Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[Davian]

just sayin'



Last time I checked, we were in the subsection of discussion and debate and further into the subsection of philosophy. Free will, as a concept up for discussion and debate, in reference to philosophy, and in reference to anybody supporting a biblical version (or any!) must support their arguments well enough in a debate-like manner if they choose to respond to devian (or anyone!) who is very clearly debating. We all have the option of responding or not responding and in any manner we so choose that is not in-flame of another. Thus, free will. Devian is doing a good job of proof of it by action of the concept

"Davian".

Thanks.

 

[Davian]

What do you mean by imagination? Chesterton posted a good quote about how people that believe in God believe in Him due to a culmination of small evidences (Chesterton's quote explained it better).

What people use to justify their beliefs and what actually changes their beliefs is the question at hand in this thread.

My point was that belief in God is not the same as the supposed belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and one big reason that it's not is because of the large number of people that actually believe in God. No one really believes in the FSM. I suppose there are those that believe in Leprechauns but not to the extent of those that believe in God. I think that in itself shows that belief in God is not as ridiculous as a belief in Leprechauns.

So we are talking about the degree of of ridiculousness of beliefs?

I won't deny that you nor I have any hard evidence,

The burden of evidence is not on me.

but I think it's unfair to compare a belief in God to a belief in Leprechauns.

I don't.

 

[cuja1]

Is it not the premise of your religion that an individual is ultimately held responsible for decision to believe/disbelieve? When belief is not a choice, how is this just?

Well, that's what some people in Christianity believe, and I tend to lean that way as well. But if you've talked to many people who claim to be Christians, you know that their beliefs vary greatly from Christian to Christian. There are those that believe in evolution and those that don't. There's those that support gay marriage and those that don't. There are those that believe in hell and their are those that don't. Look at all the different branches of Christianity that exist.

So I, by far, do not have all the answers. I believe in God 100%. Most Christian will tell you that sin is overcome by the help of the Holy Spirit. Some sins can only be overcome by God's power. If that is so, why are we held responsible? The question seems pretty obvious when you consider this. The Bible says that faith is a gift. To me the Bible seems to be screaming that we have free will and that we don't have free will at the same time.

I don't know the answer. That is why I am on these forums. Experience has led me to believe that we don't have free will. Yet most Christians say we do. Maybe the truth is too hard for humans to fully understand.

One thing that occurred to me is that we are not really being punished for our sins. What is really going on, is that our sins naturally cause us pain and suffering and Jesus came to save us from that. Maybe, God isn't capable of saving everyone due to determinism. He saves as many as He can, but can only save so many. It's my own personal theory, but it too has holes in it.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Religion (and religionists) are a part of reality, something that I have little exposure to in the real world. Rather than trying this out with the in-laws, I practice on you guys (and gals).

Trying "what" out, exactly? What are you practicing?

We do get religionists on the more more skeptical discussion boards, but they tend to get swamped by the non-believers, and banned when they are reduced to preaching.

So you don't come here to learn, per se, but to correct and/or teach? Or do you appreciate the fact that "preaching" doesn't necessarily get one banned from here?

 

[cuja1]

Appeal to popularity.

Meaningless and unfalsifiable. What would it look like if it were only the product of natural processes?

Leprechauns are shoemakers. They provide the footwear for all the fairy kingdom.

https://www.enchantedgarden.ie/everything-enchanted/30-fun-leprechaun-facts

Appeal to popularity.

If it is not "revelation" (I am not even sure what you mean by that), and you cannot show it to be, then we are simply dealing with characters in books.

There are more than a few things in the Bible that can be shown to be true. One of the main things the Bible talks about, sin and it's destructiveness is obvious. The Bible's message is about saving us from ourselves. Imagine someone you care about teetering on the brink of self destruction. If belief in the message of the gospel were able to save them, would you not want that for the person you care about?

 

[Davian]

Trying "what" out, exactly? What are you practicing?

Discussing religion.

So you don't come here to learn, per se, but to correct and/or teach?

I have learned plenty since coming here. Am I here to champion science? No. Voice my opinion? Only if asked.

Or do you appreciate the fact that "preaching" doesn't necessarily get one banned from here?

Indeed. It does look ridiculous in the philosophy and sciences forums here, but it does teach patience.

