Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I guess if you consider free will a function solely of consciousness that might be the case. But as I explained above I personally don't believe that.
Besides we obviously don't 'just do things'. There's a clear relationship between the stimulus of the external world and our reactions. Our actions in the world are not purely random, or just one of a number of pre-programmed events. We're can learn new things and adapt. Even if our conscious mind isn't solely responsible, some part of our mind is.
How does any of that mean we have free will?
Harris typically isn't very effective in those short TV interviews since his arguments have so many nuances and points, so a lot of it tends to get misunderstood or interpreted the wrong way. Someone like Hitchens was much better at that stuff. So it's not hard to understand how people could get a negative image of him based on those appearances. I barely knew who he was before I saw the clash with Affleck on Maher's show and was intrigued by it, and have spent a lot of time this last month reading his articles and watching debates and stuff on youtube, and the more I see of him, the better I understand his argument.
I thought his second interview with Lawrence O'Donnell was pretty good though
I thought his second interview with Lawrence O'Donnell was pretty good though
If "I" am every part of my mind, and my mind is making a choice, how am "I" not making that choice?
You're arguing against some kind of predestination rather than for free will.
It all depends what you mean by free will. In the ultimate sense we are all influenced by our biology, experience and external factors so that almost any decision, choice or action isn't going to entirely "free". So what? We can endeavor to make our choices as logical as possible while accepting our limitations. This isn't a reason to abandon logic just because true free will doesn't really exist.
The term "free will" makes no sense , except you hold a dualistic view of the world, where some kind of god gave humans a special spark (=soul).
that sentence makes no sense at all. Either the will is free or its not. If you acknowledge any influence on a decision at all, there is no true free will left. The concept of free will is an absolute. Thats not a big deal so. The term "will" still does make sense; at least for now. The mind is a process which constantly reflects on its past in loops. The mind puts its own thoughts into consideration and it makes sense to call that will. Its just not free....it just is.
that sentence makes no sense at all. Either the will is free or its not. If you acknowledge any influence on a decision at all, there is no true free will left. The concept of free will is an absolute. Thats not a big deal so. The term "will" still does make sense; at least for now. The mind is a process which constantly reflects on its past in loops. The mind puts its own thoughts into consideration and it makes sense to call that will. Its just not free....it just is.
Thanks, I'll give that a listen to on my dinner. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of him but what I did see he came across as a cnut, intolerant and hiding behind the notion of 'you have to be able to criticise things that are bad' while not actually criticising anything that was bad, simply Islam as a whole based on a few behaviours within Islam that he along with millions of Muslims also disagree and happen to take issue with, while talking over other people. Maybe that clip will change my mind.
Predestination? Like the calvinists? Well I guess I am arguing against that in a way, but that's not incompatible with my position anyway so it doesn't move things on much.
You seem to be under the impression that as long as choices aren't made outside of the person it's free will, which is a complete misunderstanding of what determinism is, when there are actually lots of different arguments most of which have nothing to do with choices being made outside of the person.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int
I really recommend reading this article by Harris in order to see where he's coming from, and what makes him a pretty unique voice distinct from the growing crowd of opportunistic Muslim-bashers - http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-and-the-misuses-of-ecstasy
The guy has made more effort than most to understand Islam's appeal to the human spirit. What he writes about the Azan and Sufism in that piece are spot on. My opinion is that he overestimates the force of religion in influencing society and politics, but unlike many others, at least he has attempted to put himself in the shoes of a believer - that itself is granting Muslims and even Islam some kind of respect.
I asked you at the outset which angle you were taking on free will. I asked because there are numerous different schools of thought, and they do not represent different parts of a single cohesive theory. Your response was to discuss the neuroscience behind free will, which is why I've been discussing that.
Hardly reasonable to then say that you didn't mean that all along and that I've gotten the wrong end of the stick. I only discussed it in terms of the neuroscience of free will because you started the conversation!
Free will & determinism are a huge pair of concepts encompassing philosophy, physics, logic, theology, language and so on. And no, they do not all point in the same direction and refute the existence of free will. So it'd be helpful if you could pin down what you mean, for the avoidance of doubt further down the line.
That was just one example, which I personally haven't heard a reasonable answer against. How can we have free will if we're only aware of our decisions after we make them? I was just questioning your logic because of the weird reply's about decisions being made by our own functions, which isn't a defense of free will, but rather just a statement.I asked you at the outset which angle you were taking on free will. I asked because there are numerous different schools of thought, and they do not represent different parts of a single cohesive theory. Your response was to discuss the neuroscience behind free will, which is why I've been discussing that.
Hardly reasonable to then say that you didn't mean that all along and that I've gotten the wrong end of the stick. I only discussed it in terms of the neuroscience of free will because you started the conversation!
Free will & determinism are a huge pair of concepts encompassing philosophy, physics, logic, theology, language and so on. And no, they do not all point in the same direction and refute the existence of free will. So it'd be helpful if you could pin down what you mean, for the avoidance of doubt further down the line.
Causality, which is the other one I linked you to, is another example which I think is correct.
Last edited:
That's a pretty good read, once I got past the statement right off the bat
Which just reinforces the belief that this guy is a complete tool. If anyone posted that on the Caf they'd be infracted or perhaps banned if it were posted in the newbies. Yet this guy happily acts a complete cnut about other people. 'Wow I don't agree with what he said and think it's ridiculous, he must be mentally ill'. He then goes on to moan about being criticized for his 'purported' lack of empathy. Cry me a river. Don't give it if you can't take it.
