Do humans have a free will?
-
ah, I see. didn't realise that earlier.
by the way: "Justice" could be the next explosive topic here. but not for the next 10 pages...
-
I realise that, thats why I included other values like Justice, Democracy, Communism etc. In reality I am much more neutral to the debate. I like the idea of NOMA (Nonoverlapping Magisteria) advocated by Stephen Jay Gould and in real life I consider my self an Agnostic. However due to the extremity of some of the comments coming from the religious camp I feel obliged to play the 'devil's advocate' as it where and stir things up a little.
-
@plot-paris said:
ah, I see. didn't realise that earlier.
by the way: "Justice" could be the next explosive topic here. but not for the next 10 pages...
I feel I need to clarify my position on religion in order not to engender further misunderstanding.
Religion to me is a self-consistent meaning system that generates its own 'equilibrium' through endogenous set of beliefs. Humans are 'meaning-machines' because our mind is trained through language to understand the world through often linear explainations or 'meanings'. The world we live in is however a 'non-linear and dynamic complex system' that produces emergent phenomena which linear causality cannont explain fully. It is actually only in the last century that science started to engage with nonlinear dynamic systems in any meaningful manner. Witness the rise of Complexity theory, System Theory, Emergence, Chaos Theory, Cybernetics, Cellular Automata, Ecology to name a few. We are beginning to understand how complex entities such consciousness might arise from simple physical constructs such as neurons through structural organization and inter-relation of the neural network. It is true that science actually explains very little of the things that give people meaning in life, however it is heading in that direction!
Religions have the benefit of giving people a consistent set of 'meanings' through which enable them to 'interpret' the world around them or act in a consistent manner. However, the price of consistence is DOGMA (Bible quoting by our very own Cornel is one fine example). It is dogma, and the power structure that arise from dogma that get in the ways of different (I.E. Alternatives Religious or Mystical Revelations) and better (more evidence based, i.e. science) systems of explaining the world and they do so often violently.
As such, I have little or no problems with religious belief or religious people. It is religious dogma and its varioius articulations that gets on my nerves.
-
@mike lucey said:
Why would anyone come to the conclusion that Cornel is a good
Christian? I have seen no evidence of this in all the time that
he has been here!I will admit that he is somewhat polite (to a certain extent)
but I see no Christian Spirit in the way he just keeps posting
Bible quotes time after time. He is not even prepared to tolerate
another person's beliefs let alone agree that they have a right
to have their own opinions / free will.I suppose he may think he lives by the Golden Rule,'Do unto others
as you would wish them to do unto you' or words to that effect.
In his case this would mean that he would wish everyone to be of
the same religious beliefs as he. This would mean that a very
large percentage of the human race could never be acceptable!I think he should closely examine the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Let him without sin cast the fist stone! Acceptance and Tolerance
are true Christian values NOT robotically quoting the Bible.He should try listening to Karen Armstrong (on TED) closely as it
might open his eyes about how a true Christian might go about things!
The best way to bring people to your beliefs is by example NOT
pushing them down their throats...... robotically
He seems to be a highly intelligent man but alas I'm afraid he
is not using his intelligence.Mike
Mike Karen Armstrong is a fantastic scholar on World religion. I read her seminal book on Islam and She is able to contextualize origins of the religion without expressly making judgement better than anyone else I've come across without being too academic. Best part for me is how she is able to bring about non-judemental understanding of the rise of Islamic Extremism and interweave the narrative of Colonialism and rise of Wahabism effortlessly. Even more remarkable was the fact it was written before 9/11. Very engaging reading.
Amazing talk also! Thanks for pointing it out!
-
@unknownuser said:
@chango70 said:
Catholicism needs to be transformed, but is a different topic.
No sh*t. It just so happens I saw a tv programme on Nicaraguan abortion laws last night. Turns out women cannot even get a 'therapeutical abortion' over there. 80% chance you'll die if you don't get an abortion? Well ... though luck. Abortion is against God's will.
Mind you, this is a fairly recent evolution: it used to be possible to get a therapeutical abortion. But the Nicaraguan church didn't like that too much.