 

[cuja1]

What people use to justify their beliefs and what actually changes their beliefs is the question at hand in this thread.

So we are talking about the degree of of ridiculousness of beliefs?

The burden of evidence is not on me.

I don't.

Sorry, I wasn't expecting evidence from you, I was just saying that I can't give you hard evidence.

I think belief in God is more reasonable than believing in leprechauns and I think if you gave it more thought you could see why, unless you don't fully understand what we believe.

The Bible says that sin is destructive and we are powerless to overcome it. This can be shown by many to be true (alcoholism, sexual addiction, suicide, etc...) The Bible has many good teachings (which you say other religions do too) This is one way that belief in God is "less ridiculous" than belief in leprechauns.

 

[Chesterton]

Strange then how you talk as if there are other options.

When did I do that?

I do not consider my beleifs as 'true' or 'false'. As models or descriptions of reality, they will always be in some way incomplete, and subject to change.

Whether beliefs are true or false is important to most people.

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've seen that many times before, linked by you and others. A lot of sketchy science based on bad, incomplete experiments. Even Dennett criticizes the experiments mentioned. My basic objection is that determining will by watching brain activity is like determining a dog's will to poop by watching it poop. Relying on microseconds of time doesn't tell us anything.

Is that where you keep your evidence for gods?

Yes, but don't ask for links, they're secret.

Special pleading? Just when I thought we were making some headway.

No, if the subject of the pleading is special it's not a fallacy to plead that it's special.

I was completely apathetic about religion for my first 38 years, but then dug into science and religion so that I could give coherent answers about life, the universe, and everything to my now teenage children. I helps me also to speak somewhat coherently to my honour-roll-with-distinction kids on the subjects of chemistry and physics (intelligence must be inherited from the mothers side).

I also anticipated a lot of religious pressure from the wife's side of the family, and these exchanges were to be practice for real life, but that never appeared. I stay because I still find this place fascinating, educational, and entertaining, and to pull highlights out for the kids. (We don't get the exposure to religion in real life or the school system as it seems to happen in the USA)

Well I wish you and your family the best. You seem like a nice guy despite the occasional snarkiness.

 

[Davian]

Well, that's what some people in Christianity believe, and I tend to lean that way as well. But if you've talked to many people who claim to be Christians, you know that their beliefs vary greatly from Christian to Christian. There are those that believe in evolution and those that don't. There's those that support gay marriage and those that don't. There are those that believe in hell and their are those that don't. Look at all the different branches of Christianity that exist.

So I, by far, do not have all the answers. I believe in God 100%.
...

Sorry, I wasn't expecting evidence from you, I was just saying that I can't give you hard evidence.

Why would you have 100% certainty in the absence of hard evidence? How do you make that decision?

I think belief in God is more reasonable than believing in leprechauns and I think if you gave it more thought you could see why, unless you don't fully understand what we believe.

or you don't fully understand why you believe.

The Bible says that sin is destructive and we are powerless to overcome it. This can be shown by many to be true (alcoholism, sexual addiction, suicide, etc...) The Bible has many good teachings (which you say other religions do too) This is one way that belief in God is "less ridiculous" than belief in leprechauns.

Still, that is not, in itself, evidence that your religion, in its entirety, comports with reality.

 

[Davian]

There are more than a few things in the Bible that can be shown to be true. One of the main things the Bible talks about, sin and it's destructiveness is obvious. The Bible's message is about saving us from ourselves. Imagine someone you care about teetering on the brink of self destruction. If belief in the message of the gospel were able to save them, would you not want that for the person you care about?

I do not see this as a philosophical question. Perhaps it could be scientific, on the subject of the placebo effect.

 

[cuja1]

Why would you have 100% certainty in the absence of hard evidence? How do you make that decision?

or you don't fully understand why you believe.

Still, that is not, in itself, evidence that your religion, in its entirety, comports with reality.

Either way, I don't think it's fair to equate belief in God with belief in Leprechauns. I think it's insulting. I think belief in reincarnation is more rational than a belief in leprechauns.

 

[Davian]

When did I do that?

Post #215: "If your will was determined by physics..."

An "if" implies an "else".

Whether beliefs are true or false is important to most people.

From what I gather, what is important is the justification of beliefs, over and above critically examining them to see if they comport with reality.

