Free Choice /Psychology & Religion (My Rant)

[Woolygimp]

I don't even know where to begin as this isn't meant to be some detailed analysis but more of a personal rant. I'm honestly wondering if anyone thinks about any of this stuff, and since I lack a degree in Psychology and it's respective fields (just started College) my knowledge is limited.

My problem with religion is free choice, and I'm having a hard time grasping this concept. One of the foundations of religion is that human beings have 'control' over their actions, and have the ability to make their own choices.

I'm viewing a person's actions as sort of a game of mouse trap, based on variance factors which are innumerate and almost impossible to determine, it's like they take the path of least resistance (electricity).

This is a fairly complicated equation, and this is just brainstorming but it would look something like a mixture of:

*Past experiences.
*What you were taught.
*Chemicals in your brain (testosterone, adrenalin, thyroxin, cortisol)
*Body function (i.e. energy levels)

This list is much, much longer but like I said the point of this post isn't to delve far into this aspect.

Let's assume that everyone is capable of free choice, and that people are truly capable of acting morally, or immorally based on their 'soul' or default nature within, which goes back to Freud's argument about whether or not behavior is hard-wired or learned, and I'm a starting to believe that it is learned.

Religious groups are a prime example to prove this, how often does an person raised by a house of Islamists become a Christian? Vice Versa? That's why the Middle East is predominately Islam, while the west is Christian.

Here are other examples:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b1_1175643214&c=1&page=2

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1

These are otherwise normal kids (nothing wrong with their heads), so what sets them apart from anyone else?

The parents. These kids were taught hate, they were taught intolerance, and they were taught behavior which the rest of us would view as morally incomprehensible.

The same way Taliban are taught in Afghanistan that blowing themselves [and innocents] up in the name of Allah Akbar to kill infidels is the path to righteousness. If you were to ask Americans if they agree with this behavior, the majority would tell you it's sickening and it's 'evil'.

There's obviously other factors here such as friends, experiences, occupations but altogether they encompass the part of the equation under 'past experiences/what they've learned'.

Then there's the body. If someone is given a shot of epinephrine they receive a boost of energy and act in a fashion contradictive of their normal selves. They will jump off the walls, decisions and actions will change. A persons personality will have effectively been 'altered' for the duration of the effect. The same holds true for the hundreds of chemicals we humans have within our bodies, too little of something and you become too tired to perform a function, too much and decision sets are altered as well.

So basically what if all of our decisions are just basically one long complicated equation which is the result of ALL of these factors compiled, if so then what is 'free choice'?

How does free choice exist? For free choice to truly exist, a person would have to be completely and utterly unbiased and open-minded to accept, to understand all sides...all viewpoints before making a decision.

Otherwise how is 'free choice' free if your decisions are constantly inferred from factors which ARE inherently biased, coercive, and limiting.

Look how long it took for slavery to become against our morals. Over 25,000 years. That's a thousand generations.
Why did it take that long for the world to turn against something that we find so repulsive today?

Is it because our ancestors were 'evil'? or...
Is it because it was learned behavior, and at the time the definition of 'evil' was something entirely different?

This is what puts me on the line between being a Christian, and not. And one other thing I'd like those of you that are religious to answer is lets say I was born in the Middle East and I was taught that Islam was the one 'true' religion. How could God if he's just, and fair hold that against me?

This isn't mean to be offensive, and I'm genuinely curious as to what your views are on these topics.

[TimWillTell]

When the water comes from the mountain and goes to the sea, it will follow a path many times looking like a snake.
The ignorant looks at the mountain and sees this snake going to the left, then to the right and in the process going down the mountain.
The ignorant thinks that it's a snake deciding to go to the right then to the left, where it's just the water following it's path.

You are on the brink of discovering that free will is but only an illusion.
Don't go that way, I beg of you, it will do you no good and alienate yourself from your family and friends. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Paragon]

I believe free will is only an illusion. Your brain is constructed by your genes and then immediately goes to work, soaking up stimuli, detecting patterns, and learning behavior. Everyone is a slave to their brain and the chemical reactions inside themselves. There's no reason for this to be upsetting, as it allows for life to be quite enjoyable.

A lot of people seem to dislike this idea because then you can no longer hold people accountable for their actions. I believe this is true as well, and again don't have a problem with it. Terms like "responsibility", "justice", "purpose", "good", and "evil" are all human creations and only have meaning to us. While a lot of people crave for something like karma, or some ultimate arbitrator to reward and punish people for their actions, there's no evidence to suspect reality is like this at all.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How does free choice exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

There have been two posts so far asserting free will is an illusion. If God doesn't exist this would be the unavoidable conclusion. Atheism destroys any logical basis for morality and human responsibility.

The Bible doesn't speak in terms of our definition of free will. I believe that in some sense we are free(though in another we are slaves to sin), but the subject gets very complicated and much depends on definitions. But the Bible does make it clear that we are responsible before God.

The claims that free will is an illusion and that God doesn't exist are just newer versions of the excuse Adam made for his sin. He bascially tried to blame God, as did Eve. Atheists are doing the same by blaming the environment or their genes.

I can't prove free will and human responsibility exist, but it's trivial to show the consequences if they don't. But the atheists are right about one thing. If God doesn't exist, neither do free will and responsibility.

[Woolygimp]

I wanted to see both sides, however how do you agree that part of the reason you are Christian today is because of your parents and how you were raised?

Now, what are you beliefs concerning if you were unfortunate enough to be born an Eskimo or to parents of some other religion?

[Ben K]

NR - Your post is so wrong, it's irritated me to read it.

I may respond later when I've chilled a bit.

[Paragon]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't prove free will and human responsibility exist, but it's trivial to show the consequences if they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean consequences other than lack of free will / responsibility? If so, I'll bite... what are they?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I wanted to see both sides, however how do you agree that part of the reason you are Christian today is because of your parents and how you were raised?

Now, what are you beliefs concerning if you were unfortunate enough to be born an Eskimo or to parents of some other religion?


[/ QUOTE ]

Read Romans Chapter 1. God makes Himself known to all, no one has an excuse for rejecting Him. I can't explain the details of how it all works. I could make many guesses but in the end it's just a matter of accepting what God says. And again, consider the alternative. It's only because God exists and humans have responsibility that this discussion can even make sense.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wanted to see both sides, however how do you agree that part of the reason you are Christian today is because of your parents and how you were raised?

Now, what are you beliefs concerning if you were unfortunate enough to be born an Eskimo or to parents of some other religion?


[/ QUOTE ]

Read Romans Chapter 1. God makes Himself known to all, no one has an excuse for rejecting Him. I can't explain the details of how it all works. I could make many guesses but in the end it's just a matter of accepting what God says. And again, consider the alternative. It's only because God exists and humans have responsibility that this discussion can even make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You failed to answer either question.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wanted to see both sides, however how do you agree that part of the reason you are Christian today is because of your parents and how you were raised?

Now, what are you beliefs concerning if you were unfortunate enough to be born an Eskimo or to parents of some other religion?


[/ QUOTE ]

Read Romans Chapter 1. God makes Himself known to all, no one has an excuse for rejecting Him. I can't explain the details of how it all works. I could make many guesses but in the end it's just a matter of accepting what God says. And again, consider the alternative. It's only because God exists and humans have responsibility that this discussion can even make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I did a study I'd find the vast majority of Christians come from Christian parents, Muslims come from Islamic parents, and Jews from Jewish parents.

Is this because people in the Middle East are evil by default, or 'rejecting' God?

God would surely know that what a person learns as a child dictates their thinking as an adult. However, if I asked you if a Muslim is going to heaven or hell, you'd say hell.

So if I were to take a world map and put green dots on it for people who (you think) are going to heaven and red for people who (you think) are going to hell, without a doubt, the representation you would show one with the West being of predominately green dots, while the middle east that of predominately red.

If God is just and fair, why would he allow whether or not a soul's redemption lay at the point in which he was conceived?

That's all I'm asking, and I'm a Christian but this is a question that I'd like to have answered.

[ill rich]

i think you're looking too small.

[m_the0ry]

In the analogy where religion is a viral idea, this is another emergent (malicious) property of religion. The idea can only manifest itself when the hosts defenses are weakened or nonexistent. This is why religion is always imposed upon children: they have no critical thought capabilities. They do not question authority. They are highly prone to suggestion.

Most men have few ideas and will cling to them until death.

[PairTheBoard]

I suggest you read the Harris-Sullivan Debate (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html)

Also the recent SMP Thread on it here
A Better Sam Harris Debate (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9845340&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

If you can't wade through the entire debate at least look at Sullivan's Final Reply to Harris, which I think is a Masterpiece. You don't have to let yourself be dominated by the entrenched Christian theologies to be a Christian.

Sullivan's Final Reply to Harris (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/deus_caritas_es.html)

Especially this from Sullivan's Final Response
---------------------------
(5) There is a God, but all of our religions have distorted Her reality. Jesus was a man more suffused with divinity than any other human being who has ever lived. God loves everyone and has never been concerned about what a person believes, except that a person know God and accept God's love freely and expresses that love toward everyone he or she encounters. Jesus uniquely showed us how to accept God's love and how to be worthy of it. After death, all people, Christians and non-Christians, simply merge with the Deity in a loving embrace. But Jesus was the proof that such love exists, and that it is divine and eternal, and that it cares for us.

(6) None of us knows anything about these things.

I guess I've tipped my hand by endorsing (5) but acknowledging the wisdom of (6).
--------------------------


And also this from Sullivan's Book
-------------------------
"This, it seems to me, is the true mystery of the incarnation, the notion that in Jesus, God became man. I believe this in the only way I can: that one man represents, for all time, God's decision to truly be with us. The reason I call myself a Christian is not because I manage to subscribe, at any given moment, to all the truths that the hierarchy of my church insists I believe in, let alone because I am a good person or a "good Catholic." I call myself a Christian because I believe that, in a way I cannot fully understand, the force behind everything decided to prove itself benign by becoming us, and being with us. And as soon as people grasped what had happened, what was happening, the world changed forever. The Gospels - all of them, including some that were rejected by the early Church - are mere sketches of a life actually lived, and an experience that can never be reduced to words or texts or doctrines...