Like Chango, I have no problem with religion or religious people, it's the religious institutions that scare me. Power and religion - that's never been the best combination. I seriously hope Rome never regains the control it once had 'round these parts.
-
@chango70 said:
Catholicsm, and Islam. Maybe you should watch it again. Hearing what you want to hear seems to be your problem too. I bet you $100 if you ask Dan Dennett or Richard Dawkins they will tell you religions are like viruses. Trust me, I met the man (Both Dan and Richard at different lectures).
Ok. I got the point, but have you noticed that he is also concerned about all cultures, languages and practices that are being wiped out by 'global thinking' - he mentioned beauty contests. I wonder how would you separate a culture and practices from beliefs of a given society? They are interlinked. Dan talks with a humour about a parasitic idea of Freedom - showing New Hampshire car plate - although is probably completely serious about it. His thinking is far from what Karen Armstrong presents, where she proves that religions can serve us and bring us closer instead of dividing.
You suggested that if I intend to stay with my beliefs I will simply be a fool. I won't say same thing about you, Dan and all who share his attitude. I have got much respect for all people even if they call my religion a parasite. There is some truth in it and it is an interesting point of view, that gives me better understanding of how agnostics think.
In 2000 I was given a chance to talk to all superiors of all convents in the Polish Catholic Church. It wasn't what they wanted to hear and I wasn't 'nice'. I was talking about old thinking - redemption through acts, instead of pure faith. Catholicism needs to be transformed, but is a different topic.
@chango70 said:
As such, I have little or no problems with religious belief or religious people. It is religious dogma and its various articulations that gets on my nerves.
Thanks for clarification @mike lucey said:
I viewed a few more talks on TED and can highly recommending listening to Karen Armstrong, ...
Thanks a lot Mike. It is probably a forum I was looking for!
-
@unknownuser said:
Like Chango, I have no problem with religion or religious people, it's the religious institutions that scare me. Power and religion - that's never been the best combination. I seriously hope Rome never regains the control it once had 'round these parts.
I don't want develop it further, but If someone would like to do it in a new thread I will gladly join.
Stinkie, the transformation I am talking about wouldn't probably change the situation in the way you are talking about. I am with you, the power should stay in peoples hearts, so they will know exactly what to do and no-one will have to tell them.If you would have the Love in your heart (this parasite Chango!) , you would be brave (fool) enough to try this 20% instead of killing a child. No-one would have to tell you what is right. You would feel it.
-
@chango70 said:
I said that to hold on to old belief in light of new evidence is to exercise bad intellect and perhaps irrational. .. I felt misunderstood than intended as an insult.
Sorry for misunderstanding then but evidence that you quote doesn't prove that the core of Christianity is toxic, it just say that some branches are dangerous.
@chango70 said:
I do, however, appreciate that intellect isn't the Modus Operanti of Religions so it was more out of irrate need to clarify my own position which I felt misunderstood than intended as an insult.
Ok. I understand. In fact the faith shouldn't discard intellect. You are right it is not based on it, but cannot deny it as it would lead to a nonsense. It is what I have written in 'Religion anyone?' thread. The faith and the reason can work together - in fact - only when the faith is truth, not an illusion.
-
-
@unknownuser said:
@chango70 said:
I do, however, appreciate that intellect isn't the Modus Operanti of Religions so it was more out of irrate need to clarify my own position which I felt misunderstood than intended as an insult.
Ok. I understand. In fact the faith shouldn't discard intellect. You are right it is not based on it, but cannot deny it as it would lead to a nonsense. It is what I have written in 'Religion anyone?' thread. The faith and the reason can work together - in fact - only when the faith is truth, not an illusion.
Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. I agree. Bible quoting and reason however is on more shaky ground. I love religious people who appreciated the mystries of the universe. I've had many conversations with religious people that are more inspiring than dogmatically scientific people. Through out history religious people have contributed to the progress of science as an innovative process.
However, faith for me is slightly problematic. Faith for me (I've been to sermons preaching faith at my friends invitation to a Taiwanese Pentacostal church) is a radical suspension of disblief. 'Truth' for me is NOT absolute but a process of discovery and innovation in thinking and action that leads to renewed understanding based on the best evidence available (i.e. it is a on-going historic process). Disblief, is a critical aspect getting to 'Truth'. In this sense I feel the two are incompatible.