I've seen that many times before, linked by you and others. A lot of sketchy science based on bad, incomplete experiments. Even Dennett criticizes the experiments mentioned. My basic objection is that determining will by watching brain activity is like determining a dog's will to poop by watching it poop. Relying on microseconds of time doesn't tell us anything.

That there are criticisms does not falsify their theories any more than disagreements between evolutionary biologists falsifies evolutionary theory.

Yes, but don't ask for links, they're secret.

So secret, even you don't know where they are.

No, if the subject of the pleading is special it's not a fallacy to plead that it's special.

It is if you have failed to first establish this specialness that you assert.

Well I wish you and your family the best. You seem like a nice guy despite the occasional snarkiness.

Are you still upset about this post?

 

[cuja1]

I do not see this as a philosophical question. Perhaps it could be scientific, on the subject of the placebo effect.

I see where you are coming from, but my point more or less was to defend against the idea that belief in God is absurd as belief in leprechauns and to show that a belief in the gospel has helped many throughout history.

 

[cuja1]

Why would you have 100% certainty in the absence of hard evidence? How do you make that decision?

or you don't fully understand why you believe.

Still, that is not, in itself, evidence that your religion, in its entirety, comports with reality.

I do understand why I believe. I no longer have reason to doubt. Those reasons are hard to define, but I could try if you wanted me to.

 

[Davian]

Either way, I don't think it's fair to equate belief in God with belief in Leprechauns. I think it's insulting. I think belief in reincarnation is more rational than a belief in leprechauns.

The Statement of Purpose for this forum includes the "Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs."

It may be there there is no way to politely do this on the subject of personal beliefs. You hold them close, and may perceive any critical examination, analysis, or comparison as insulting or as a personal attack.

 

[Davian]

I see where you are coming from, but my point more or less was to defend against the idea that belief in God is absurd as belief in leprechauns and to show that a belief in the gospel has helped many throughout history.

That one myth has greater benefits as a placebo than another does not speak to its absurdity, under critical examination.

 

[Davian]

I do understand why I believe. I no longer have reason to doubt. Those reasons are hard to define, but I could try if you wanted me to.

That you can somehow justify your religious belief is expected. I have seen it done for a flat earth.

The OP is about how we come to believe, and is that rational, or subconscious. By all appearances, it is the latter.

 

[Chesterton]

Post #215: "If your will was determined by physics..."

An "if" implies an "else".

That was arguendo; playing devil's advocate. That's one of the "either/or" we're discussing.

From what I gather, what is important is the justification of beliefs, over and above critically examining them to see if they comport with reality.

I've noticed the same.

That there are criticisms does not falsify their theories any more than disagreements between evolutionary biologists falsifies evolutionary theory.

I didn't see any actual theory mentioned on that page. I saw mentions of a hodge-podge of half-baked experiments.

It is if you have failed to first establish this specialness that you assert.

There's a difference. I'm pleading that if there is a single Prime Mover, a creator God which created everything, then He is special, therefore any multiple minor gods and space aliens, as creations, would not have the unique status He does. It should go without saying. If you want me to prove the pleading that's a different story, but it is not a logical fallacy as it stands.

Are you still upset about this post?

Oh no, that wasn't snark, that was just pure evasion. But yes I'm still upset about it.

 

[Davian]

That was arguendo; playing devil's advocate. That's one of the "either/or" we're discussing.

I've noticed the same.

I didn't see any actual theory mentioned on that page. I saw mentions of a hodge-podge of half-baked experiments.

Look for the word "model".

There's a difference. I'm pleading that if there is a single Prime Mover, a creator God which created everything, then He is special, therefore any multiple minor gods and space aliens, as creations, would not have the unique status He does. It should go without saying. If you want me to prove the pleading that's a different story, but it is not a logical fallacy as it stands.

It all depends on how you define your "God". Are you positing a deistic 'prime mover' that 'lights the wick', and is never seen again?

Oh no, that wasn't snark, that was just pure evasion. But yes I'm still upset about it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What do you mean by imagination? Chesterton posted a good quote about how people that believe in God believe in Him due to a culmination of small evidences (Chesterton's quote explained it better). My point was that belief in God is not the same as the supposed belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and one big reason that it's not is because of the large number of people that actually believe in God. No one really believes in the FSM.

What if that were to change and a large number of people came to believe in the FSM? Would that make it true?