahler, geologist, Science and Earth History, a “massive critique of scientific creationism”.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine.
Another basic misunderstanding-it’s “a-theism”, not “athe-ism”. I do not have a belief in the nonexistence of gods. I do not believe that gods exists. Can you understand the difference?