Absolute truth is an 'immmaculate conception'. A timeless priori which can only exist in something as misguided as the human mind. It is for me more useful as a political tool for the manipulation of the masses than explaining anything useful.
-
@unknownuser said:
@chango70 said:
Catholicsm, and Islam. Maybe you should watch it again. Hearing what you want to hear seems to be your problem too. I bet you $100 if you ask Dan Dennett or Richard Dawkins they will tell you religions are like viruses. Trust me, I met the man (Both Dan and Richard at different lectures).
Ok. I got the point, but have you noticed that he is also concerned about all cultures, languages and practices that are being wiped out by 'global thinking' - he mentioned beauty contests. I wonder how would you separate a culture and practices from beliefs of a given society? They are interlinked. Dan talks with a humour about a parasitic idea of Freedom - showing New Hampshire car plate - although is probably completely serious about it. His thinking is far from what Karen Armstrong presents, where she proves that religions can serve us and bring us closer instead of dividing.
You suggested that if I intend to stay with my beliefs I will simply be a fool. I won't say same thing about you, Dan and all who share his attitude. I have got much respect for all people even if they call my religion a parasite. There is some truth in it and it is an interesting point of view, that gives me better understanding of how agnostics think.
In 2000 I was given a chance to talk to all superiors of all convents in the Polish Catholic Church. It wasn't what they wanted to hear and I wasn't 'nice'. I was talking about old thinking - redemption through acts, instead of pure faith. Catholicism needs to be transformed, but is a different topic.
@chango70 said:
As such, I have little or no problems with religious belief or religious people. It is religious dogma and its various articulations that gets on my nerves.
Thanks for clarification @mike lucey said:
I viewed a few more talks on TED and can highly recommending listening to Karen Armstrong, ...
Thanks a lot Mike. It is probably a forum I was looking for!
Tomasz
I did not call you a fool, I said that to hold on to old belief in light of new evidence is to exercise bad intellect and perhaps irrational. I do, however, appreciate that intellect isn't the Modus Operanti of Religions so it was more out of irrate need to clarify my own position which I felt misunderstood than intended as an insult. Agnostics don't usually think like this however. Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins belong to the 'Fundamentalist Atheist' camp, whom I have many bone to pick with.
Regarding Culture and Practice. Culture is the one that can be represented and sold. Practice cannot. Practice is always head-bangin' against local constraints and the context which it arose, whereas culture passes on much more freely through modern manufactured artifacts (consumer goods), images (Cosmopolitan) , internet (Youtube) etc. In the society of origin, culture and practice isn't separate. However when you commercially package culture into consumer units, such as Hollywood Blockbusters (on DVD and global transport logistics network) it can flow free of the constraints of cultural practice. I think it is liquification of the flow of culture, isolated from practice (i.e. real everyday context) and enabled by modern consumerism was what Dan Dennett warned against. On the plus side, I conceive of it as a new set of evolutionary constraints which cultures will have to adapt to. It has already produced many 'Novel' cultural, social and technological formations. It is this 'sublimation' of culture from 'solid' (place-oriented) into gaseous-like form that is one of the most-interesting aspect of Globalisation. For me it is not something people should be affraid of. It is just a part of the ebb and flow of the forces of history showing its hand.
-
What people mistunderstand about science is that science isn't a set of self-consistent dogmas or even methodologies (as many mistakenly belief). In fact Paul Feyerabend (most influential Philosopher of Science in later part of 20th Century) in his seminal 'Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge' holds that science works best when it doesn't operate in any rigid methodological framework and the best progress are made when old paradigms are discarded completely or partially (Relativity surpassing Newtonian Physics). Ironically Religious leaders tend to be the same. I don't know of any religious leader that didn't radically contravene the conventions of their own times and often lead to applying radical methodologies that transformed certain social formations as a result. They saw ways out of a stale impasse in society of their own time (Buddha, Jesus etc.). It is ironic that the institutions that claim to represent them and their ideas are so dogmatic and repressive.
