Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

But the belief as to what is true applies to the belief of what action one wants to take, as one would believe that want to be true. You haven't presented any case in the qualitative difference in belief you are being forced to defend because of you illogical position.

But I do not have to believe in an action in order to do it.  I know I can do it without making a conscious act of believing in it.

[Nearly Sane]

But I do not have to believe in an action in order to do it.  I know I can do it without making a conscious act of believing in it.

You have to believe that it is true that you want to do the action. Inserting the word 'in' doesn't get you out of this. I don't believe 'in' Paris being the capital of France.

[Nearly Sane]

I am currently reading an interesting response to Sam Harris written by Kurt Keefner, an atheist who does believe in free will.  It is fascinating to look at the mental gymnastics needed to try to explain our perception of free will, but ultimately the materialists are limited to what the laws of science can do to the atoms and molecules in our brains.  Not much scope for freedom there.

Keefner makes a couple of reasonable points about Harris's position but also caricatures some of it, and somewhat bizarrely seems to claim that no atheist can agree with anything Descartes, and presumably any theist says, because he was a Christian.


There is no real argument provided  for free will, other tgan, it feels like it. Again bizarrely he claims it cannot be proved but it can be observed. Apart from the cop out of the misuse of the term proof here, it also  uses your favourite Assertatron technique.


Overall, it seems a very weak piece.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My faith is certainly not based on guesswork.  It is rooted firmly in the profound revelations and wisdom of the New Testament.  I would advise anyone who finds the materialist explanations for their existence to be lacking credibility to start reading the New Testament.

But how do you test your personal conviction that the NT does contain "profound revelations and wisdom"? Absent a method of any kind to verify these claims, all you have is the same evidential basis for your belief as countless others have found in countless other texts entirely.

The materialism you so airily dismiss had had profound successes that all of us can recognise as inter-subjective experiences: 'planes fly, drugs cure etc. Then on the other hand there's your particular suite of beliefs in the non-material that you can test and validate...well...how exactly?

You can assert "profound revelations and wisdom of the New Testament" all you wish but, when you do, you give the rest of us no choice but to conclude, "l see old Alan's just guessing again then".

And no, before you plunge down that route again, just reeling out a series of logical fallacies in response helps you not a jot with that I'm afraid.

[Outrider]

I would think that the content of the last few pages of this thread aptly demonstrates the ability of the members of this forum to excercise their ability of free thinking.

Thinking, yes. 'Free' thinking - free from what?

We think of a response, perhaps having several possible responses in our head, then we use our will power to type out the response we have chosen to make.

Or, our brains at that moment, under the hormonal influences of that particular moment in time, perform the only 'calculation' they can, and come to a conclusion. It's the exercise of will, absolutely, but it is not free of the inherited nature and sequence of experiential events that have shaped that brain to be in that precise state at that precise moment.

Just what more is needed to demonstrate our freedom to choose?

An explanation of how the brain is somehow independent of prior events, or an explanation of what apart from the brain is involved, and an explanation of how something can be independent of prior events without being random.

O.

[Outrider]

It is fascinating to look at the mental gymnastics needed to try to explain our perception of free will, but ultimately the materialists are limited to what the laws of science can do to the atoms and molecules in our brains.

Well, if we're right of course, we're all limited to the possibilities of 'mere' atoms and energy. Of course, all you have to do to demonstrate that we're wrong is adequately demonstrate something that's non-material...

Not much scope for freedom there.

No, but we don't discount the conclusion because we don't like its implications, we discount the conclusion if evidence is presented that counters it. I don't like the idea that we don't have free will - and on a day-to-day basis, just like everyone else, I continue to live my life as though I do. My not liking the conclusion, though, doesn't impact on its validity in the slightest.

The possibilities at the moment are an entirely deterministic universe, or one where elements of randomness come forth from quantum effects to 'disrupt' an otherwise mechanistic reality - there's no reason to presume there's something else to throw into the mix.

O.

[Outrider]

I was implying that we cannot choose what we believe to be true.  I believe that I can hit the letter "y" on the keyboard, but I still need an act of free will to hit it.

Why does that require an act of free will and not merely will? What is it that you think that act is free from?

O.

[Outrider]

But I do not have to believe in an action in order to do it.  I know I can do it without making a conscious act of believing in it.

Belief is not a conscious act.

O.

[Alan Burns]

So no methodology then.