In this nonfundamentalist understanding of faith, practice is more important then theory, love more important than law, and mystery is seen as an insight into truth rather than an obstacle. It is the great lie of our time that all religious faith has to be fundamentalist to be valid. There is another way. For Christians, that other way is about a man, Jesus, whose individuality and humanity cannot be abstracted. And it is about a commemoration of that man, as he asked us to commemorate him - in a meal, a breaking of bread, a Seder-made-new, the mass, as Catholics have come to understand it. This is my faith, if I were forced to describe it."
-------------------------


It may be that different Religions are like Blind men touching different parts of an Elephant. They end up giving different descriptions according to what they are touching. Or it may be like a Power Station where everybody plugs into a different outlet. Listen to Sullivan's application of the spirtitual principle of humility in how he pervceives the issues. When all is said and done we each must deal with what we have to work with. Our own subjective experience with all its contingencies. We choose to invest ourselves in that interpretation of our inner experience which most rings true for us. That which most resonates with Truth.

PairTheBoard

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why religion is always imposed upon children: they have no critical thought capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

not in the case of christianity.

Jesus converted men his age, and the religion was spread to grown men and women across Europe.

it was the religion of adults.

[TimWillTell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why religion is always imposed upon children: they have no critical thought capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

not in the case of christianity.

Jesus converted men his age, and the religion was spread to grown men and women across Europe.

it was the religion of adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean to say that Jesus converted people to Christianity?
Pretty funny stuf!

[ill rich]

well if christianity is accepting Jesus as the savior, then yes he did

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
well if christianity is accepting Jesus as the savior, then yes he did

[/ QUOTE ]

Sunday school ain't what it used to be...

[TimWillTell]

[ QUOTE ]
well if christianity is accepting Jesus as the savior, then yes he did

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I must have read different versions of the bible then!

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism destroys any logical basis for morality and human responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this follow? I can see an argument made that materialism leads to no absolute morality, but not just from atheism. If we accept (for the sake of argument) that the physical world exists "just because". Why can't moral laws exist in the same way, as brute (non-physical) facts about the world?

[m_the0ry]

Morality is expressed through the majority. That is morality is an inherently arbitrary set of rules held by at least 51% of the population. This is a social definition and it freely manifests itself in democracy. NotReady would love to believe that if religion ceased to exist then 'Thou shalt be allowed to kill' would be added to the constitution, but as long as a majority of people believe it is wrong to kill someone else that defines morality.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If we accept (for the sake of argument) that the physical world exists "just because". Why can't moral laws exist in the same way, as brute (non-physical) facts about the world?


[/ QUOTE ]

If there really are brute facts then there is no absolute system - of morality, logic or anything conceptual. That returns us to relativism and eventually pragmatism. Reason and logic themselves become relative. Not even Plato could define the "Good" as an absolute. It was co-equal with the other ideas. No non-theistic system has done any better. After all, what is a brute fact but an irrational(non-rational), uninterpreted fact? And if God doesn't exist the highest interpretative system is finite man, which again returns us to relativity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That is morality is an inherently arbitrary set of rules held by at least 51% of the population.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if 51% say murder is ok?

[m_the0ry]

Obviously you can't define 'good' as an absolute because it's completely dynamic. 'Good' is different for every unique place in space or time.

[arahant]

I think we are still waiting for your answer to OP's question:
[ QUOTE ]

I wanted to see both sides, however how do you agree that part of the reason you are Christian today is because of your parents and how you were raised?

Now, what are you beliefs concerning if you were unfortunate enough to be born an Eskimo or to parents of some other religion?


[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If we accept (for the sake of argument) that the physical world exists "just because". Why can't moral laws exist in the same way, as brute (non-physical) facts about the world?


[/ QUOTE ]

If there really are brute facts then there is no absolute system - of morality, logic or anything conceptual. That returns us to relativism and eventually pragmatism. Reason and logic themselves become relative. Not even Plato could define the "Good" as an absolute. It was co-equal with the other ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand why absolute has to imply superiority? I think murder is wrong, same as I believe there is really such a rule as modus ponens. I have no idea how they come about or "why" they exist, but I believe they do. I dont see how either of these are not absolute just because they are equals.

EDIT: What I mean by absolute is that anyone is free to deny them, but if they do they are wrong. Knowledge of such is a different question, all I'm talking about here is the existence of such facts and I dont see why atheism itself precludes them.

It is possible that absolute has some technical definition I am missing of course...

[ QUOTE ]
No non-theistic system has done any better. After all, what is a brute fact but an irrational(non-rational), uninterpreted fact? And if God doesn't exist the highest interpretative system is finite man, which again returns us to relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I meant is that if matter attracts matter through the law of gravity "just because". Why cant murder be wrong "just because" as well?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is expressed through the majority. That is morality is an inherently arbitrary set of rules held by at least 51% of the population. This is a social definition and it freely manifests itself in democracy. NotReady would love to believe that if religion ceased to exist then 'Thou shalt be allowed to kill' would be added to the constitution, but as long as a majority of people believe it is wrong to kill someone else that defines morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think that is NotReady's point. I think his point is that a society which declared it was moral to kill was just as valid, from any atheistic standpoint, as a society which declared it was immoral. He believes that there is an absolute right and wrong, irrespective of what any people think (even if it is universally acclaimed - that is not his definition of an absolute morality).

I was questioning his assertion that atheism -> moral relativism. It seems to me that materialism does imply, but I dont see why you cant be an atheist who believes in an absolute right and wrong (arising in a similarly unfathomable way that the universe arose).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think we are still waiting for your answer to OP's question:


[/ QUOTE ]

Already answered. What more can you expect from an intellectually dishonest troll?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant is that if matter attracts matter through the law of gravity "just because". Why cant murder be wrong "just because" as well?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe either is true. But if natural laws are irrational how can the concept of wrong have any meaning? What do you mean when you say "wrong"?

I made a previous post in which I claimed that morality makes no sense without the notion of personality. An impersonal, abstract moral code is little more than an intellectual device - I don't see how any real idea of "ought" can be derived from the impersonal.

Of course, you can propose such a code and say you believe in it. How would that have any binding power? How would it be rational?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What I meant is that if matter attracts matter through the law of gravity "just because". Why cant murder be wrong "just because" as well?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe either is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand you dont see the world this way, but I dont see how it is inconsistent to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
But if natural laws are irrational how can the concept of wrong have any meaning? What do you mean when you say "wrong"?

[/ QUOTE ]
When I say "It's wrong to kill" I mean there is a fundamental law which is broken when you choose to kill. You may deny it. Your society may declare it ok. It's still wrong, absolutely and forever. The fact I have no idea how the law arose is no more a problem for me than that I have no idea where matter and energy came from.

[ QUOTE ]
I made a previous post in which I claimed that morality makes no sense without the notion of personality. An impersonal, abstract moral code is little more than an intellectual device - I don't see how any real idea of "ought" can be derived from the impersonal.

Of course, you can propose such a code and say you believe in it. How would that have any binding power? How would it be rational?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know that it would have any binding power in the sense of you being forced to accept it. I dont think that that is a requirement of absolute (Do you have a good definition of absolute?).

As for ought and the requirement of personality. I am only questioning why a (non-materialist) atheist cant consistently claim there is an absolute body of laws dictating what actions by sentient beings are "right" same as there is an absolute body of laws dictating how matter and energy must behave.

[Woolygimp]

My thread is getting derailed...

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
My thread is getting derailed...

[/ QUOTE ]
My apologies. It didnt seem like a derailment since it seems an important question whether right and wrong can exist without God. NotReady has made the claim earlier that without God there can be no personal responsibility, so he would tell you that theism is the only rational way if you believe in an absolute right and wrong.

I dont think that is true. I think you can believe in free will and a fundamental right and wrong without believing God exists. That seems relevant to your initial post. Nonetheless, I'm happy to desist. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I am only questioning why a (non-materialist) atheist cant consistently claim there is an absolute body of laws dictating what actions by sentient beings are "right" same as there is an absolute body of laws dictating how matter and energy must behave.


[/ QUOTE ]

Natural law and moral law are very different though. Have you read Lewis' Mere Christianity? Natural law is just an expression of what happens in nature. Moral law is a statement of what humans "ought" to do, not what they actually do.

There's really a similar problem for both as to their origin. If they just exist for no reason and are thus ultimately irrational it's hard to see how the word "law" can even intelligently be used.

[ QUOTE ]

(Do you have a good definition of absolute?).


[/ QUOTE ]

The highest or most or greatest. Absolute law is the highest law, absolute personality is the sovereign personality. The highest commandement is to love God, "on this hang all the law and the prophets".

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think we are still waiting for your answer to OP's question:


[/ QUOTE ]

Already answered. What more can you expect from an intellectually dishonest troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't. You told him to read Romans. That's not really an answer.

Here it is again:
[ QUOTE ]

I wanted to see both sides, however how do you agree that part of the reason you are Christian today is because of your parents and how you were raised?

Now, what are you beliefs concerning if you were unfortunate enough to be born an Eskimo or to parents of some other religion?


[/ QUOTE ]

The first part is just Yes/No, so that shouldn't be too hard. You can start there.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am only questioning why a (non-materialist) atheist cant consistently claim there is an absolute body of laws dictating what actions by sentient beings are "right" same as there is an absolute body of laws dictating how matter and energy must behave.


[/ QUOTE ]

Natural law and moral law are very different though. Have you read Lewis' Mere Christianity? Natural law is just an expression of what happens in nature. Moral law is a statement of what humans "ought" to do, not what they actually do.

There's really a similar problem for both as to their origin. If they just exist for no reason and are thus ultimately irrational it's hard to see how the word "law" can even intelligently be used.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt suggesting no reason necessarily, just not known to the atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(Do you have a good definition of absolute?).


[/ QUOTE ]

The highest or most or greatest. Absolute law is the highest law, absolute personality is the sovereign personality. The highest commandement is to love God, "on this hang all the law and the prophets".

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case I think we are talking cross-purposes. What I mean by absolute is irrespective of perspective. Ie an absolute moral law is one which holds regardless of anyone's opinion on it.

The OP has mentioned this is something of a hijack so I will retire from this thread. I'll see if I can develop an intelligent question for you soon(ish). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did it take that long for the world to turn against something that we find so repulsive today?

Is it because our ancestors were 'evil'? or...