-
@solo said:
Tomasz wrote:
@unknownuser said:faith is truth
That's an oxymoron, just like true faith.
Sorry, my English was not precise.
What I meant is: you believe there were dinosaurs because someone has told you, but It doesn't mean you have personally touched its bone or have seen one. Your faith is true (not truth
) as they really existed.I can believe in Love, cos I have experienced its power and if my faith would be truthful, there would be a big chance I would find a scientific proofs that the Love can heal, restore sight and so on.
I could believe that my neighbour dog is a god and he can heal. If it would be true you would hear about it in a low profile TV news.
@chango70 said:
However, faith for me is slightly problematic. Faith for me is a radical suspension of disbelief. 'Truth' for me is NOT absolute but a process of discovery and innovation in thinking and action that leads to renewed understanding based on the best evidence available. Disbelief, is a critical aspect getting to 'Truth'. In this sense I feel the two are incompatible.
Chango, I understand you. I am in a position that I have experienced something that tells me that the story about 'God=Love=Our Father' is reasonably true. I am coming now from an opposite direction. I assume it is the Truth and I am constantly questioning it to find this way a prove it is really true. ' The Immaculate Conception' doesn't bother me cos it does not influence the core of my faith and in this matter is not relevant. It would be a waste of time to argue about it although in the light of my faith I find it possible. If we can do 'in-vitro' why He couldn't have done what Christians claim.
@chango70 said:
It is ironic that the institutions that claim to represent them and their ideas are so dogmatic and repressive.
It is ironic and sad. It happens, because these institutions fail to proclaim what is a core of their teaching and they build new rules, that will bring them to the same point when Jesus had to fight against Jews who had buried one commandment of Love among hundreds of others.
-
I found this great definition on wikipedia about the 'free will' in relation to concept of emergence.
'Determinism and emergent behaviour
In generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will is assumed not to exist.[83][84] However, an illusion of free will is created, within this theoretical context, due to the generation of infinite or computationally complex behaviour from the interaction of a finite set of rules and parameters. Thus, the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity is assumed not to exist.[83][84] In this picture, even if the behavior could be computed ahead of time, no way of doing so will be simpler than just observing the outcome of the brain's own computations.[85]
As an illustration, some strategy board games have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice rolling) occur in the game. Nevertheless, strategy games like chess and especially Go, with its simple deterministic rules, can have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, "emergentists" suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behavior would become predictable.[83][84]
Cellular automata and the generative sciences can model emergent processes of social behavior on this philosophy.[83]'
This is very close to my own thoughts on the subject.
-
Twisted definition Chango. Does it really have to be that complicated?
I can still understand it although it is in English and uses words I don't even use in my native language.
Let me try to simplify your definition - when I make a decision and think it is my own, it is just an option from multiple possibilities, which are limited? In your opinion, we just have an illusion of making a choice, in reality it is 'just' an option. It is what was a discussion in 'Matrix' between Neo and Architect, isn't it?I haven't read about determinism, but from what you have written, it doesn't bother me if the options are limited or not. Still decision is mine. All right, it can be somehow evaluated. You could easily predict what my choice would be, in a certain discussion, based on what you already know about me. I doesn't matter for me and it doesn't mean your prediction would be correct. Am I reading your definition right?
Is it not a false path, trying to enclose our behavior in very rigid frames? I bet in reality they can be broken, although do not expect a prove from me.
Like in 'The Matrix' Love can escape all probabilities, in the way it was not expected by the architect.
I think, in the same way, we can just predict what is happening at a subatomic level, while the Love can make it work as it wants. Changing a water into a wine, in this light, it is just a simple trick.
-
@chango70 said:
@bellwells said:
Pete, faith is not belief without knowledge, it is belief without proof. Subtle but critical distinction.
Ron, any knowledge thats worth two cents can be PROVED! Otherwise its speculation at best, hocus pocus at worst. Do you really think people should lay down their life for speculation? Where is the morality of that? There is this wonderful talk by Dan Dennett on Dangerious Memes http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html which applies to all religions and ideologies. Religion is like a virus or parasite. To use a Deleuzian term, they have the same 'engineering diagram'.
