Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No, we absolutely do not have control over our desires.  Our hopes and fears are defacto issues that guide our decision making but we do not have control over them.  When we make a choice, we are merely identifying which option appeals the most in our emotional landscape at the time.  We do not shape that landscape, such a scenario would lead to meaningless chaos in our decision making.

We can't control our hopes, fears or desires.
But we can control our thoughts words and actions.

[Alan Burns]

Indeed but what exactly is it that your consciously driven will uses to make decisions? I put it to you that you make your decisions based on information that you have about the World in which you live either directly from what your senses are telling you or from previous experience and memory or some combination of both. How your mind processes all of that information is based on its structure which is moulded by your past experience and genetics.

The above argument still works even if you try to bring a spiritual dimension into the equation. Spiritual experiences are still experiences and spiritual senses are still senses.

My spirituality exists and acts in the present - the same present in which my conscious awareness exists.  I am not controlled by the past.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Fairly obviously I'd have thought you can show contempt for something when the emergent property you perceive as "you" that is itself a product of biology that is in turn rooted in in the physical world has sufficient complexity to be self-aware, as indeed are various other species of the kingdom to which we belong.

Up until about a couple of hundred years ago people could be forgiven for inventing their various spirits and djinns and whatnots as you do to explain away their perceptions but those days are long gone, or at least they are for thinking people.   

You should try reading "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton to realise just what a thinking person is capable of, and how this capability of thinking distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[torridon]

We can't control our hopes, fears or desires.
But we can control our thoughts words and actions.

Our thoughts words and actions derive from our hopes, fears or desires though.  Can you not see that ?  Any action you take, any word you speak, will be because you wanted to do it or wanted to say it.  And as for thoughts, we are still waiting for an example of how we can control a thought.  The idea makes no sense.  We have thoughts but we don't 'control' them in any fundamental sense.  Thoughts occur.

[torridon]

Not sure what you mean by "we do not shape that landscape". We know from past experience or from information about the experiences of other people, that specific actions will lead to specific feelings, and that those feelings will influence our decisions. We can shape our emotional landscape by choosing to engage in those actions that will result in emotions that lead to what we think are better choices or decisions or experiences.

A moment of choice always happens in the context of your current mind state and we cannot arbitrarily choose what mind state to have at that moment.  Our minds are always in motion, there is never a ground zero benchmark, our choices reflect where we are at at the moment of making a choice.  What feels important to me now, might not feel important tomorrow.

[Roses]

You should try reading "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton to realise just what a thinking person is capable of, and how this capability of thinking distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Apes can think and be taught to recognise words and do multiplication, so I was reading just now. The human animal, is more advanced, but that is all.

[Gordon]

You should try reading "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton to realise just what a thinking person is capable of, and how this capability of thinking distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Glanced through it a few years ago - it s just another example of anthropocentric Christian apologetics.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A moment of choice always happens in the context of your current mind state and we cannot arbitrarily choose what mind state to have at that moment.  Our minds are always in motion, there is never a ground zero benchmark, our choices reflect where we are at at the moment of making a choice.  What feels important to me now, might not feel important tomorrow.

I don't think the idea is to arbitrarily choose a mind state since arbitrarily choosing something implies there is no reason for it and one aspect of being human is our ability to reason.

I think the idea is your self-awareness allows you to recognise that your genetic predisposition, your environment and your behaviour heavily influence or are determinants of your mind state so you control your environment and your behaviour to generate a mind state that you want aspire to be in, which then leads to you making different decisions from the one you would have made if you had been in a different mind state. A simple example is the different choices people make when they are under the influence of alcohol compared to when they are not under the influence of alcohol, and that could include something as straightforward as speed of thinking and reflexes or loss of balance or something more complex such as loosening of inhibitions or increased aggression or recklessness or loss of control of your emotions.

One of the ways of controlling your environment and behaviour is through religion - if you decide to adopt one. It gives you structure and rituals and practices and behavioural controls and behavioural aspirations. It also gives you a way to influence your emotional state through belief in the supernatural. Hence many thinking people follow a religion and the supernatural belief that goes with it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You should try reading "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton to realise just what a thinking person is capable of, and how this capability of thinking distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.

A story of Christian apologetics that makes the same errors in reasoning that you do (“we’re unusual, therefore goddidit”)? I explained all this to you way back and at some length, but as always you just ignored the explanation so you could repeat the mistake later on. Why?