[/ QUOTE ]
It's bad practice to judge a past generations actions by the moral 'spirit of the times' as we know it.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it because it was learned behavior, and at the time the definition of 'evil' was something entirely different?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think evil still meant the same thing - it's just that the morals of their time was different.

[ QUOTE ]
This is what puts me on the line between being a Christian, and not. And one other thing I'd like those of you that are religious to answer is lets say I was born in the Middle East and I was taught that Islam was the one 'true' religion. How could God if he's just, and fair hold that against me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Christians aren't saved, Muslims aren't saved, Atheists aren't saved - "God looks at the heart" - I leave judgement for God alone. If you earnestly seek out God with an open heart and mind; question everything - then you will find Him.

[Woolygimp]

As long as I get my initial question answered, I'm fine with moving on to 'theism's' effect on society, and personal behavior.

Crimes that impede on the rights of others such as theft, murder, and rape will always be wrong and I'm fairly sure that 'any' society will do it's best to curb these actions.

Then there are more 'borderline' issues such as child pornography, statutory rape, abortion, drug use, and prostitution.
I think in an atheist society prostitution would be legal, while in a religious society abortion would be very much illegal. It's these morally ambiguous actions are the ones in which Theism has the most influence.


I think without religion, or without the feeling of being held accountable I'd be more prone to do things that I normally would not. I've never intentionally stolen a single thing in my life, but in the 20 years that I've been born I've learned that most people (myself not excluded) are self serving (jealousy, greed, selfishness) to an almost infinite extent.

I don't have much faith in the human race, there are just too many flaws in our personality. As technology progresses so will our responsibilities, yet we are still governed by these basic instincts and emotions which cause conflict.

That's why war will never cease to exist, and what's that say about us?

I think Theism definitely has an effect on a person's behavior on ALL ends of the spectrum. If someone robbed my house, and I was with full confidence in both the fact that I wouldn't be held accountable by a higher power, nor the justice system I would probably hunt that person down and kill them...

The guy you guys are arguing does have a point though, Theism DOES set moral boundaries and these boundaries are in part what further us from our 'basic instincts [aka self-serving instincts to survive]' so to speak.

Can an atheist show compassion? Absolutely.
Can a theist cause great harm? Absolutely.

So let me recap with a question.

You see a $100 bill fall out of a woman's purse.

If you knew that you would never be held accountable by anything, anyone, and that taking the money would bring about nothing negative and only the personal gain of $100 would you take the money or return it?

I'd return the money without thinking otherwise, but it's strange that I can't explain why, and I can assure you it's not because I'm afraid of a higher power or the justice system.

Maybe the guilt? But what is guilt if God doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion. A counter to the self-serving instinct to survive.

Maybe it was how I was raised?

Maybe it is the personal recognition for doing something kind (aka) the thanks this woman would give me?

I'd like to study human behavior, as I find all this so very interesting but I don't feel like dedicating a lifetime to psychology.

Sorry, If I'm not making a specific point or don't have a clear cut opinion on all of this. Basically I'm just ranting, and seeing what kind of insightful information you guys can add.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as I get my initial question answered, I'm fine with moving on to 'theism's' effect on society, and personal behavior.

Crimes that impede on the rights of others such as theft, murder, and rape will always be wrong and I'm fairly sure that 'any' society will do it's best to curb these actions.

Then there are more 'borderline' issues such as child pornography, statutory rape, abortion, drug use, and prostitution.
I think in an atheist society prostitution would be legal, while in a religious society abortion would be very much illegal. It's these morally ambiguous actions are the ones in which Theism has the most influence.


I think without religion, or without the feeling of being held accountable I'd be more prone to do things that I normally would not. I've never intentionally stolen a single thing in my life, but in the 20 years that I've been born I've learned that most people (myself not excluded) are self serving (jealousy, greed, selfishness) to an almost infinite extent.

I don't have much faith in the human race, there are just too many flaws in our personality. As technology progresses so will our responsibilities, yet we are still governed by these basic instincts and emotions which cause conflict.

That's why war will never cease to exist, and what's that say about us?

I think Theism definitely has an effect on a person's behavior on ALL ends of the spectrum. If someone robbed my house, and I was with full confidence in both the fact that I wouldn't be held accountable by a higher power, nor the justice system I would probably hunt that person down and kill them...

The guy you guys are arguing does have a point though, Theism DOES set moral goals and these goals are in part what set us apart from our 'basic instincts' so to speak.

Can an atheist show compassion? Absolutely.
Can a theist cause great harm? Absolutely.

So let me recap with a question.

You see a $100 bill fall out of a woman's purse.

If you knew that you would never be held accountable by anything, anyone, and that taking the money would bring about nothing negative and only the personal gain of $100 would you take the money or return it?

I'd return the money without thinking otherwise, but it's strange that I can't explain why, and I can assure you it's not because I'm afraid of a higher power or the justice system.

Maybe the guilt? But what is guilt if God doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion. A counter to the self-serving instinct to survive.

Maybe it was how I was raised?

Maybe it is the personal recognition for doing something kind (aka) the thanks this woman would give me?

I'd like to study human behavior, as I find all this so very interesting but I don't feel like dedicating a lifetime to psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but thats a pretty horrible hypothetical. She lost $100 bucks, so you taking it is going to cause harm to her...roughly $100 dollars worth. If you are really asking, would you hurt someone else if you could be convinced you would never be punished, the answer appears to be: depends on if you are being watched. Game theory experiments have shown that, even when convinced by the rules that they can never be punished for an inequitable distribution or wealth, or even stealing, most people don't steal, and they give a fairer distribution. When they are in a position where they can act in complete anonymity, they keep all the money pretty much all the time.

So, your hypothetical is a little flawed for the simple reason that you aren't ever going to be convinced, in any scenario, that you could never be punished for your act. I don't mean jailed or arrested, but punished through scorn or ostracization by your peers. The other motivation is empathy. You can imagine that you are that old lady, and naively and incorrectly assume that if you steal this $100, someone might some day steal your $100.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as I get my initial question answered, I'm fine with moving on to 'theism's' effect on society, and personal behavior.

Crimes that impede on the rights of others such as theft, murder, and rape will always be wrong and I'm fairly sure that 'any' society will do it's best to curb these actions.

Then there are more 'borderline' issues such as child pornography, statutory rape, abortion, drug use, and prostitution.
I think in an atheist society prostitution would be legal, while in a religious society abortion would be very much illegal. It's these morally ambiguous actions are the ones in which Theism has the most influence.


I think without religion, or without the feeling of being held accountable I'd be more prone to do things that I normally would not. I've never intentionally stolen a single thing in my life, but in the 20 years that I've been born I've learned that most people (myself not excluded) are self serving (jealousy, greed, selfishness) to an almost infinite extent.

I don't have much faith in the human race, there are just too many flaws in our personality. As technology progresses so will our responsibilities, yet we are still governed by these basic instincts and emotions which cause conflict.

That's why war will never cease to exist, and what's that say about us?

I think Theism definitely has an effect on a person's behavior on ALL ends of the spectrum. If someone robbed my house, and I was with full confidence in both the fact that I wouldn't be held accountable by a higher power, nor the justice system I would probably hunt that person down and kill them...

The guy you guys are arguing does have a point though, Theism DOES set moral goals and these goals are in part what set us apart from our 'basic instincts' so to speak.

Can an atheist show compassion? Absolutely.
Can a theist cause great harm? Absolutely.

So let me recap with a question.

You see a $100 bill fall out of a woman's purse.

If you knew that you would never be held accountable by anything, anyone, and that taking the money would bring about nothing negative and only the personal gain of $100 would you take the money or return it?

I'd return the money without thinking otherwise, but it's strange that I can't explain why, and I can assure you it's not because I'm afraid of a higher power or the justice system.

Maybe the guilt? But what is guilt if God doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion. A counter to the self-serving instinct to survive.

Maybe it was how I was raised?

Maybe it is the personal recognition for doing something kind (aka) the thanks this woman would give me?

I'd like to study human behavior, as I find all this so very interesting but I don't feel like dedicating a lifetime to psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but thats a pretty horrible hypothetical. She lost $100 bucks, so you taking it is going to cause harm to her...roughly $100 dollars worth. If you are really asking, would you hurt someone else if you could be convinced you would never be punished, the answer appears to be: depends on if you are being watched. Game theory experiments have shown that, even when convinced by the rules that they can never be punished for an inequitable distribution or wealth, or even stealing, most people don't steal, and they give a fairer distribution. When they are in a position where they can act in complete anonymity, they keep all the money pretty much all the time.

So, your hypothetical is a little flawed for the simple reason that you aren't ever going to be convinced, in any scenario, that you could never be punished for your act. I don't mean jailed or arrested, but punished through scorn or ostracization by your peers. The other motivation is empathy. You can imagine that you are that old lady, and naively and incorrectly assume that if you steal this $100, someone might some day steal your $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to argue anyone's side, but lets assume they made another study.

They put X amount of atheists in that situation, and keep track of how many would return the money, as the control.

Then they put X amount of Theists in that situation, and keep track of how many would return the money.

Is you were to place money in the form of a bet on this experiment, would you say that the results would be ambiguous or indistinguishable, or would you put money on a specific variant [theists/atheists(control)] and if so...which?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as I get my initial question answered, I'm fine with moving on to 'theism's' effect on society, and personal behavior.

Crimes that impede on the rights of others such as theft, murder, and rape will always be wrong and I'm fairly sure that 'any' society will do it's best to curb these actions.

Then there are more 'borderline' issues such as child pornography, statutory rape, abortion, drug use, and prostitution.
I think in an atheist society prostitution would be legal, while in a religious society abortion would be very much illegal. It's these morally ambiguous actions are the ones in which Theism has the most influence.


I think without religion, or without the feeling of being held accountable I'd be more prone to do things that I normally would not. I've never intentionally stolen a single thing in my life, but in the 20 years that I've been born I've learned that most people (myself not excluded) are self serving (jealousy, greed, selfishness) to an almost infinite extent.

I don't have much faith in the human race, there are just too many flaws in our personality. As technology progresses so will our responsibilities, yet we are still governed by these basic instincts and emotions which cause conflict.

That's why war will never cease to exist, and what's that say about us?

I think Theism definitely has an effect on a person's behavior on ALL ends of the spectrum. If someone robbed my house, and I was with full confidence in both the fact that I wouldn't be held accountable by a higher power, nor the justice system I would probably hunt that person down and kill them...