The rest of it is a fairly decent read.
By that you mean causal determinism presumably?
Well Atran and Harris have a history, they aren't the best of friends, so it's not as if he spontaneously insulted someone whom he barely knows. They debated each other at Beyond Belief, where Atran insulted Harris a couple of times and acted like a bit of a prick. Still, a flippant and unnecessary remark, but hardly that big of a deal.
Last edited:
It really doesn't matter to be fair. Take the moral high ground and build credibility, don't throw out an insult making light of the mentally ill and then bemoan why you're attacked for a lack of empathy acting like you can't understand why.
I did enjoy the rest of the article, which seems to go against everything I'd heard him say elsewhere so I'll do a bit more reading into some of his other stuff.
I didn't watch, but just really commenting on your first sentence. Any good argument has many nuanced points. That therein is the problem. Most people are borderline retarded and want issues boiled down into black and white, good or bad, right or wrong sound bytes. This then in turn leads to retarded people getting elected.
So here is my simplified non-nuanced argument!
Organized religion was vitally important to the emergence of civilization because it tricked people into bending over and taking it up the poop chute.
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2014/1...ola-is-punishment-from-god-for-homosexuality/
Crazy.
Crazy.
Yeah. Wanna answer the first question though?
UKIP kicking themselves they were beaten to the punch. Got in first with floods though, so it's 1-1.
About a child with cancer?
What? That was a different debate. How can you have free will if you're only aware of decisions after you make them?
Well I've responded to that at length in post 6989 & briefly in post 7004. Not much to add to those but Im happy to expand on any specific points you want me to.
However I will add that 'free will' does not have one definition. I was talking about how we make a choice from an available selection, such as having coffee instead of tea, going left rather than right, or going to the pub rather than staying in. That's what the neuroscience approach is considering rather than the free will of causal determinism. If that doesn't fit your definition of free will then we might clarify what you do mean.
Since this is the religion this, it's blatantly the free will religion talks about. For example, being able to choose either that tea or coffee, rather than the choice being an automatic response of your of functions. And again, just saying there's no external agent involved doesn't mean we have to free will.
I can only assume you didn't read my post because you seem focussed on the line about there being no external agent when its just a tiny comment at the very end of the post.
Just because my conscious mind doesn't make the decision doesn't mean "I" don't make the decision. Every part of my mind, conscious and unconscious, is "me". Just as my arms and legs are "me". "I" am the totality of every part of myself.
The illusion is not free will. The illusion is that your conscious awareness is in sole control of your body and mind.
Dawkins is scheduled to appear on Maher's show next week. Should be good. Doubt we'll see the like of Aslan on there, but getting him and Harris on set would be amazing.
Maybe I'm just not understanding you, because you're not making an argument for free will. You're still just making disconnected statements.
The whole point of free will is our conscious awareness being in control. It's not free will if it isn't.
If you define free will as the choices made only by your conscious mind, then the (admittedly new) evidence from neuroscience doesn't support that.
However that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It means that either free will doesn't exist or the definition is wrong.
Both Occam's razor & personal experience would point you to saying that the definition is wrong and that free will does exist. That's not proof, but its a reasonable conclusion.
maybe you start to define "free will" in a way that makes sense for you. Else you just sound like a smartass.
You're applying that line of logic incorrectly here. When evidence appears that support the less intuitive hypothesis, we can chuck the simple one out. When we know that our processes make a decision before we're aware of it, it does away with will altogether, as it means that we're not driven by will at all, but rather do things because of the makeup of our brain.
I don't mean to like sound irritating so and so, but I am one, so that's how it comes out.
We have three hypotheses then.
1) Free will is a caused by the conscious mind
2) Free will is caused by the entire mind, conscious and unconscious
3) There is no free will
We have two piece of evidence
1) Personal perception of free will
2) Studies of activity in the brain
Hypothesis 1 is only supported by piece of evidence 1.
Hypothesis 2 is supported by both pieces of evidence.
Hypothesis 3 is only supported by piece of evidence 2.
Hypothesis 2 is the best fit, no?
If you want to pretend that personal experience counts for anything here.
Harris makes a good point about free will in one of his YouTube clips, or possibly in his book, I can't remember which. You can claim you choose to make a decision, but you can't audit or backtest the symphony neurological conditions that led to your making that choice. If you are to believe Libet's work, our actions may be guided more so by unconscious processes in the brain before we are ever conscious of them. This to me is a fairly compelling argument in favor of Harris' view. I know Dennett and others have rebutted this though, but just haven't had a chance to read up on it.
Occam's razor isn't actually an exact law though.
Physicists say that free will doesn't actually exist. Which makes complete sense, considering that how matter moves is actually just a probability. And our brain is created from matter.
Meh, Harris and Dawkins on the same discussion would be boring as feck. Like hearing someone arguing with himself. There should be someone interesting from religion part (and preferrably not completely ignorant like Afflect) to balance it.
Dawkins is such a great debater though, and I doubt that many people would be eager to go in debate against him. Better to hide!
I think much of this debate is sheer sophistry. I can decide to post this or not, it is conditioned by my interest in the subject, my degree of inebriation, desire to be confrontational etc etc. But at the end of the day I said 'yes' or 'no'.
All religions are a bad idea for multiple reasons. Currently Islam is probably the worst of all.
Along with all the negatives, religion maybe had some positive influences in the past, but in this day and age definitely the world would be much better off without it.
Why is Islam worse than any other ?