And of course given you always admitting that you cannot choose to believe what you think is true, it's not even a guess.

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.  The act of reading it will be a conscious choice, but the consequences could be a profound revelation of the truth, and (warning) it could change your life!

[Shaker]

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.

No it can't.

[Nearly Sane]

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.  The act of reading it will be a conscious choice, but the consequences could be a profound revelation of the truth, and (warning) it could change your life!

More assertions. Also I have read the NT a number of times, it's in general a ludicrous mishmash of nonsense with a couple of reasonable pieces of moral guidance, and a number of pieces of abhorrent moral guidance.

[SusanDoris]

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.  The act of reading it will be a conscious choice, but the consequences could be a profound revelation of the truth, and (warning) it could change your life!

Why do you think that the human thoughts expressed in the NT are more profound than those ofpeople today who have the advantages of vastly increased knowledge acquired during the past two thousand years?

[wigginhall]

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.  The act of reading it will be a conscious choice, but the consequences could be a profound revelation of the truth, and (warning) it could change your life!

But reading your stuff will probably increase hostility to Christianity, because of the poverty-stricken nature of your arguments, and also the dishonesty that you show.   Result!

[Outrider]

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.

Possibly. How would we verify that it's any more 'truth' than, say, the Qu'ran? Or the Book of Moron?

The act of reading it will be a conscious choice, but the consequences could be a profound revelation of the truth, and (warning) it could change your life!

Which is equally true of any work of literature, which can give insights that change your outlook. You're suggesting - I feel - that the New Testament is somehow something more than this, but you've given us no means by which we can test the conclusions we come to, nor any explanation why so many different people who've read it have come to so many differing conclusions.

O.

[ekim]

yes people mean different things by 'freedom'; clearly a human has more degrees of freedom than a bonobo who has more degrees of freedom than a squirrel who has more degrees of freedom than an ant who has more degrees of freedom than a bean plant who has more degrees of freedom than a pebble. It is our feeling of agency which is at the heart of the common notion of free will, the freedom to override ancient instinctive behaviours with more nuanced and insightful ones. Thus when humiliated by my teacher in front of the whole class my instinctive reaction is to punch him on the nose; this is an ancient behavioural response, hundreds of millions of years old.  But being human, I can think up better revenges, so I go out at night and let his car tyres down, knowing there will be no come back from that. This is human agency, our ability to bring greater depth of consideration to our choices, and this is perhaps only 200,000 years old. Having said all that. at a more fundamental level, all choices are made using deterministic biological computing mechanisms, so cannot be truly and ultimately 'free'; at that level of analysis, the word 'free' ceases to have a real meaning.

Some religious practices are about aspiring to freedom from the past accumulation of instinctive and emotional drives (psyche) which operate below the threshold of consciousness.  They don't assume that free will or free choice is a given but more something to attain and is more about setting the consciousness free from its attachments to the psyche's contents (in the case of your teacher episode, it would have been about freedom from the desire for revenge rather than about fine tuning it).  The Christian psyche (soul) is often associated with or symbolised by the heart and so only the pure of heart can experience heaven, a 'heart' purified of its contents.  As regards your last sentence, biology is supposed to be the study of 'bios' ... life, another of those words which seems ill defined, and it appears to be more about the study of life forms.
A couple of Jesus sayings, to link it to this thread, ... 'I have come that you may have life more abundantly' and 'unless you become as a small child again' ... if you look at the liveliness of a small child (before mobile phones and computers) and then look at the parents, the difference in vitality could be related to their attachment to burdensome contents of the psyche.   Let go, for free flow.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Reading the New Testament can be a doorway to discovering the truth.

Thank you for your personal opinion on the matter. Now then, how would you propose that anyone test this claim? Indeed, what method did you use to test this claim for your personal satisfaction?

What for example makes you think even that there is the truth, rather than truth statements that are probabilistically more true than others?

The act of reading it will be a conscious choice, but the consequences could be a profound revelation of the truth, and (warning) it could change your life!

Unlikely given the odd mish-mash of early moral philosophy, patchy history and how-to instructions it contains but it does seem to have changed yours so there's clearly an audience for it I guess. 

[Alan Burns]

Why do you think that the human thoughts expressed in the NT are more profound than those ofpeople today who have the advantages of vastly increased knowledge acquired during the past two thousand years?

Increased knowledge, perhaps, but certainly not increased wisdom.