The guy you guys are arguing does have a point though, Theism DOES set moral goals and these goals are in part what set us apart from our 'basic instincts' so to speak.

Can an atheist show compassion? Absolutely.
Can a theist cause great harm? Absolutely.

So let me recap with a question.

You see a $100 bill fall out of a woman's purse.

If you knew that you would never be held accountable by anything, anyone, and that taking the money would bring about nothing negative and only the personal gain of $100 would you take the money or return it?

I'd return the money without thinking otherwise, but it's strange that I can't explain why, and I can assure you it's not because I'm afraid of a higher power or the justice system.

Maybe the guilt? But what is guilt if God doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion. A counter to the self-serving instinct to survive.

Maybe it was how I was raised?

Maybe it is the personal recognition for doing something kind (aka) the thanks this woman would give me?

I'd like to study human behavior, as I find all this so very interesting but I don't feel like dedicating a lifetime to psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but thats a pretty horrible hypothetical. She lost $100 bucks, so you taking it is going to cause harm to her...roughly $100 dollars worth. If you are really asking, would you hurt someone else if you could be convinced you would never be punished, the answer appears to be: depends on if you are being watched. Game theory experiments have shown that, even when convinced by the rules that they can never be punished for an inequitable distribution or wealth, or even stealing, most people don't steal, and they give a fairer distribution. When they are in a position where they can act in complete anonymity, they keep all the money pretty much all the time.

So, your hypothetical is a little flawed for the simple reason that you aren't ever going to be convinced, in any scenario, that you could never be punished for your act. I don't mean jailed or arrested, but punished through scorn or ostracization by your peers. The other motivation is empathy. You can imagine that you are that old lady, and naively and incorrectly assume that if you steal this $100, someone might some day steal your $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to argue anyone's side, but lets assume they made another study.

They put X amount of atheists in that situation, and keep track of how many would return the money, as the control.

Then they put X amount of Theists in that situation, and keep track of how many would return the money.

Is you were to place money in the form of a bet on this experiment, would you say that the results would be ambiguous or indistinguishable, or would you put money on a specific variant [theists/atheists(control)] and if so...which?

[/ QUOTE ]

If forced to lay a bet, I'd go with ambiguous or no difference, without a doubt. But then, I'm not in the "religion is the greatest evil on the planet" camp, and in fact think individual morality is defined by the same things for everyone, theist and atheist both.

[Woolygimp]

Religion isn't the greatest evil on the planet, and the people who say it is are downright ignorant. They are completing missing a completely valid point, or maybe misrepresenting it.

Ideologies (ALL of them) are the cause of conflict as they are usually a person(s) strongest belief.

Capitalism vs Communism is the exact same thing as Islam vs Christianity as far as how wars get started.

I also think you are wrong about the hypothetical results of the experiment, and I think the religious would be more likely to return the money. What if you targeted a specific religion for the experiment such as devout Tibetan monks?

You can not honestly believe that an atheist would be just as likely to return the money as Tibetan monk, but even though I'm 'weighing down the scales' and using an extreme you should see that religion does have positive effects.

In my opinion calling people who follow a religion worse than anyone else is the same as a person calling a U.S. soldier a child-killer. Basing an entire group of millions over the actions of a few is a fallacy.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion isn't the greatest evil on the planet, and the people who say it is are downright ignorant. They are completing missing a completely valid point, or maybe misrepresenting it.

Ideologies (ALL of them) are the cause of conflict as they are usually a person(s) strongest belief.

Capitalism vs Communism is the exact same thing as Islam vs Christianity as far as how wars get started.

I also think you are wrong about the hypothetical results of the experiment, and I think the religious would be more likely to return the money. What if you targeted a specific religion for the experiment such as devout Tibetan monks?

You can not honestly believe that an atheist would be just as likely to return the money as Tibetan monk, but even though I'm 'weighing down the scales' and using an extreme you should see that religion does have positive effects.

In my opinion calling people who follow a religion worse than anyone else is the same as a person calling a U.S. soldier a child-killer. Basing an entire group of millions over the actions of a few is a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, champ, run the experiment then. You said theist v. atheist, and most posters here are going to laugh in your face and say the atheists will give the money back way more often. Now you are talking about Tibetan monks? So, you are really asking, are people more likely to give back $100 dollars or a piece of useless paper? Yeah, I think the useless paper is going to win. I'm pretty sure its important that both groups are going to value the $100 the same, or you aren't testing what you think you are.

So you think religious folks will give it back more often. Any particular reason? Just another spin on the ole 'Atheists are really immoral, godless heathens' jab? You have any actual reason to support your assertion, or is it just a guess based on prejudice?

[Woolygimp]

Sorry, behavior isn't a guaranteed universal norm across groups of people. I suppose that the high crime rate in impoverished black neighborhoods is only a coincidence in your eyes?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, behavior isn't a guaranteed universal norm across groups of people. I suppose that the high crime rate in impoverished black neighborhoods is only a coincidence in your eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, now I'm glad bunny derailed your thread. Thanks for the effort, though. I say I think there would be no difference between atheists and theists, you tell me that Tibetan monks would obviously give the money back. Then you tell me that poor black people commit more crime. You know, poor black people are almost 100% theists, don't you? I mean, maybe thats not as significant a group as Tibetan monks, but it should offset it a LITTLE bit, right?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, behavior isn't a guaranteed universal norm across groups of people. I suppose that the high crime rate in impoverished black neighborhoods is only a coincidence in your eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, now I'm glad bunny derailed your thread. Thanks for the effort, though. I say I think there would be no difference between atheists and theists, you tell me that Tibetan monks would obviously give the money back. Then you tell me that poor black people commit more crime. You know, poor black people are almost 100% theists, don't you? I mean, maybe thats not as significant a group as Tibetan monks, but it should offset it a LITTLE bit, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, flawless reasoning. Maybe I was pointing out the fallacy in your logic that two groups of people with stark ideological contrast would behave almost identically over a particular sample size.

Then you criticize me immediately, assuming that the study would undoubtebly prove your point.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, behavior isn't a guaranteed universal norm across groups of people. I suppose that the high crime rate in impoverished black neighborhoods is only a coincidence in your eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, now I'm glad bunny derailed your thread. Thanks for the effort, though. I say I think there would be no difference between atheists and theists, you tell me that Tibetan monks would obviously give the money back. Then you tell me that poor black people commit more crime. You know, poor black people are almost 100% theists, don't you? I mean, maybe thats not as significant a group as Tibetan monks, but it should offset it a LITTLE bit, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, flawless reasoning. Maybe I was pointing out the fallacy in your logic that two groups of people with stark ideological contrast would behave almost identically over a particular sample size.

Then you criticize me immediately, assuming that the study would undoubtebly prove your point.

Maybe we can get a large enough pool to get this experiment underway, find some more backers with your position and we could do something like put around $10k on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. My point was, you asked for my guess. I gave my guess. And then you said that I was wrong, and that Tibetan Monks proved it. This is ridiculous, and it guarantees that the rest of my responses to you (and hopefully everyone elses) will be joking, sarcastic, and generally hostile.

EDIT: Also, I don't think the two groups do have a stark ideological contrast. I think their ideological contrast, at least as it pertains to morality, is very similar. So, how did your example refute my position again? Neither atheism nor theism are ideologies. Many religious people share similar ideologies, as do many atheists. Over big enough samples of people, I think this will even out. And I think that all of their ideologies are inspired by and founded on the same principles, guided by evolution so it doesn't matter much anyhow.

[Woolygimp]

I even pointed out that the whole Tibetan monk thing was an extreme, and didn't mean for you to take it as you did.

I am really on the line, and I don't know if I believe in God for reasons mentioned in the OP. I do believe that an atheist is capable of just as much good as anyone else, but I also believe that if this experiment were held that those religious would probably have a higher probability of doing the right thing, given the circumstances.

There was no need for you to get hostile with me to begin with...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

I even pointed out that the whole Tibetan monk thing was an extreme, and didn't mean for you to take it as you did.

I am really on the line, and I don't know if I believe in God for reasons mentioned in the OP. I do believe that an atheist is capable of just as much good as anyone else, but I also believe that if this experiment were held that those religious would probably have a higher probability of doing the right thing, given the circumstances.

There was no need for you to get hostile with me to begin with...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, you believe that. Any reason why? I've illustrated my reasons why I think there would be no or little difference. What is the point of this meaningless exercise, if you are just going to say "Uhh...nuh-uh, the religious would be better." Who really cares what either of us think about the possible outcome of an experiment neither of us are going to do? There is some data available on the morality and moral actions of atheists and theists, thats a lot more meaningful.

Back up your assertion. You asked for my guess, I gave it and tried to explain why. You basically said "Nu-uh."

[Woolygimp]

Fair enough, but I just have one question.

Would you agree or disagree that [Fear of judgement/Retribution in the afterlife] could be considered a viable factor in that behavioral equation, mentioned in the OP, when dealing with a person's behavior or response?
(I don't see how you could not see this as a factor, because that equation, if it exists, encompasses a multitude of factors whether it be insignificant in polarity or not)

If not then disregard what I'm about to say.
If so, then wouldn't you agree that at base a theist and a atheist are the same without the religious contrast?
[You confirmed this earlier in this thread]

So at heart they are both equally evil, and equally good?
Now how could adding in that factor [Fear of judgement/Retribution in the afterlife] that I just mentioned do anything but cause more relative good?

That's sort of my reasoning.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
You and I must have read different versions of the bible then!

[/ QUOTE ]

king james?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion isn't the greatest evil on the planet, and the people who say it is are downright ignorant. They are completing missing a completely valid point, or maybe misrepresenting it.

Ideologies (ALL of them) are the cause of conflict as they are usually a person(s) strongest belief.

Capitalism vs Communism is the exact same thing as Islam vs Christianity as far as how wars get started.

I also think you are wrong about the hypothetical results of the experiment, and I think the religious would be more likely to return the money. What if you targeted a specific religion for the experiment such as devout Tibetan monks?

You can not honestly believe that an atheist would be just as likely to return the money as Tibetan monk, but even though I'm 'weighing down the scales' and using an extreme you should see that religion does have positive effects.