Our differences from other species don’t “distinguish” us at all in the fundamental way you fondly imagine them to – that’s just more of your faithbabble at work.

Have you forgotten by the way that you’ve now exited even the pretence of a discussion? You told us a while back that the menagerie of spooks you’ve conjured up (“soul”, “Satan” etc) is necessary to make sense of the way you view the world. Even you should be able to see that this is backwards thinking – you start with your conclusion and then force into existence the premises you need to validate it. That’s the moment just there when you finally ran out of road remember?       

[Alan Burns]

Have you forgotten by the way that you’ve now exited even the pretence of a discussion? You told us a while back that the menagerie of spooks you’ve conjured up (“soul”, “Satan” etc) is necessary to make sense of the way you view the world. Even you should be able to see that this is backwards thinking – you start with your conclusion and then force into existence the premises you need to validate it. That’s the moment just there when you finally ran out of road remember?       

I start with recognising what we are, what we do and in particular our mental capability to think, analyse and conclude.  I presume many humans in history have done the same.  I then analyse my perception of myself in material terms, and realise that what I perceive with my physical senses, together with what has been discovered by human investigation cannot possibly produce the reality within myself because I have a freedom which can't be defined within the physically predetermined behaviour of material elements.

You, on the other hand, start with what you perceive with your physical senses, together with what has been discovered by human investigation and then try to imagine how the reality of your own being can fit in with this perceived material world.  And in trying to do this you have to sacrifice your obvious freedom to think (which ironically you have had to use to reach this conclusion) and presume that it is only a perceived freedom.

[torridon]

I start with recognising what we are, what we do and in particular our mental capability to think, analyse and conclude.  I presume many humans in history have done the same.  I then analyse my perception of myself in material terms, and realise that what I perceive with my physical senses, together with what has been discovered by human investigation cannot possibly produce the reality within myself because I have a freedom which can't be defined within the physically predetermined behaviour of material elements.

What makes you think that ?

Your sentence is stuffed with straw men.  No one is arguing for 'predetermined'.  No one (apart from you) is introducing the irrelevance of 'physical'.  Eliminate your dependence on these red herrings, then explain what makes you think that the freedom you feel is inexplicable in natural terms.

[torridon]

I don't think the idea is to arbitrarily choose a mind state since arbitrarily choosing something implies there is no reason for it and one aspect of being human is our ability to reason.

I think the idea is your self-awareness allows you to recognise that your genetic predisposition, your environment and your behaviour heavily influence or are determinants of your mind state so you control your environment and your behaviour to generate a mind state that you want aspire to be in, which then leads to you making different decisions from the one you would have made if you had been in a different mind state. A simple example is the different choices people make when they are under the influence of alcohol compared to when they are not under the influence of alcohol, and that could include something as straightforward as speed of thinking and reflexes or loss of balance or something more complex such as loosening of inhibitions or increased aggression or recklessness or loss of control of your emotions.

One of the ways of controlling your environment and behaviour is through religion - if you decide to adopt one. It gives you structure and rituals and practices and behavioural controls and behavioural aspirations. It also gives you a way to influence your emotional state through belief in the supernatural. Hence many thinking people follow a religion and the supernatural belief that goes with it.

I don't see how I could 'adopt' a belief.  I believe something if I find it convincing.  Adopting a belief sounds like head games to me, a form of self-deception, a pretence of belief in the hope that the practice of it will yield psychological benefits.

[Alan Burns]

What makes you think that ?

Perhaps it is my God given freedom to think.

It is certainly not a consequence of uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

[Roses]

Perhaps it is my God given freedom to think.

It is certainly not a consequence of uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

It is a consequence of nature, there is no evidence a god has an input.

[torridon]

Perhaps it is my God given freedom to think.

It is certainly not a consequence of uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

See, immediately you resort to your fall back cliches - 'uncontrollable', 'physical', 'predefined'.   

Try again, why cannot the freedom you perceive be a consequence of nature ?   Explain it from first principals.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't see how I could 'adopt' a belief.  I believe something if I find it convincing.  Adopting a belief sounds like head games to me, a form of self-deception, a pretence of belief in the hope that the practice of it will yield psychological benefits.

I think you can adopt a religion, rather than a belief. A religion is more than a belief as it involves ethics and values and rituals and stories with a counter-intuitive supernatural element.

