Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

You seem to be putting a lot of faith into the capabilities of emergent properties, which you claim to give us conscious awareness and an illusion of free will.

Is it not the case that it is secular logic which is causing some people to retro fit their concept of reality into pretending that free will is an illusion?

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

[torridon]

If you can produce an animal that can demonstrate belief (or disbelief) in God, I will concede that there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals.

Of course there are distinguishing differences between humans and other creatures, one of them being the capacity for abstract thought; that is why we have an enlarged prefrontal cortex.  There would be no point in having a larger brain if all that human upper cognitive stuff was carried out in a 'soul', leaving all that frontal cortex with nothing to do.

[floo]

If you can produce an animal that can demonstrate belief (or disbelief) in God, I will concede that there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals.

And if you can produce this "God" you believe in, we will concede that he exists.

We have Jesus

Really? Where is the guy then, why isn't he in plain sight instead of hiding up in heaven?

[jakswan]

Is it not the case that it is secular logic which is causing some people to retro fit their concept of reality into pretending that free will is an illusion?

Yeah non-secular logic seems to work well for you, I use magic pixie logic and have made myself great lord champion pixie of the universe.

[Alan Burns]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith in their ability to figure things out for themselves that they have to deny the free will that actually drove the thought processes needed to make that conclusion.

[BeRational]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith in their ability to figure things out for themselves that they have to deny the free will that actually drove the thought processes needed to make that conclusion.

We do not have 'faith', we can see that it works. Faith is what you need when there is no evidence, or you want to believe something 'in spite' of the evidence.

The evidence is that we can work things out to some extent.

[Maeght]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

[Alan Burns]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

Not in this case. 

[BeRational]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

Not in this case.

It must be, as I have not faith in anything.

I have zero faith. I regard faith as pointless and anyone that uses it a fool.

[Alan Burns]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

Not in this case.

It must be, as I have not faith in anything.

I have zero faith. I regard faith as pointless and anyone that uses it a fool.

Every human being has the ability to believe in something which is not directly perceived by their human senses, and for which there may be some evidence which is not conclusive.  Whether we use this ability is, I suppose, a free choice by the individual, but most people would admit that they put their faith in something.

[Outrider]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith in their ability to figure things out for themselves that they have to deny the free will that actually drove the thought processes needed to make that conclusion.

1 - Free Will is an oxymoron. You've still yet to explain how something can be both free from previous events and still qualify as will and not simply random

2 - People do not dismiss free will because we think we'll sort things out without, we dismiss free will because of the lack of any evidence for it. Everything we have any basis for in human cognition is deterministic - to a degree that's because the only reliable methodology we have for understanding our universe presumes determinism, but in the absence of any other methodology we don't dismiss a contention because we hope for something in the future, we dismiss it on the basis that there isn't a strong enough case to support it.

O.

[Outrider]

Every human being has the ability to believe in something which is not directly perceived by their human senses, and for which there may be some evidence which is not conclusive.  Whether we use this ability is, I suppose, a free choice by the individual, but most people would admit that they put their faith in something.

As ever, the common use of words like 'faith', 'belief' and 'trust' don't serve adequately in a philosophical discussion.

Some - and I'm not necessarily including you in the group, AB - deliberately conflate the idea of 'trust' - a reasonable assurance based on previous evidence, such as 'I trust the findings of the scientific community, in the main' - with 'faith' - 'the maintenance of belief in the absence of, or in defiance of, the evidence', such as religious faith.

We do not have 'faith' in science, we accept scientific findings because we trust that the principles have been shown to work over hundreds of years of successful technological application.

All beliefs, and all reasons to believe, are not the same.

O.

[Alan Burns]

We do not have 'faith' in science, we accept scientific findings because we trust that the principles have been shown to work over hundreds of years of successful technological application.

You can accept the findings, but drawing conclusions from these findings is still subject to some speculation.   To assume that free will is an illusion because there is no scientific evidence to show how it works does not mean that free will does not exist.  It just means that science can't define how it works.

[Outrider]

You can accept the findings, but drawing conclusions from these findings is still subject to some speculation.

