Searching for GOD...

[Robbie]

Words like ‘soul’ and ‘spiritual’ do make sense to me because they describe the part of us that thinks and feels, the part that dreams big, creates music, falls in love. It’s the part that still needs once all the physical stuff is taken care of. It’s the awe I feel at a starry sky or a meadow.

And as far as I can tell it’ll die with me.

I'm in sympathy with your view Rhi.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella,

It’s “problematic” when lies are taught to children, not that there's a diversity of beliefs.

I happen to think that teaching lies to children is a bad idea. If you don’t, then so be it.

The fact that this has been going on for thousands of years from a privileged standpoint and  virtually unchallenged except by the isolated few with only letters as a means to exchange views with others over lengthy times, has really only come to light during the second half of my life, and that is grim.

[Dicky Underpants]

Nietsche inspired a notorious murder in America in the 1920s, and was the Nazi's favourite philosopher.

If only the Nazis had read all of Nietzsche, instead of his cast-off jottings that N's sister cobbled together and called "The Will to Power". It might have caused a degree of mental stimulation leading to a moral crisis - especially when Nietzsche wrote "I wish all anti-semites could be shot".
You don't sound as though you've read all of Nietzsche either. I don't regard N as my guiding star, but he's not so easily written off, especially with (you're really going to love this) spurious argumenta ad consequentiam.

[Rhiannon]

Ideas aren’t dangerous. People are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Ideas aren’t dangerous. People are.

Hmmmm... Not sure about that - feels a bit like the "guns aren't dangerous, people are" line. What makes (some at least) people dangerous if not for the ideas they've absorbed?

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Hmmmm... Not sure about that - feels a bit like the "guns aren't dangerous, people are" line. What makes (some at least) people dangerous if not for the ideas they've absorbed?

So where do you want the line drawn here? Ideas don’t kill people. Guns kill people. We’re getting into the ‘religion makes good people do bad things’ bullshit here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

So where do you want the line drawn here? Ideas don’t kill people. Guns kill people. We’re getting into the ‘religion makes good people do bad things’ bullshit here.

I don't know where I want to draw the line. I merely suggest that ideas can be dangerous when for example they involve convincing children to blow people up in exchange for a one-way ticket to heaven.

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

I don't know where I want to draw the line. I merely suggest that ideas can be dangerous when for example they involve convincing children to blow people up in exchange for a one-way ticket to heaven.

But that is people doing the convincing, isn’t it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

But that is people doing the convincing, isn’t it?

Yes, but that just gives you an infinite regress - what convinced them etc? It's clearly the case that, without certain ideas, certain bad things wouldn't have happened though. I don't have an axe to grind here, I just think its not as simple as "Ideas aren't dangerous. People are" as you suggest.

[ippy]

The rather dark moves made by various organisations to take advantage of the well known vulnerability of pre seven year old children has to figure, i m o.

ippy

[wigginhall]

Words like ‘soul’ and ‘spiritual’ do make sense to me because they describe the part of us that thinks and feels, the part that dreams big, creates music, falls in love. It’s the part that still needs once all the physical stuff is taken care of. It’s the awe I feel at a starry sky or a meadow.

And as far as I can tell it’ll die with me.

I think this is fine, and 'soul' is used by many people in this way.   But it's quite different from AB's ideas, which seem to mean that the soul actually causes my thoughts and feelings, or my state of mind.   As I said earlier, this is quite a horrific idea, as it means, for example, when I'm  feeling anxious or down, that my soul is inducing that.   This seems quite sadistic on the part of the soul, and also of course, induces the regression problem - what is that causes the soul to do this to me?         

[Alan Burns]

So you avoided answering the question again, using your trademark evasiveness.

Try again :  how exactly could a 'human soul', or anything, for that matter,  arrive at a final choice that was not determined by some or other clinching factor without being random ?  If there is some or other factor that resolves the choice then that is the determining factor; if there is no such determining factor then the choices is by definition, random.

Just saying it is a 'spiritual' mechanism will not turn something impossible into something doable.  All you imply is that a human soul is impossible.

You can't shackle the free will of the spirit in the same endless physical cause and effect scenario which takes away any concept of freedom.  A conscious choice is a cause in itself.  After consciously considering options we are able to initiate a consciously invoked choice. 

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi,

Yes, but that just gives you an infinite regress - what convinced them etc? It's clearly the case that, without certain ideas, certain bad things wouldn't have happened though. I don't have an axe to grind here, I just think its not as simple as "Ideas aren't dangerous. People are" as you suggest.

No, there isn't an infinite regress here as Rhiannon sees it as an internal part of humanity. 'Without certain ideas' is a meaningless idea if you don't think that ideas can be created externally, and you don't.

[torridon]

You can't shackle the free will of the spirit in the same endless physical cause and effect scenario which takes away any concept of freedom.  A conscious choice is a cause in itself.  After consciously considering options we are able to initiate a consciously invoked choice.

Something must sway the choice one way or another.  If there isn't, then the choice is a meaningless random event that disregards the relevant considerations.  This is really quite simple.