I agree you have to find the belief in the possibility of a supernatural concept convincing in order to progress to adopting the religion. I think it's similar to finding it a convincing belief that we can all be part of one community with shared morals or values and then investing your time trying to build a society based on that belief, with institutions and rituals and ethics and norms of behaviour to foster that belief. It's a hope to build on, rather than something that has been objectively verified through repeated demonstrable testing. But as there is no clear definition of the concept it can form the basis for a wide variety of practices and communities and societies, which often then come into conflict with each other.

[Alan Burns]

See, immediately you resort to your fall back cliches - 'uncontrollable', 'physical', 'predefined'.   

Try again, why cannot the freedom you perceive be a consequence of nature ?   Explain it from first principals.

Material reactions are controlled and defined by the laws of physics - not me.

[SusanDoris]

Perhaps it is my God given freedom to think.

It is certainly not a consequence of uncontrollable physically predefined reactions.

Perhaps it is your arrogance in thinkin that you know better than all those in the worlds of science who have worked without the stultifying blinkers of God belief.

Your presumption that you know better and because of that, what you believe *must be* trueis unbelievably complacent.

[SusanDoris]

I think you can adopt a religion, rather than a belief. A religion is more than a belief as it involves ethics and values and rituals and stories with a counter-intuitive supernatural element.

I agree you have to find the belief in the possibility of a supernatural concept convincing in order to progress to adopting the religion.

I certainly wouldn't call that progress! I'd call it regression!

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps it is your arrogance in thinkin that you know better than all those in the worlds of science who have worked without the stultifying blinkers of God belief.

Your presumption that you know better and because of that, what you believe *must be* trueis unbelievably complacent.

My presumptions are confirmed by the truly awesome achievements by those who use their gift of freedom to think and investigate the world we live in.  Achievements which would be impossible if they were entirely a consequence of uncontrollable physically predefined brain activity.

[Sebastian Toe]

My presumptions are confirmed by the truly awesome achievements by those who use their gift of freedom to think and investigate the world we live in.  Achievements which would be impossible if they were entirely a consequence of uncontrollable physically predefined brain activity.

....and yet, there you are again, demonstrating  the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I certainly wouldn't call that progress! I'd call it regression!

I meant "progress" as in religion is a development of a belief in a particular supernatural concept.

But in the sense that you mean it as, for you, your experience of religion might be regression, for me my experience of religion was progress, and anything I didn't consider progress I did not continue with. We're all individuals and use practices and concepts in different ways to improve the quality of our lives as we perceive it.

[torridon]

Material reactions are controlled and defined by the laws of physics - not me.

another simplistic, one line assertion.  Either you are unable or unwilling to engage in concepts in anything other than the most superficial way it seems.

If I control, or manipulate something, does the only explanation for that have to lie in supernatural power ?  I can fashion a flint stone into a spearhead - does that mean that I must be breaking natural law ?

[Alan Burns]

See, immediately you resort to your fall back cliches - 'uncontrollable', 'physical', 'predefined'.   

Try again, why cannot the freedom you perceive be a consequence of nature ?   Explain it from first principals.

By using the term "the freedom you perceive" you are obviously implying that my perception of freedom is an illusion, because everything in our material universe comprises unavoidable reactions to past events, apart perhaps from some indeterminate quantum events which have no discernable cause.  The problem I have with your scenario is that the freedom I perceive is demonstrably real.  It is real because it allows me the conscious freedom to deliberately contradict your theories.  Can you define an ultimate cause for this deliberation?  Is there a naughty electron in my brain which is responsible?  If not, what is ultimately responsible for my deliberate choice to contradict your theories?  Your physically predetermined scenario has an ultimate cause which disappears into the oblivion of endless chains of cause and effect.  I believe the only feasible explanation for my freedom must emanate from a consciously driven power to invoke the cause of a series of physical events.  Of course if you try to define this consciously driven power in material terms you inevitably revert back to endless chains of physically predefined cause and effect in which there can be no freedom.

[Alan Burns]

another simplistic, one line assertion.  Either you are unable or unwilling to engage in concepts in anything other than the most superficial way it seems.

If I control, or manipulate something, does the only explanation for that have to lie in supernatural power ?  I can fashion a flint stone into a spearhead - does that mean that I must be breaking natural law ?

God or humans do not break natural laws - they consciously interact with them using the power of freewill to interact - not just react.