True - even the findings themselves have to be considered provisional.

To assume that free will is an illusion because there is no scientific evidence to show how it works does not mean that free will does not exist.

No it wouldn't, but that's not what's being done. You're claiming free will, but you aren't providing enough evidence to support it. It could be dismissed purely on the basis that the case hasn't been proven, but in actual fact the preponderence of the evidence makes it unlikely, and the very idea contains fundamental contradictions.

It just means that science can't define how it works.

It doesn't mean that, though it's possible that it does exist and that science can't define how it works. You can't just say 'science doesn't know, therefore it's true', though. If you want to dismiss scientific understanding you have to offer something else that's valid - logical deduction, mathematical proof etc. - or it's just an assertion, and in this instance an assertion that makes no logical sense, and flies in the face of the evidence available, incomplete as it is, and provisional as the conclusions from it must be.

O.

[Alan Burns]

1 - Free Will is an oxymoron. You've still yet to explain how something can be both free from previous events and still qualify as will and not simply random

Free will is not an oxymoron.  It simply describes the human ability to make a conscious choice which is not pre determined by previous events.  If you believe in the human soul, as most people still do, you can accept the ability of the soul to initiate an act of free will.  Of course if you believe that the human body is entirely driven be deterministic events then you have to conclude that free will does not exist.  My own ability to make conscious choices is sufficient evidence for me to believe that I have a soul, which also gives me conscious awareness of my brain activity.  Our current scientific knowledge is not sufficient to define how free will works, but it is also not sufficient to deny that free will exists.

[Alien]

I'm interested to know what an atheist is doing spending several years searching for God. Given Jeremiah 29:13 what is it which confirms your sincerity in your exploits and your conclusion that you have not in fact found God.
Also I am interested in what it is/was that sustained you in your search and finally, given your response you can now laugh at it.

I write as someone who felt attracted to seeking God who, as he got more real and personally relevant, wanted to recoil prior to accepting him.

I never felt any moment of recoil, as you put it, so I can't identify with that. Maybe that is in part because I never felt or encountered anything that seemed personal or real or visceral to recoil from.  My route has been that of someone brought up in a strongly religious home, all strong in the Lord, father a preacher, congregationalist hymn singing and all that, so it was inevitable that I grew up believing in God in the sense that children accept what their parents tell them as true. But I never came to feel any divine external presence in my life nor had any transformational experience such as everyone else around me seemed to have. I had to understand that, and that entailed daring to think outside the box of my upbringing, to work towards an understanding that encompasses the breadth of human experience, not just the born again Christian variety. That's where I am now, still blinking in the daylight, trying to figure stuff out.

In a sense I guess we have that moment of rejection of what we have been told/or led to believe in common. You talked about seeking God. I confess that doesn't come out in your above post....how does the seeking fit in?

Through my teens and twenties, I suppose, the best part of two decades, I was doing that, daily prayer, bible study, fellowship meetings, church attendance etc. By the time I got to my thirties, I was beginning to doubt the whole story, never having had a prayer answered, never having felt any divine presence in the ways that others claimed.  I was beginning to feel like I was praying to a brick wall, how could it be that people like Alan Burns apparently pray and get answers or at least some sort of response almost daily, but I could never elicit anything but complete silence from this God in 20 years ? Where I am now is basically a journey of trying to understand all that and fit in the diverse experiences of other peoples plus what we have learned through research synthesised into a single overarching rationale.

Hiya Torridon,
You are not alone in your quest. Some people I know seem to have lots of specific answers to prayer. Sometimes I think, "Yes, that's great", but at other times I think, "Yes, you have got what you asked for, but would it have happened anyway?" I hope this does not come across as bragging, but a while back a lady at our church was speaking to me about her not being given "pictures" and stuff like that and asked me why I did and she didn't. I said I've never had a "picture" as some people seem to have half a dozen each time they pray. She seemed genuinely shocked.