[Alan Burns]

Sorry if this has already been covered Alan but when you say physically induced determinism do you mean our nature/nurture?  I think my choices are determined by nature/nurture inputs - whether I choose to do X or Y or Z, those choices are available to me because of where I live, my past experiences, my environment, my abilities, the way my body and mind function to perceive my nature/ nurture, which induces the beliefs, morals, values I hold about the world around me and the way I think I should interact with it.

Is there a difference between the nature/ nurture scenario above and a spiritually induced human consciousness that makes choices?

Of course our choices are influenced by nature/ nurture, but not entirely dictated by them.  We all have freedom to consciously choose how, when and if to respond.  The awareness of our spiritual soul has the final say.

[Alan Burns]

Something must sway the choice one way or another.  If there isn't, then the choice is a meaningless random event that disregards the relevant considerations.  This is really quite simple.

Yes it is quite simple - it is the conscious will of the human soul which has the power to invoke a choice, and it is certainly not random.

[Alan Burns]

Ideas aren’t dangerous. People are.

It is people's gift of free will which is dangerous, because we all have the freedom to choose between good and evil.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

It’s “problematic” when lies are taught to children, not that there's a diversity of beliefs.

I happen to think that teaching lies to children is a bad idea. If you don’t, then so be it.

As I said I think teaching beliefs to children - interpretations of experiences and personal perspectives - is part of being human. If you want to label these interpretations and perspectives as "lies" so be it. I don't intend to generalise that teaching children beliefs or "lies" if you prefer to call them that, is problematic.

I think some beliefs can be problematic. I also think some generalisations - you can call generalisations "lies" as well if you prefer - can be problematic.

For example certain beliefs about the superiority of liberal democracies can cause people to turn a blind eye to the exploitation and the export of death and destruction that those liberal democracies have inflicted on foreign communities.

Possibly it can be useful to look at the number of people negatively affected by a belief in order to form an opinion on how problematic that belief is. Having said that it is often impossible to quantify the negative impact of a particular belief as it is impossible to isolate the cause and effect to single beliefs.

I don't really have the data to decide if interpreting experiences to form a belief in a soul is particularly problematic. On the other hand I could quantify to some extent the negative impact of a belief that it is morally justified in certain circumstances to bomb innocent people to achieve political aims - whether that is the political aims of terrorists or governments. And yet it seems part of being human that people continue to teach children beliefs that justify such actions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course our choices are influenced by nature/ nurture, but not entirely dictated by them.  We all have freedom to consciously choose how, when and if to respond.  The awareness of our spiritual soul has the final say.

Not sure if you mean that out of the limited choices available to us due to the constraints of nature/nurture, you believe your soul picks one of those limited choices?

[torridon]

Yes it is quite simple - it is the conscious will of the human soul which has the power to invoke a choice, and it is certainly not random.

Well it certainly will be random if it does not reflect the relevant considerations.

[torridon]

It is people's gift of free will which is dangerous, because we all have the freedom to choose between good and evil.

If this was all created by a God he would eliminate evil anyway so that would be one less thing to worry about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I think this is fine, and 'soul' is used by many people in this way.   But it's quite different from AB's ideas, which seem to mean that the soul actually causes my thoughts and feelings, or my state of mind.   As I said earlier, this is quite a horrific idea, as it means, for example, when I'm  feeling anxious or down, that my soul is inducing that.   This seems quite sadistic on the part of the soul, and also of course, induces the regression problem - what is that causes the soul to do this to me?

         

Quite so. Fortunate then that it’s all madder than a monkey on a tricycle. An irony here (that’ll therefore be lost on AB) is that his argumetum ad consequentiam rests on the notion that we’d be just “puppets of nature” or some such, apparently oblivious to the problem that his alternative would just make us “puppets” of these supposed “souls” instead. Kind, generous, murderous, hasteful, whatever – these behaviours would all then be just these souls acting out their various psychodramas by pulling on the levers in some mysterious way that make the puppet “us” act them out.

It’s weird, weird stuff but there it is nonetheless.

[torridon]

You can't shackle the free will of the spirit in the same endless physical cause and effect scenario which takes away any concept of freedom. 

If you unhinge will from cause and effect then you unhinge it from all meaning.  You end up with a random meaningless world.  You wouldn't like it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, there isn't an infinite regress here as Rhiannon sees it as an internal part of humanity. 'Without certain ideas' is a meaningless idea if you don't think that ideas can be created externally, and you don't.

No, the infinite regress comes from every predecessor also acting out an idea in his or her head. “I’ll kill him because he’s from a different tribe” is still an idea, however crude.

Just out of interest do you buy then the line, “guns don’t kill people; people do” or do you see guns as existentially problematic?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

No, the infinite regress comes from every predecessor also acting out an idea in his or her head. “I’ll kill him because he’s from a different tribe” is still an idea, however crude.

Just out of interest do you buy then the line, “guns don’t kill people; people do” or do you see guns as existentially problematic?

false dichotomy