In my opinion calling people who follow a religion worse than anyone else is the same as a person calling a U.S. soldier a child-killer. Basing an entire group of millions over the actions of a few is a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, champ, run the experiment then. You said theist v. atheist, and most posters here are going to laugh in your face and say the atheists will give the money back way more often. Now you are talking about Tibetan monks? So, you are really asking, are people more likely to give back $100 dollars or a piece of useless paper? Yeah, I think the useless paper is going to win. I'm pretty sure its important that both groups are going to value the $100 the same, or you aren't testing what you think you are.

So you think religious folks will give it back more often. Any particular reason? Just another spin on the ole 'Atheists are really immoral, godless heathens' jab? You have any actual reason to support your assertion, or is it just a guess based on prejudice?

[/ QUOTE ]

boys boys boys...
This is all I could find with a 1 minute search:
Religion and Ethics (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-morality.html)

Basically no difference in the numbers, despite the fact that they lump all 'irreligious' together, and even without this, I would surmise that the answer bias runs against the 'irreligious'.

Frankly, the mere fact that christians are more likely to get divorced is enough for me...

FWIW, if there were any correlation between religion and morals, it would only reflect a greater pressure from the peer group. As it stands, what pressure there is appears to be negative.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but I just have one question.

Would you agree or disagree that [Fear of judgement/Retribution in the afterlife] could be considered a viable factor in that behavioral equation, mentioned in the OP, when dealing with a person's behavior or response?
(I don't see how you could not see this as a factor, because that equation, if it exists, encompasses a multitude of factors whether it be insignificant in polarity or not)

If not then disregard what I'm about to say.
If so, then wouldn't you agree that at base a theist and a atheist are the same without the religious contrast?
[You confirmed this earlier in this thread]

So at heart they are both equally evil, and equally good?
Now how could adding in that factor [Fear of judgement/Retribution in the afterlife] that I just mentioned do anything but cause more relative good?

That's sort of my reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better question might be, how depressing is your view of mankind if you believe the only thing that can keep him straight is fearmongering?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but I just have one question.

Would you agree or disagree that [Fear of judgement/Retribution in the afterlife] could be considered a viable factor in that behavioral equation, mentioned in the OP, when dealing with a person's behavior or response?
(I don't see how you could not see this as a factor, because that equation, if it exists, encompasses a multitude of factors whether it be insignificant in polarity or not)

If not then disregard what I'm about to say.
If so, then wouldn't you agree that at base a theist and a atheist are the same without the religious contrast?
[You confirmed this earlier in this thread]

So at heart they are both equally evil, and equally good?
Now how could adding in that factor [Fear of judgement/Retribution in the afterlife] that I just mentioned do anything but cause more relative good?

That's sort of my reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually do NOT think that that is a very significant factor in decision-making with regards to morality. My reasoning for this is pretty simple. First, most major faiths don't require correct action to avoid Hell anyhow. God will punish you regardless of what you do, since you are a sinner anyhow. Second, for people who actually do believe that wrong action is punishable by God with Hell, there is pretty strong evidence that they can either conveniently forget this or that they don't really believe it. Why? Because the punishment is INFINITELY large. If they really believed they would be punished like that, everyone would like an absolutely PERFECT life...how could you not? If you truly believed you needed to follow a certain code of behavior, and your punishment was eternal suffering, then you'd have to be an idiot not to be perfect. How could anything else matter more? So, these people are either lying or idiots, and either way, their fear of hell doesn't really motivate them.

Of course, it probably motivates them to SOME degree, at least in minor instances. But, in most situations, I think people are motivated by the same exact inate morality, selected for over time, no matter who they are.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion isn't the greatest evil on the planet, and the people who say it is are downright ignorant. They are completing missing a completely valid point, or maybe misrepresenting it.

Ideologies (ALL of them) are the cause of conflict as they are usually a person(s) strongest belief.

Capitalism vs Communism is the exact same thing as Islam vs Christianity as far as how wars get started.

I also think you are wrong about the hypothetical results of the experiment, and I think the religious would be more likely to return the money. What if you targeted a specific religion for the experiment such as devout Tibetan monks?

You can not honestly believe that an atheist would be just as likely to return the money as Tibetan monk, but even though I'm 'weighing down the scales' and using an extreme you should see that religion does have positive effects.

In my opinion calling people who follow a religion worse than anyone else is the same as a person calling a U.S. soldier a child-killer. Basing an entire group of millions over the actions of a few is a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, champ, run the experiment then. You said theist v. atheist, and most posters here are going to laugh in your face and say the atheists will give the money back way more often. Now you are talking about Tibetan monks? So, you are really asking, are people more likely to give back $100 dollars or a piece of useless paper? Yeah, I think the useless paper is going to win. I'm pretty sure its important that both groups are going to value the $100 the same, or you aren't testing what you think you are.

So you think religious folks will give it back more often. Any particular reason? Just another spin on the ole 'Atheists are really immoral, godless heathens' jab? You have any actual reason to support your assertion, or is it just a guess based on prejudice?

[/ QUOTE ]

boys boys boys...
This is all I could find with a 1 minute search:
Religion and Ethics (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-morality.html)

Basically no difference in the numbers, despite the fact that they lump all 'irreligious' together, and even without this, I would surmise that the answer bias runs against the 'irreligious'.

Frankly, the mere fact that christians are more likely to get divorced is enough for me...

FWIW, if there were any correlation between religion and morals, it would only reflect a greater pressure from the peer group. As it stands, what pressure there is appears to be negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was pretty sure there was data out there about this, I alluded to it in an earlier post, but I wasn't able to find it with a cursory search so I didn't want to pretend more existed.

[Woolygimp]

Honestly? Pretty damn depressing.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, according to a soon-to-be-released report, the ethical behavior of people who say religion is "essential" to their lives is often not distinguishable from the behavior of those who describe religion as "unimportant."

[/ QUOTE ]

Find the 'released' report, and then quote it from a website other than infidels.org.

[m_the0ry]

The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely read this thread. /Sarcasm.

As we progress we are gaining access to technologies which are capable of as much destruction as good. Nuclear weapons? Fusion. You name it, and the fact that we as a race CANNOT conquer our basic instincts and overcome war and conflict is pretty damn depressing.

When 5 lunatics gain the access to kill tens of millions then there will be a problem.

Hitler was one lunatic, and look how much damage he did w/o viral/chemical/nuclear weapons.

History repeats itself, and if you say confidently that there will never be a nuclear war you are lying to yourself. It's just a matter of time.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely read this thread. /Sarcasm.

As we progress we are gaining access to technologies which are capable of as much destruction as good. Nuclear weapons? Fusion. You name it, and the fact that we as a race CANNOT conquer our basic instincts and overcome war and conflict is pretty damn depressing.

When 5 lunatics gain the access to kill tens of millions then there will be a problem.

Hitler was one lunatic, and look how much damage he did w/o viral/chemical/nuclear weapons.

History repeats itself, and if you say confidently that there will never be a nuclear war you are lying to yourself. It's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

L
O
L

Before you can make ludicrous claims like this, perhaps it would help if you define what you would consider 'progress' or 'good outcomes?' I mean, sure, we got lots of nasty bombs. But the global life expectancy is higher than it ever has been, and there are far less murders than there ever have been, more people know how to read, lots of fantastic things. I'm sure you enjoy your pessimism, and hey, you just might turn out to be correct. I think you'd have a hard time backing up the 'history repeats itself' statement, unless you mean that in no more significant way than as a pithy quip. You really believe we are barreling towards hell in a handcart here? I guess I just don't get you doom and gloom types. To me, the world gets a little bit better every day. Of course, globalization means that we get to hear about all the horrific things that happen, and we don't miss any of them...and who cares about the rising standard of living and quality of life? Blah, show me genocide.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely read this thread. /Sarcasm.

As we progress we are gaining access to technologies which are capable of as much destruction as good. Nuclear weapons? Fusion. You name it, and the fact that we as a race CANNOT conquer our basic instincts and overcome war and conflict is pretty damn depressing.

When 5 lunatics gain the access to kill tens of millions then there will be a problem.

Hitler was one lunatic, and look how much damage he did w/o viral/chemical/nuclear weapons.

History repeats itself, and if you say confidently that there will never be a nuclear war you are lying to yourself. It's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

L
O
L

Before you can make ludicrous claims like this, perhaps it would help if you define what you would consider 'progress' or 'good outcomes?' I mean, sure, we got lots of nasty bombs. But the global life expectancy is higher than it ever has been, and there are far less murders than there ever have been, more people know how to read, lots of fantastic things. I'm sure you enjoy your pessimism, and hey, you just might turn out to be correct. I think you'd have a hard time backing up the 'history repeats itself' statement, unless you mean that in no more significant way than as a pithy quip. You really believe we are barreling towards hell in a handcart here? I guess I just don't get you doom and gloom types. To me, the world gets a little bit better every day. Of course, globalization means that we get to hear about all the horrific things that happen, and we don't miss any of them...and who cares about the rising standard of living and quality of life? Blah, show me genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, very misguided. I don't care about the earthquakes or the Tsunami's, it's the fact that the stakes have been raised.

Steven Hawking's even wrote a little thing about his belief that humanities ONLY possibility for survival is quick colonization into space before war breaks out and everyone is wiped out.

You need to re-read some history and see how close we came in the 60's during the Cold War. Nuclear war isn't just some pessimistic doomsday mongering notion, but a very real possibility. You are also discounting all the fanatics out there that would set off a WMD in a crowded area and killed an enormous amount of people.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely read this thread. /Sarcasm.

As we progress we are gaining access to technologies which are capable of as much destruction as good. Nuclear weapons? Fusion. You name it, and the fact that we as a race CANNOT conquer our basic instincts and overcome war and conflict is pretty damn depressing.

When 5 lunatics gain the access to kill tens of millions then there will be a problem.

Hitler was one lunatic, and look how much damage he did w/o viral/chemical/nuclear weapons.

History repeats itself, and if you say confidently that there will never be a nuclear war you are lying to yourself. It's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point bringing up history. If history repeats itself, is it more likely that this lunatic kill millions of people in the name of some deity or through religious discrimination or from the athiest's only need for conflict - scarcity of resources?

hints: crusades, iraq, holocaust.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely read this thread. /Sarcasm.

As we progress we are gaining access to technologies which are capable of as much destruction as good. Nuclear weapons? Fusion. You name it, and the fact that we as a race CANNOT conquer our basic instincts and overcome war and conflict is pretty damn depressing.