As I understand it, if God wants to give people such spiritual experiences, then if and when he does it is totally up to him. If that means I never get one, then so be it (see below for a bit of clarification though*). Despite what some people here think I am a highly logical person (psychological tests and some mathematical/verbal reasoning tests at my former employment show this). For me it is much more important to see what the claims of "Mere Christianity" are, to use CS Lewis's phrase. That includes the trustworthiness of the bible, of Jesus and so on. Because I don't "get pictures" does not mean that Jesus did not get raised from the dead. The claims of Christianity depend on whether Jesus was who the NT claims he was and, to be blunt, whether I get answers to prayer which are clearly supernatural will not affect that.

As for transformation experiences, I was nice before I became a Christian and am nice now. Some stuff has changed, but I think the big changes come in people perhaps when they need the biggest changes. Certainly God has got plenty to do in changing me, but I've not had to stop murdering people, sleeping with women other than my wife or whatever. Stuff he does need to do is along the lines of my finances, my time and so on.

Keep on thinking outside the box. It may lead you back to Jesus Christ. As Justin Welby said a while back, "Keep searching for the truth. One day you will bump into Jesus Christ."


* I have had one (strange) experience when a group of us were being prayed for, at a time when I was convinced "stuff" didn't happen to me. It did just that once. Just once in 35+ years as a Christian and it was a bit weird and a bit of a laugh. One Christian tried to convince me it was the "Baptism in the Spirit", but it was not. It just a bit weird and a bit funny.

[Outrider]

Free will is not an oxymoron.  It simply describes the human ability to make a conscious choice which is not pre determined by previous events.

We know that previous events shape our character, that the person we are at the point we make a decision is, at the very least, influenced by our prior experiences.

There is some limited evidence that we inherit personality 'traits', underlying tendencies that shape how we fold experiences into our character.

That's what our character is formed from, according to the evidence: that's deterministic, that's what we inherit. That character is then applied to the situation - which is beyond our immediate control to change - and a resultant conclusion occurs. That's will, and it's not free.

If you were to posit something in there that wasn't determined by prior events, wasn't dependent upon our inherited traits, wasn't a function of that algorithm processing the available data, that would be random, and whilst it might be free how could it be considered will?

You've still not, at least that I've seen, addressed that contradiction.

If you believe in the human soul, as most people still do, you can accept the ability of the soul to initiate an act of free will.

Firstly, why would I accept one unevidenced notion to support another? Secondly, even if you could demonstrate a soul, it's either something you inherit already shaped or it's something that you shape through life - it's input is either random or deterministic, and you still can't escape the understanding that it's either will or it's free, but it can't be both.

Of course if you believe that the human body is entirely driven be deterministic events then you have to conclude that free will does not exist.

That's certainly how it seems to me. Of course, if you believe there's something else... why? For what reason do you think there's a soul?

My own ability to make conscious choices is sufficient evidence for me to believe that I have a soul, which also gives me conscious awareness of my brain activity.

Except that it's demonstrable that at least some of the 'conscious choices' you make are, in fact, not conscious at all, and by the time you're consciously aware of the choice it's already been made. Even if some of them aren't made subconsciously, that's still not a demonstration that will can ever be free. And finally, even consciousness doesn't mandate a soul.

Our current scientific knowledge is not sufficient to define how free will works, but it is also not sufficient to deny that free will exists.

It doesn't need deny that free will exists, you need to make a robust case for free will first, and you've not done so, and neither has anyone else. The conclusions from the available scientific evidence is that consciousness is an emergent property of complex brain activity.

O.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Just following on from Alien's post about strange experiences, I would like to relate one of mine:

In the early seventies I heard a mission appeal at Sunday Mass, one of many in those days, but this one moved me so much that I was inspired to give a £10 donation, which in those days was equivalent to over £100 now.  To avoid embarrassment I tried to fold the note up small so that the collector would not notice it among the coins and £1 notes, but he did notice and gave me a strange look with raised eyebrows.  Though I was unaware at the time, I have since discovered that 15 years later I married the niece of the missionary priest who gave the appeal.  I recognised him from the photos taken in Kenya.  Though it can't be proven, I feel that divine providence was at work.  My wife's uncle was in heaven when I first met her - I feel that he must have put a good word in for me to marry his neice!