Huh..where did this come from? I'm stating the definition faith. I believe in God, yet I cannot prove his existence. I don't need to. And you don't need to ridicule those who do believe in God. Arrogance and secularism are a virus or parasite.
-
@bellwells said:
@chango70 said:
@bellwells said:
Pete, faith is not belief without knowledge, it is belief without proof. Subtle but critical distinction.
Ron, any knowledge thats worth two cents can be PROVED! Otherwise its speculation at best, hocus pocus at worst. Do you really think people should lay down their life for speculation? Where is the morality of that? There is this wonderful talk by Dan Dennett on Dangerious Memes http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html which applies to all religions and ideologies. Religion is like a virus or parasite. To use a Deleuzian term, they have the same 'engineering diagram'.
Huh..where did this come from? I'm stating the definition faith. I believe in God, yet I cannot prove his existence. I don't need to. And you don't need to ridicule those who do believe in God. Arrogance and secularism are a virus or parasite.
Ron clearly you haven't read my later posts. And I happen to think viruses are marvelous things.
To Quote myself from earlier:
"I feel I need to clarify my position on religion in order not to engender further misunderstanding.
Religion to me is a self-consistent meaning system that generates its own 'equilibrium' through endogenous set of beliefs. Humans are 'meaning-machines' because our mind is trained through language to understand the world through often linear explainations or 'meanings'. The world we live in is however a 'non-linear and dynamic complex system' that produces emergent phenomena which linear causality cannont explain fully. It is actually only in the last century that science started to engage with nonlinear dynamic systems in any meaningful manner. Witness the rise of Complexity theory, System Theory, Emergence, Chaos Theory, Cybernetics, Cellular Automata, Ecology to name a few. We are beginning to understand how complex entities such consciousness might arise from simple physical constructs such as neurons through structural organization and inter-relation of the neural network. It is true that science actually explains very little of the things that give people meaning in life, however it is heading in that direction!
Religions have the benefit of giving people a consistent set of 'meanings' through which enable them to 'interpret' the world around them or act in a consistent manner. However, the price of consistence is DOGMA (Bible quoting by our very own Cornel is one fine example). It is dogma, and the power structure that arise from dogma that get in the ways of different (I.E. Alternatives Religious or Mystical Revelations) and better (more evidence based, i.e. science) systems of explaining the world and they do so often violently.
As such, I have little or no problems with religious belief or religious people. It is religious dogma and its varioius articulations that gets on my nerves."
-
OK, I should have read your previous posts before responding. For me, religion is a private and personal reverence for nature and the nature of things. As I said, I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatic about it. I believe in heaven and I believe I will "see" past loved ones there.
I have to admit I'm confused about the beginning of our universe. It's easier for me to believe in the Big Bang theory than it is for me to believe God waved his hand and....voila! This is where I get stuck. My belief in God cannot rectify or explain this dichotomy. I wonder if my belief system is more consistent with that of the Native American Indians.
-
@bellwells said:
OK, I should have read your previous posts before responding. For me, religion is a private and personal reverence for nature and the nature of things. As I said, I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatic about it. I believe in heaven and I believe I will "see" past loved ones there.
I have to admit I'm confused about the beginning of our universe. It's easier for me to believe in the Big Bang theory than it is for me to believe God waved his hand and....voila! This is where I get stuck. My belief in God cannot rectify or explain this dichotomy. I wonder if my belief system is more consistent with that of the Native American Indians.
The eminant 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas whom many believe is the most important figure in laying the foundation of scientic enquiry in the West have a easy answer for you. He believes that God simply set in motion the chain of event that lead to our reality. He is the prime mover, and do not interfere in our lives. Aquinas believed that truth is known through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). In the dark ages for Europe it was a beacon of light that inspired others to persue truth through reason. He was condemed for his belief in reason and was excommunicated posthumously. God as a prime mover might be interesting to you as that is not inconsistent with Big Bang, as science as of now have no means to speculate about the conditions before big bang and indeed if there is a 'before' (since time was supposed to have been created at the Big Bang).
-
Dear All,
If you feel compelled to contribute to this post, then you probably have no free will. If you can resist the temptation then....
Regards,
Bob
Advertisement