When 5 lunatics gain the access to kill tens of millions then there will be a problem.

Hitler was one lunatic, and look how much damage he did w/o viral/chemical/nuclear weapons.

History repeats itself, and if you say confidently that there will never be a nuclear war you are lying to yourself. It's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

L
O
L

Before you can make ludicrous claims like this, perhaps it would help if you define what you would consider 'progress' or 'good outcomes?' I mean, sure, we got lots of nasty bombs. But the global life expectancy is higher than it ever has been, and there are far less murders than there ever have been, more people know how to read, lots of fantastic things. I'm sure you enjoy your pessimism, and hey, you just might turn out to be correct. I think you'd have a hard time backing up the 'history repeats itself' statement, unless you mean that in no more significant way than as a pithy quip. You really believe we are barreling towards hell in a handcart here? I guess I just don't get you doom and gloom types. To me, the world gets a little bit better every day. Of course, globalization means that we get to hear about all the horrific things that happen, and we don't miss any of them...and who cares about the rising standard of living and quality of life? Blah, show me genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, very misguided. I don't care about the earthquakes or the Tsunami's, it's the fact that the stakes have been raised.

Steven Hawking's even wrote a little thing about his belief that humanities ONLY possibility for survival is quick colonization into space before war breaks out and everyone is wiped out.

You need to re-read some history and see how close we came in the 60's during the Cold War. Nuclear war isn't just some pessimistic doomsday mongering notion, but a very real possibility. You are also discounting all the fanatics out there that would set off a WMD in a crowded area and killed an enormous amount of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis at all. Nor the Cold War. History has shown us...what, exactly? That MAD is an extremely effective strategy? Of course nuclear war is a possibility, but that doesn't mean it is inevitable, or that the world is going to Hell.

Answer this question: Are you safer now than you were, say, 100 years before the invention of nuclear weapons? Is the global population?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly? Pretty damn depressing.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, according to a soon-to-be-released report, the ethical behavior of people who say religion is "essential" to their lives is often not distinguishable from the behavior of those who describe religion as "unimportant."

[/ QUOTE ]

Find the 'released' report, and then quote it from a website other than infidels.org.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I have no reason to doubt everything that I read.
If you care what the answer is, and want to learn about it, find it yourself.

I wasn't debating you, I was having what I thought was a conversation, and providing you with information that you weren't aware of.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "It's wrong to kill" I mean there is a fundamental law which is broken when you choose to kill. You may deny it. Your society may declare it ok. It's still wrong, absolutely and forever. The fact I have no idea how the law arose is no more a problem for me than that I have no idea where matter and energy came from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put bunny as always.

Related question about "absolute morality"... I doubt many of us think it is "wrong" for a wild animal to kill another for food. It is simply the cycle of nature.

However, the idea of whether it is "moral" for a human being to kill another animal for sport is widely debated. Assuming god is our creator and the source of all human morality - why don't we "know" whether killing non-human animals for sport is immoral?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The theist has a more depressing view of humanity than the atheist, this may be a first.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely read this thread. /Sarcasm.

As we progress we are gaining access to technologies which are capable of as much destruction as good. Nuclear weapons? Fusion. You name it, and the fact that we as a race CANNOT conquer our basic instincts and overcome war and conflict is pretty damn depressing.

When 5 lunatics gain the access to kill tens of millions then there will be a problem.

Hitler was one lunatic, and look how much damage he did w/o viral/chemical/nuclear weapons.

History repeats itself, and if you say confidently that there will never be a nuclear war you are lying to yourself. It's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point bringing up history. If history repeats itself, is it more likely that this lunatic kill millions of people in the name of some deity or through religious discrimination or from the athiest's only need for conflict - scarcity of resources?

hints: crusades, iraq, holocaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, you're a total tool. There's no point in arguing with someone with such 'insight' as yourself.

Was Stalin a theist? When he murdered tens of millions, was he doing it under the guise of Christianity?

What about the Japanese, and the 20 million Chinese they murdered? Were they doing it under the guise of Christianity?

...and Hitler? Hitler wasn't a Christian, and there has been a ton of research on this.

Atheists have no need for war? Dude. EVERYONE wants power, EVERYONE wants land, EVERYONE is capable of evil.

That dude from VA. TECH who shot up all those people, I bet he's far more likely to be an atheist who was like... "Well my worst punishment is death, and my life sucks so I might as well have a little fun" as sick as that sounds.

Again, this is coming from someone who is "on-the-wire".
I'm trying to be as unbiased about this as I can, and yes "M Theory" I'm pointing you out. You are dumb, your arguments are weak, and you are just polluting my thread with useless [censored] that you heard someone else say.

So how about GTFO, and let someone who knows what the hell they are talking about try and explain their point.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
That dude from VA. TECH who shot up all those people, I bet he's far more likely to be an atheist who was like... "Well my worst punishment is death, and my life sucks so I might as well have a little fun" as sick as that sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
When anyone does something so awful, is your default assumption always that they are an atheist? Do you not see anything flawed, hypocritical, or bigoted about that?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That dude from VA. TECH who shot up all those people, I bet he's far more likely to be an atheist who was like... "Well my worst punishment is death, and my life sucks so I might as well have a little fun" as sick as that sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
When anyone does something so awful, is your default assumption always that they are an atheist? Do you not see anything flawed, hypocritical, or bigoted about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because most Christians I know would believe that they would be held accountable for their actions by God. That's one of the core aspects of the religion, so why would they do something in direct contradiction with those beliefs by murdering dozens of people right before they died?

I don't want to de-rail this thread further, so I opened up another dealing with the whole religion and evil people thing. I would still like the question answered in my OP answered.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That dude from VA. TECH who shot up all those people, I bet he's far more likely to be an atheist who was like... "Well my worst punishment is death, and my life sucks so I might as well have a little fun" as sick as that sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
When anyone does something so awful, is your default assumption always that they are an atheist? Do you not see anything flawed, hypocritical, or bigoted about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention despicable to be using this recent tragedy as some sort of rhetorical point.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That dude from VA. TECH who shot up all those people, I bet he's far more likely to be an atheist who was like... "Well my worst punishment is death, and my life sucks so I might as well have a little fun" as sick as that sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
When anyone does something so awful, is your default assumption always that they are an atheist? Do you not see anything flawed, hypocritical, or bigoted about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because most Christians I know would believe that they would be held accountable for their actions by God. That's one of the core aspects of the religion, so why would they do something in direct contradiction with those beliefs by murdering dozens of people right before they died?

I don't want to de-rail this thread further, so I opened up another dealing with the whole religion and evil people thing. I would still like the question answered in my OP answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Christians you know believe that, they are putting in a lot of added, loaded preconceptions that aren't really supported Biblically. Absolutely no reason to think that the VaTech shooter, to use your disgusting example, will be punished for his sins.

[Woolygimp]

M Theory brought up the Crusades, and Hitler. Both of which were tragedies on a far greater scales, shame on him for bringing them up to make a rhetorical point.

Oh wait, one happened 900 years ago and the other 60 and weren't recent? That makes ALL the difference.

I sympathize with the families of the victims, but a tragedy is a tragedy. Period. It doesn't matter when, or where, it happened.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
M Theory brought up the Crusades, and Hitler. Both of which were tragedies on a far greater scales, shame on him for bringing them up to make a rhetorical point.

Oh wait, they happened 50 years ago and weren't recent? That makes ALL the difference.

I sympathize with the families of the victims, but a tragedy is a tragedy. Period. It doesn't matter when, or where, it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. But of course, that wasn't the important part. The important part is you are a bigot who is TERRIBLE at stats. This is even more hilarious in light of your post chastising us for sucking at poker. The fact that you think this shooter was more likely to be an atheist than a theist is laughable, but it does illustrate a nice flaw that explains some of the rest of your posts.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M Theory brought up the Crusades, and Hitler. Both of which were tragedies on a far greater scales, shame on him for bringing them up to make a rhetorical point.

Oh wait, they happened 50 years ago and weren't recent? That makes ALL the difference.

I sympathize with the families of the victims, but a tragedy is a tragedy. Period. It doesn't matter when, or where, it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. But of course, that wasn't the important part. The important part is you are a bigot who is TERRIBLE at stats. This is even more hilarious in light of your post chastising us for sucking at poker. The fact that you think this shooter was more likely to be an atheist than a theist is laughable, but it does illustrate a nice flaw that explains some of the rest of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about sucking at poker was because I've never seen any one of your names on any of the poker forums.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M Theory brought up the Crusades, and Hitler. Both of which were tragedies on a far greater scales, shame on him for bringing them up to make a rhetorical point.

Oh wait, they happened 50 years ago and weren't recent? That makes ALL the difference.

I sympathize with the families of the victims, but a tragedy is a tragedy. Period. It doesn't matter when, or where, it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. But of course, that wasn't the important part. The important part is you are a bigot who is TERRIBLE at stats. This is even more hilarious in light of your post chastising us for sucking at poker. The fact that you think this shooter was more likely to be an atheist than a theist is laughable, but it does illustrate a nice flaw that explains some of the rest of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about sucking at poker was because I've never seen any one of your names on any of the poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats because we suck. Luckily, we are pretty sweet at posterior probability. Maybe we could tutor you?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing about sucking at poker was because I've never seen any one of your names on any of the poker forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm significantly better at poker than i was when i posted on strategy forums.

[Woolygimp]

I made this post asking very specific questions, and you guys have done an absolutely amazing job at de-railing it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I made this post asking very specific questions, and you guys have done an absolutely amazing job at de-railing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked several rhetorical questions, and a few vague, hard-to-answer questions. Then there were a bunch of people trying their best to answer them, most saying that they think free will is an illusion (I happen to agree). What more do you want? Then you, YOU, derailed the thread by asking if I thought atheists or theists are more moral.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
That dude from VA. TECH who shot up all those people, I bet he's far more likely to be an atheist who was like... "Well my worst punishment is death, and my life sucks so I might as well have a little fun" as sick as that sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

pathetic

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I made this post asking very specific questions, and you guys have done an absolutely amazing job at de-railing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd get more responses if you didn't disparage the forum.

there is no such thing as "free" choice, choices appear to be consequential.

therefore... "everything that follows from that."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made this post asking very specific questions, and you guys have done an absolutely amazing job at de-railing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd get more responses if you didn't disparage the forum.

there is no such thing as "free" choice, choices appear to be consequential.

therefore... "everything that follows from that."