[Outrider]

Just following on from Alien's post about strange experiences, I would like to relate one of mine:

In the early seventies I heard a mission appeal at Sunday Mass, one of many in those days, but this one moved me so much that I was inspired to give a £10 donation, which in those days was equivalent to over £100 now.  To avoid embarrassment I tried to fold the note up small so that the collector would not notice it among the coins and £1 notes, but he did notice and gave me a strange look with raised eyebrows.  Though I was unaware at the time, I have since discovered that 15 years later I married the niece of the missionary priest who gave the appeal.  I recognised him from the photos taken in Kenya.  Though it can't be proven, I feel that divine providence was at work.  My wife's uncle was in heaven when I first met her - I feel that he must have put a good word in for me to marry his neice!

Science can't disprove free will, therefore gods, souls and free will.

You can't prove anything more than coincidence, therefore gods (and presumably, free will and souls).

I'm beginning to think this game is rigged!

O.

[wigginhall]

That's nothing - when I was 15, I sat next to a guy on the bus, who, it turned out, was the grocer who my girl-friend's mother used to visit, and who used to give her the odd mango free!  (Not a euphemism).   Well, I'll go to the bottom of the stairs - it makes you think, (not). 

[Maeght]

Just following on from Alien's post about strange experiences, I would like to relate one of mine:

In the early seventies I heard a mission appeal at Sunday Mass, one of many in those days, but this one moved me so much that I was inspired to give a £10 donation, which in those days was equivalent to over £100 now.  To avoid embarrassment I tried to fold the note up small so that the collector would not notice it among the coins and £1 notes, but he did notice and gave me a strange look with raised eyebrows.  Though I was unaware at the time, I have since discovered that 15 years later I married the niece of the missionary priest who gave the appeal.  I recognised him from the photos taken in Kenya.  Though it can't be proven, I feel that divine providence was at work.  My wife's uncle was in heaven when I first met her - I feel that he must have put a good word in for me to marry his neice!

Nice that you believe that. Beyond that - no relevance to the discussion.

[Maeght]

My own ability to make conscious choices is sufficient evidence for me to believe that I have a soul,

No - your belief that you have a soul means you also believe that you have free will. You cannot say whether your choices are conscious and free - no one can as it stands - they may just appear to be so.

[BeRational]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

Not in this case.

It must be, as I have not faith in anything.

I have zero faith. I regard faith as pointless and anyone that uses it a fool.

Every human being has the ability to believe in something which is not directly perceived by their human senses, and for which there may be some evidence which is not conclusive.  Whether we use this ability is, I suppose, a free choice by the individual, but most people would admit that they put their faith in something.

I have zero faith in anything.

[Alien]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

Not in this case.

It must be, as I have not faith in anything.

I have zero faith. I regard faith as pointless and anyone that uses it a fool.

Every human being has the ability to believe in something which is not directly perceived by their human senses, and for which there may be some evidence which is not conclusive.  Whether we use this ability is, I suppose, a free choice by the individual, but most people would admit that they put their faith in something.

I have zero faith in anything.

Including your ability to put forward a logical argument?

[BeRational]

What you call "secular logic," Alan, is what everyone else knows simply as "logic."

ETA: Ooops. I see NS and torridon have said exactly the same thing.

Well, maybe third time lucky - it might sink in now.

OK I admit I made a bad choice of words, but the point I was making is that humans are putting so much faith ......

Another bad choice of words?

Not in this case.

It must be, as I have not faith in anything.

I have zero faith. I regard faith as pointless and anyone that uses it a fool.

Every human being has the ability to believe in something which is not directly perceived by their human senses, and for which there may be some evidence which is not conclusive.  Whether we use this ability is, I suppose, a free choice by the individual, but most people would admit that they put their faith in something.

I have zero faith in anything.

Including your ability to put forward a logical argument?

I have zero faith in anything.

Is this hard to understand.

No one should ever have faith in anything.

Faith is gullibility.