[SusanDoris]

Increased knowledge, perhaps, but certainly not increased wisdom.

I disagree of course. I doubt very much if you could quote a piece of wisdom from 2,000 years ago which is more profound than or superior to, for instance, some of the wisdom which can be read here on this forum.

[Alan Burns]

Possibly. How would we verify that it's any more 'truth' than, say, the Qu'ran? Or the Book of Moron?

Which is equally true of any work of literature, which can give insights that change your outlook. You're suggesting - I feel - that the New Testament is somehow something more than this, but you've given us no means by which we can test the conclusions we come to, nor any explanation why so many different people who've read it have come to so many differing conclusions.

O.

I was lucky to be born into a Christian family, so I have had exposure to Christian literature and practices for most of my life.  Unlike many of my peer group, I embraced Christianity and started growing in my faith, particularly from my mid twenties.  As my interest in religion grew, I looked at other faiths but found them lacking the core foundation of my Christian faith which makes God the centre of my life.  Throughout my spiritual journey, I constantly felt it was God calling me into an ever increasing relationship.  Like many fellow Christians I felt I was not actively seeking God, but was called by Him.  I believe the other religions are genuine efforts by humans to seek God, but my Christian faith came about by God seeking me.

[Alan Burns]

I disagree of course. I doubt very much if you could quote a piece of wisdom from 2,000 years ago which is more profound than or superior to, for instance, some of the wisdom which can be read here on this forum.

I can start with this commentary on King Solomon's story from 2,500 years ago:

When the Lord invited the new king to ask for whatever his heart desired, the response was memorable. Solomon did not ask for personal enrichment, safety, or longevity but for the tools he would need to be what God had called him to be. “Now, Lord God, please keep your promise to David my father, for you have made me king over a people as numerous as the dust of the earth! Give me wisdom and knowledge to rule them properly, for who is able to govern this great nation of yours?” (1:9-10). So unusual was Solomon’s request that the Lord not only commended him and gave him what he asked for, but also showered him with unsolicited bonuses.

[ippy]

I was lucky to be born into a Christian family, so I have had exposure to Christian literature and practices for most of my life.  Unlike many of my peer group, I embraced Christianity and started growing in my faith, particularly from my mid twenties.  As my interest in religion grew, I looked at other faiths but found them lacking the core foundation of my Christian faith which makes God the centre of my life.  Throughout my spiritual journey, I constantly felt it was God calling me into an ever increasing relationship.  Like many fellow Christians I felt I was not actively seeking God, but was called by Him.  I believe the other religions are genuine efforts by humans to seek God, but my Christian faith came about by God seeking me.

You're living in a very strange world Alan, unfortunately you're far from being on your own.

ippy 

[SusanDoris]

I can start with this commentary on King Solomon's story from 2,500 years ago:

When the Lord invited the new king to ask for whatever his heart desired, the response was memorable. Solomon did not ask for personal enrichment, safety, or longevity but for the tools he would need to be what God had called him to be. “Now, Lord God, please keep your promise to David my father, for you have made me king over a people as numerous as the dust of the earth! Give me wisdom and knowledge to rule them properly, for who is able to govern this great nation of yours?” (1:9-10). So unusual was Solomon’s request that the Lord not only commended him and gave him what he asked for, but also showered him with unsolicited bonuses.

So why is that biblical quote, which of course is someone's idea of what some king might have said, more profound than straightforward good advice given to youngsters growing up which will help them to keep the golden rule and live a good life?

Solomon would have been really wise had he rejected any idea of there being a God in the first place!

[Alan Burns]

You're living in a very strange world Alan, unfortunately you're far from being on your own.

ippy

It may seem strange to you, ippy, but to me it is the most natural way of existence imaginable.

[Alan Burns]

So why is that biblical quote, which of course is someone's idea of what some king might have said, more profound than straightforward good advice given to youngsters growing up which will help them to keep the golden rule and live a good life?

Because it emphasises the great value of using your gifts to be of service to others, rather than the modern emphasis on self centred personal development.

[Nearly Sane]

So why is that biblical quote, which of course is someone's idea of what some king might have said, more profound than straightforward good advice given to youngsters growing up which will help them to keep the golden rule and live a good life?

Solomon would have been really wise had he rejected any idea of there being a God in the first place!

since the Golden Rule predates Christianity, I am not sure what it has to do with wisdom now being better?