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the response he got several times before, and then the insults started flying. He yells at me for derailing his threads, but I've already told him that his absurd attitude doesn't deserve anything more than what I'm giving him. You guys can feel free to keep honestly engaging him, although I highly doubt its going to do you any good.

[Woolygimp]

Well I found this. Seems theres actually a name for people who believe that free will is an illusion and only the result of various factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

[ QUOTE ]
Argument from morality

Some critics of determinism argue that if people are assumed incapable of independent choice (free will) there can then be no rational basis for morality, and therefore some aspects of criminal and civil jurisprudence and legislation appear irrational and unjust. How, they ask, can one be punished for an involuntary action? In order to maintain the integrity of social institutions that rely in part upon holding people responsible for their actions, it becomes necessary in their eyes to deny determinism, at least as far as it applies to what we ordinarily call voluntary actions. However, determinists hold that there is a logical basis for morality.

Determinists argue that this is a fallacious appeal to consequences, that the factual or logical truth of the matter is entirely independent of whether that truth is perceived as beneficial. The presumed social utility of ideas of crime and justice should not be permitted, they argue, to override questions of truth.

Some would also note that determinism and morality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The "voluntary" nature of an action would be irrelevant when instead focusing on the social utility served in punishing such behavior in order to prevent future behavior. Moreover, some determinists would also note that in observing determinism, what people now largely observe as voluntary action would not simply cease to exist, but rather be redefined as a combination of physiological and environmental influences. "Right" and "wrong" need not be divorced from such a reconception. One may technically have no "choice" to perform an action in the strict philosophical sense, and yet still have moral culpability for normatively-flawed actions stemming from negative internal stimuli. It is also arguable that if every human action is predetermined, immoral actions are not the only things to which that applies — judgements of the actions are also uncontrollable, as are punishments of the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that this is the exact direction this thread took.

[Subfallen]

I didn't read the thread b/c NotReady derailed it with his typical inanity, but Douglas Hofstadter, Daniel Dennett, and Roger Penrose are some excellent authors whose discussions of consciousness are both erudite and accessible.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I found this. Seems theres actually a name for people who believe that free will is an illusion and only the result of various factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

[ QUOTE ]
Argument from morality

Some critics of determinism argue that if people are assumed incapable of independent choice (free will) there can then be no rational basis for morality, and therefore some aspects of criminal and civil jurisprudence and legislation appear irrational and unjust. How, they ask, can one be punished for an involuntary action? In order to maintain the integrity of social institutions that rely in part upon holding people responsible for their actions, it becomes necessary in their eyes to deny determinism, at least as far as it applies to what we ordinarily call voluntary actions. However, determinists hold that there is a logical basis for morality.

Determinists argue that this is a fallacious appeal to consequences, that the factual or logical truth of the matter is entirely independent of whether that truth is perceived as beneficial. The presumed social utility of ideas of crime and justice should not be permitted, they argue, to override questions of truth.

Some would also note that determinism and morality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The "voluntary" nature of an action would be irrelevant when instead focusing on the social utility served in punishing such behavior in order to prevent future behavior. Moreover, some determinists would also note that in observing determinism, what people now largely observe as voluntary action would not simply cease to exist, but rather be redefined as a combination of physiological and environmental influences. "Right" and "wrong" need not be divorced from such a reconception. One may technically have no "choice" to perform an action in the strict philosophical sense, and yet still have moral culpability for normatively-flawed actions stemming from negative internal stimuli. It is also arguable that if every human action is predetermined, immoral actions are not the only things to which that applies — judgements of the actions are also uncontrollable, as are punishments of the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that this is the exact direction this thread took.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...I don't get it. You wanted us to tell you the word for it? I think we all know what determinism is. There are strict forms of determinism, and there are other forms. Why don't you try repeating these specific, straight-forward questions so we can all understand them? Was your point to trick us into admitting we are determinists and then make fun of us?

[Woolygimp]

No, I didn't make this thread to make fun of you as they were genuine questions.

Whatever, this is going around in circles. I'll read up on it and get back to you.

I was hoping that there were some non-determinists here to argue against it...

[Drew_aces15]

If you'd like to get back the OP, I'll try to help it along:

It seems you are having trouble with choice. Of course our culture (religion, education, place of up-bringing) has an impact on the choices we make. Statistically, it is less likely for a middle-eastern raised Muslim to convert to Christianity (and I suppose vice versa), but it does happen. But it's not logical to leap to the conclusion that because this is so, it must invalidate the Christian message (salvation through faith in Christ alone)or to imply that God is unjust in this particular situation because the potential Christian candidate is predisposed to reject it.
I am less likely to include craw fish in my diet (because of my "cultural up-bringing), but that doesn't mean I couldn't choose it if given the option and it definitely doesn't mean that it isn't a tasty snack.
Another thing to consider is access: is it possible or even probable that a Muslim not convert because free access to alternative views is non-existent in many Muslim societies? While Christianity is present in Muslim regions, it is often restricted, underground - and penalty for leaving Islam is death. All of which are more deterrents than just upbringing. I personally believe that God is fair, and will do what is fair in that situation. I also believe that He will do what is fair with you, but you've researched options and have choices to make. I believe we are all responsible for the choices we make.
As far as brain chemicals, I believe we are still accountable for our choices. This is where most creationists/evolutionists part. It follows logically that if your brain is nothing more than rearranged pond chemicals, thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain, and you have no control over chemical laws, than neither can you have control over your thoughts or actions, and therefore cannot be held accountable for them. Not all who hold a naturalistic world view say as much, but it is a logical conclusion. I believe we are more than chemicals.
On your comment regarding shifting morals: the fact that at any moment in history certain activities could have been valued as "good" or "evil" doesn't preclude any participant in those activities from having choice to participate. There are many issues today that are the forefront of debate: abortion, homosexuality, war, taxes, public schools, embryonic stem cell research - any of which at any given time could be viewed by the majority as a "good" or "evil". That still doesn't excuse one from violating his/her on conscience on that matter or from violating any religious tenet that specifically addresses it.

Then again, there are those who say there is no such thing as choice, or "free" will - I suppose an accurate definition is in order.

And lastly, if you are looking for responses from a religious or even Christian view point, you've picked a very predominant atheistic forum and you may also want to post on other sites for a more rounded response.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
It follows logically that if your brain is nothing more than rearranged pond chemicals, thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain, and you have no control over chemical laws, than neither can you have control over your thoughts or actions, and therefore cannot be held accountable for them. Not all who hold a naturalistic world view say as much, but it is a logical conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
This aint gonna be pretty..

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]

I am less likely to include craw fish in my diet (because of my "cultural up-bringing)

[/ QUOTE ]

ARE YOU MAD!!!
Crawfish is the best food of the world...
...of the world, Craig.
...Top food of the WORLD!


Just kidding, but crawfish is the bomb [I live in Louisiana]. I'll get back to reading the rest of your post now.

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It follows logically that if your brain is nothing more than rearranged pond chemicals, thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain, and you have no control over chemical laws, than neither can you have control over your thoughts or actions, and therefore cannot be held accountable for them. Not all who hold a naturalistic world view say as much, but it is a logical conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
This aint gonna be pretty..

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha /images/graemlins/grin.gif Let the fun begin.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It follows logically that if your brain is nothing more than rearranged pond chemicals, thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain, and you have no control over chemical laws, than neither can you have control over your thoughts or actions, and therefore cannot be held accountable for them. Not all who hold a naturalistic world view say as much, but it is a logical conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
This aint gonna be pretty..

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than contradict him, I think I'll take the easy road and simply say, "So what?" That all may very well be the logical conclusion, and it might make him really sad and depressed to contemplate it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or not. That a world with free will would be a happier place than a world without (personally disagree strongly with this but its unnecessary to refute) means only that we must be aware of our extremely strong bias in favor of free will, not that free will is any more likely to exist.

[Woolygimp]

I love Wikipedia.
[ QUOTE ]

Choice and free will

The existence and nature of free will is a topic in philosophy of mind and theology. Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is at odds with free will, while compatibilism holds the two are not contradictory. Compatibilists such as Hobbes generally claim that a person acts freely only in the case where the person willed the act and the person could (hypothetically) have done otherwise if the person had decided to; what matters, Hobbes believed, is that choices are the results of desires and preferences, and are not overridden by force. (See Compatibilism and incompatibilism.) [27] [28]

In the history of theology, debates about the issue have happened between Augustine and Pelagius [29], Martin Luther and Erasmus, and the Calvinists and Arminians [30] [31]. At the Councils of Orange, Western Christianity officially adopted a form of compatibilist determinism known as original sin, according to which the sin of Adam and Eve has corrupted the whole human race such that humans are unable to refrain from sin, yet remain accountable, and cannot even desire holiness apart from Divine intervention [32]. However, belief in free will remains popular and many even regard free will as a basic doctrine of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I love Wikipedia.
[ QUOTE ]

Choice and free will

The existence and nature of free will is a topic in philosophy of mind and theology. Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is at odds with free will, while compatibilism holds the two are not contradictory. Compatibilists such as Hobbes generally claim that a person acts freely only in the case where the person willed the act and the person could (hypothetically) have done otherwise if the person had decided to; what matters, Hobbes believed, is that choices are the results of desires and preferences, and are not overridden by force. (See Compatibilism and incompatibilism.) [27] [28]

In the history of theology, debates about the issue have happened between Augustine and Pelagius [29], Martin Luther and Erasmus, and the Calvinists and Arminians [30] [31]. At the Councils of Orange, Western Christianity officially adopted a form of compatibilist determinism known as original sin, according to which the sin of Adam and Eve has corrupted the whole human race such that humans are unable to refrain from sin, yet remain accountable, and cannot even desire holiness apart from Divine intervention [32]. However, belief in free will remains popular and many even regard free will as a basic doctrine of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised. You seem like the Wikipedia kind of guy. You might want to reign that in, or at least be cautious.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the idea of whether it is "moral" for a human being to kill another animal for sport is widely debated. Assuming god is our creator and the source of all human morality - why don't we "know" whether killing non-human animals for sport is immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unhelpful response, I know, but I struggle to answer questions like this. Personally I hold the view (without much confidence /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) that moral knowledge is akin to our senses of perception. If that is the case, it is perhaps not surprising that there are some "tricky" areas analogous to the optical illusions which mislead us over what we are really seeing.

I havent put a lot of thought into it though.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I was hoping that there were some non-determinists here to argue against it...

[/ QUOTE ]
I am a non-determinist. I believe we act freely because it feels that way to me and I havent heard much argument to persuade me that my perception is incorrect. The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

I am well aware that my nature is to over-value my own experiences, but the determinists remind me of the hard-AI enthusiasts. I remember reading a "computers will think within ten years" article back in the seventies. Cognitive scientists seem to me to have a similar overconfidence in their ability to solve the problem of consciousness.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not surprised. You seem like the Wikipedia kind of guy. You might want to reign that in, or at least be cautious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That's actually kind of hurtful!

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt they are claiming we ever actually will know the exact state of the universe, merely that if we did we could predict choices made by individuals. I dont think there is anything logically preventing knowledge of the state of the universe.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt they are claiming we ever actually will know the exact state of the universe, merely that if we did we could predict choices made by individuals. I dont think there is anything logically preventing knowledge of the state of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quantum mechanics prevents such knowledge, or more specifically the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt they are claiming we ever actually will know the exact state of the universe, merely that if we did we could predict choices made by individuals. I dont think there is anything logically preventing knowledge of the state of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are those here who can speak on this more expertly than I. But I think there are elements of Quantum theory that say exactly that. Not only is it beyond our technical ability to find out, but that it is inherently, logically, unknowable. So if determinism really rests on that argument, it is flawed according to our current understanding of how the Universe works.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt they are claiming we ever actually will know the exact state of the universe, merely that if we did we could predict choices made by individuals. I dont think there is anything logically preventing knowledge of the state of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are those here who can speak on this more expertly than I. But I think there are elements of Quantum theory that say exactly that. Not only is it beyond our technical ability to find out, but that it is inherently, logically, unknowable. So if determinism really rests on that argument, it is flawed according to our current understanding of how the Universe works.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say instead that our current understanding of how the universe workds indicates that concepts like momentum and position are not "real". It is perfectly possible to have a complete knowledge of the universe, just that what we thought were properties of the universe (namely that particles have position and momentum, etc) are actually just concepts we had been using to inaccurately describe it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt they are claiming we ever actually will know the exact state of the universe, merely that if we did we could predict choices made by individuals. I dont think there is anything logically preventing knowledge of the state of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quantum mechanics prevents such knowledge, or more specifically the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
The uncertainty principle indicates that momentum and position (for example) cannot both be known to arbitrary accuracy. What I am suggesting is that momentum and position as we understood them are not a reflection of how the universe actually is but a model we used (which now turns out to be flawed).

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It follows logically that if your brain is nothing more than rearranged pond chemicals, thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain, and you have no control over chemical laws, than neither can you have control over your thoughts or actions, and therefore cannot be held accountable for them. Not all who hold a naturalistic world view say as much, but it is a logical conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
This aint gonna be pretty..

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than contradict him, I think I'll take the easy road and simply say, "So what?" That all may very well be the logical conclusion, and it might make him really sad and depressed to contemplate it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or not. That a world with free will would be a happier place than a world without (personally disagree strongly with this but its unnecessary to refute) means only that we must be aware of our extremely strong bias in favor of free will, not that free will is any more likely to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that section, I am not attempting to prove or disprove will or choice, let alone establish whether the world would be happier with/without it. But rather to show the incompatibility of those thoughts: free will/choice (& responsibility) and chemical reactions as the sole source for thoughts.

I don't believe that chemicals play that role and we are helpless against it, so that's one reason I have no problem with free will. Others who who take a purely naturalistic view seem to be forced into the scenario I describe. And that's fine if they do. Some people are ok with it. For others, when they see a belief drawn to it's conclusion, and they don't necessarily like that conclusion, they may end up going back and reconsidering it all.

But I guess he'll have to choose between free will and determinism. Or, has it already been determined for him?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
The uncertainty principle indicates that momentum and position (for example) cannot both be known to arbitrary accuracy. What I am suggesting is that momentum and position as we understood them are not a reflection of how the universe actually is but a model we used (which now turns out to be flawed).

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but you're gonna have to produce some evidence that position and momentum are flawed concepts. The uncertainty associated with the principle arises from the wave-particle duality of particles, the real nature of observables, and the Hermitian quantum mechanical operators. It says nothing about (and there's no evidence for) position, momentum, energy, time etc... being fictitious concepts.

[bunny]

Not so much fictitious as limited. It would be an error to conclude that all the concepts we currently need to describe the world are inherent properties of the universe (maybe it's all strings, maybe something else).

For the record, I am not a determinist. My only point was that people who are determinists do not have to surrender in the face of the uncertainty principle. Wavefunctions in quantum mechanics proceed deterministically. We used to regard position and momentum as fundamental properties of objects - that view is changing and we should remain open to the fact that they are useful models in moving round human-sized worlds but less so for describing everything in the universe.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have heard is a stated belief that if we understood physical laws and the state of the universe perfectly, we would be able to predict what responses sentient beings would make to various situations without error. I accept that this may be true, but dont consider it established (and it just doesnt gel with the way I feel when I make a decision).

[/ QUOTE ]
The belief is flawed because the exact state of the universe is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt they are claiming we ever actually will know the exact state of the universe, merely that if we did we could predict choices made by individuals. I dont think there is anything logically preventing knowledge of the state of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are those here who can speak on this more expertly than I. But I think there are elements of Quantum theory that say exactly that. Not only is it beyond our technical ability to find out, but that it is inherently, logically, unknowable. So if determinism really rests on that argument, it is flawed according to our current understanding of how the Universe works.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say instead that our current understanding of how the universe workds indicates that concepts like momentum and position are not "real". It is perfectly possible to have a complete knowledge of the universe, just that what we thought were properties of the universe (namely that particles have position and momentum, etc) are actually just concepts we had been using to inaccurately describe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't presume to disagree with you. And even if a Physics expert around here did disagree with you, I'm not sure I would completely buy it one way or the other. I suspect that in another 10,000 years of scientific development, our current view of things will look like a caveman who is just discovering how to make fire. At any rate, I'm with you on your basic argument. I really don't care what kind of technical mumbo jumbo people want to throw out there. My personal experience is that I do have free will, and on this one I'm taking my subjective experience to be a better guide than all the technobabble.

PairTheBoard

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Not so much fictitious as limited. It would be an error to conclude that all the concepts we currently need to describe the world are inherent properties of the universe (maybe it's all strings, maybe something else).

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but it is wrong propose the truth or untruth of physical concept solely to fit the tenets of your belief. If believing in determinism forces you to conclude the concepts of position, momentum, and energy are ficticious, when we have no evidence to suggest they are, you should reject determinism.

I'm not saying determinism does force you to believe that mind you.

[ QUOTE ]
Wavefunctions in quantum mechanics proceed deterministically.

[/ QUOTE ]
But they are never known exactly because collapsing the wave function to observe it forces the system randomly into one of its eigenstates.

[ QUOTE ]
We used to regard position and momentum as fundamental properties of objects - that view is changing and we should remain open to the fact that they are useful models in moving round human-sized worlds but less so for describing everything in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course they're useful, and may actually be inherent properties of matter, but to categorically state they are less useful for things other than near-human observed events is fantasy. They may be less useful, but assigning that probability without evidence is being dishonest.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wavefunctions in quantum mechanics proceed deterministically.

[/ QUOTE ]
But they are never known exactly because collapsing the wave function to observe it forces the system randomly into one of its eigenstates.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems random now - that may just be through lack of knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We used to regard position and momentum as fundamental properties of objects - that view is changing and we should remain open to the fact that they are useful models in moving round human-sized worlds but less so for describing everything in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course they're useful, and may actually be inherent properties of matter, but to categorically state they are less useful for things other than near-human observed events is fantasy. They may be less useful, but assigning that probability without evidence is being dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
*shrug* I dont know how a determinist would answer. My overall point is not to argue for some hidden deterministic theory - I am not a determinist. My point was that quantum physics doesnt force you to abandon determinism, you just have more work to do. I offered one way in which it could be true (with no evidence, but I dont believe it so that hardly seems a crime /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) there may be other cleverer ways.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems random now - that may just be through lack of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, nothing in quantum mechanics states that process is random a priori. There's also no evidence for it being non-random either.

[ QUOTE ]
*shrug* I dont know how a determinist would answer. My overall point is not to argue for some hidden deterministic theory - I am not a determinist. My point was that quantum physics doesnt force you to abandon determinism, you just have more work to do. I offered one way in which it could be true (with no evidence, but I dont believe it so that hardly seems a crime /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) there may be other cleverer ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't care about determinism at all. I just find it ridiculous to spurn current scientific knowledge with no evidence because it doesn't fit with a predetermined ideological conclusion. Speculate all you want without evidence on hypotheticals, just don't discard current knowledge without it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems random now - that may just be through lack of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, nothing in quantum mechanics states that process is random a priori. There's also no evidence for it being non-random either.

[ QUOTE ]
*shrug* I dont know how a determinist would answer. My overall point is not to argue for some hidden deterministic theory - I am not a determinist. My point was that quantum physics doesnt force you to abandon determinism, you just have more work to do. I offered one way in which it could be true (with no evidence, but I dont believe it so that hardly seems a crime /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) there may be other cleverer ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't care about determinism at all. I just find it ridiculous to spurn current scientific knowledge with no evidence because it doesn't fit with a predetermined ideological conclusion. Speculate all you want without evidence on hypotheticals, just don't discard current knowledge without it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Err - you do realise I am a non-determinist and firmly believe in the reality of quantum indeterminism? My original post was merely relaying what some determinists have advanced to me in defence of their view.

I can see their point that determinism is not necessarily ruled out by what we know of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, I dont see anything to persuade me.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Err - you do realise I am a non-determinist and firmly believe in the reality of quantum indeterminism? My original post was merely relaying what some determinists have advanced to me in defence of their view.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I realize that. I was merely playing devil's advocate for the position. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bunny]

ah - cool. Too often i find myself mentioning someone else's view, discussing it for a while and ending up making a half-baked defence of something I never believed anyway. Just had a feeling I was drifting down that road again /images/graemlins/tongue.gif