This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.
As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.
And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.
So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?
Obviously they can intentionally choose to do wrong, but to know if its free or not you have to know their motive. Are they doing the deed for the love of the deed itself or thinking about the consequences of the deed?
Anyone who acts wrongly without caring is not acting rationally. They are not fully conscious of the situation and therefore not acting in freedom.
OK, well I’d believe in Thor if I saw somebody do that kind of stuff with a hammer. [I.e., the stuff of the myths and the movies. Lots of others would have to see it too. I’m easy to fool.]
ETA: I guess I’d believe in Ganesh if some person with the head of an elephant were examined by a team of doctors and was determined not to be faking–especially if he had cool powers, didn’t get old, etc.
As I said, different Gods, different evidence needed.
What is your basis for that theory?
walto,
Well, its a flippant answer of course, but you also might not believe it?
Yes, I’d want people I trust to confirm it. But I could certainly imagine pretty much everybody believing that Thor or Ganesh were real. Just like everybody comes to believe in Spiderman or Superman in the comics. Once everybody sees buildings being carried around or trains being stopped in their tracks, or airplanes being outflied, over and over, everybody will believe. Why wouldn’t they?
Let me provide examples.
The only thing your “answer” has in common with my question is the presence of the words “decision” and “non-material”. It tells me nothing about what makes decision possible.
Here you explain that nature + environment cause decisions. That’s a causal explanation that doesn’t allow for the third thing, free will. It’s straight determinism, denial that a third thing is possible. That’s in total agreement with the materialist determinists. Would you agree?
Phoodoo, face it, you’re not talking about any old “God”–you’re interested in a particular idea of one you are especially fond of. Naturally, you’re going to have to provide evidence specific to THAT one.
So tell us what the properties are that it has to have, and, If I can, I’ll tell you what sort of evidence I think you’re likely to be required to produce.
Actually newton is saying exactly what I said. Just give me the reasons those hypothetical people give for not being convinced and I will tell you if it is reasonable to me.
On the other hand, are you saying faith is unnecessary? By wisdom of man you can know God?
I don’t understand this. Why would everyone suddenly being cured of cancer mean there was a God? Maybe if there was some sort of a big anti-cancer prayer meeting first? Is that the idea? I mean if everybody was praying for some war to end or for the Patriots to lose, but suddenly, instead, cancer cells stopped dividing, why attribute it to “God”? (I mean, maybe most people who have cancer happen to be in favor of this war or Patriot fans……)
ETA: Also, why should God get the credit for the cancer cells dying but not the blame for the cancer cells existing in the first place?
Anyhow, that seems to me a very strange criterion for belief.
phoodoo,
Yes, he didn’t think that through.
These are comic book what-ifs.
How about we stick to reality?
keiths:
fifth:
That’s a robotic response, not an answer. You need a way to terminate the regress. Zombified chants of “revelation, revelation, revelation…” don’t accomplish that.
For me, the presence or absence of evidence has nothing to do with why I don’t believe in God. Then again, I don’t think it is irrational or contrary to reason to believe in God.
I think that a scientific metaphysics coupled to verificationist epistemology will get you as far as agnosticism. After that, it’s a leap of faith either way – into atheism or theism. But I don’t think there’s anything irrational about a leap of faith.
It is perhaps post-rational, in a sense — it is what one does after reason has had its say.
I have no objections to anyone’s taking a leap of faith. Every individual has the right to determine for him or herself what she needs in order to find life bearable. But that right must be respected by all.
If I, as an atheist, find that I do not need to believe in God in order to find life bearable — to endure suffering, find gratitude, work towards justice, share love, and express hope — then no theist has the right to criticize me for not sharing her beliefs.
And the converse point also holds. I think the New Atheists (a term I actually don’t like very much) don’t draw the distinction in the right place. What really matters isn’t atheism but secularism — not metaphysics but politics.
If — as I think — reasoning is the non-coercive mechanism of social coordination and constructing collective actions, then the alternative to reasoning is coercion (ultimately violence or the threat of violence, whether backed up by law or not).
If, then, we want to curtail the role of violence in public life as much as possible — and that’s one way of expressing our collective commitment to the ideal of liberal democracy — if what we want is to reduce the amount of cruelty, humiliation, and unnecessary suffering — then we have a compelling reason to want our laws and policies to be what is justified by reasoning, rather than have compliance motivated by coercion.
Given that, then we have a strong argument that liberal democracies ought to have secular politics.
That does not mean that the post-rational is expunged, but it does mean that it is part of the private sphere. And that doesn’t mean that there can’t be communities of fellow worshipers, etc. — it means only that no beliefs, values, ideals, or practices that are post-rational may be legitimately coerced by the implicit or explicit violence of the law.
And that rather little to do with epistemology and metaphysics. It is perhaps a reflection on what we ought to do as a society, given how little epistemology and metaphysics can do.
On the other hand there are those who want to reject all of my starting points because they want to establish that theism (or atheism) is grounded in reason. And if they were right about that, then they would have the right to insist on their theism (or atheism) in public spaces. Everyone would insist on their own theocracy or atheocracy. That’s not a recipe for a modus vivendi, but history is written by the victors, right?
walto,
No, that’s completely inaccurate. Its irrelevant about what God, or whose God.
Your suggestion, and everyone else’s, boils down to the fact that you would need so much proof for a God, that you can’t very well call what you are asking for to be evidence. You want the God to materialize before your eyes. You want him to write in the sky, just like Krauss, and say, I am real, see? You want him to stop the Earth spinning, or part the Atlantic Ocean, and have Moses hit you with a tablet. That’s why the whole claim by atheists that they just need some evidence is bullshit.
They don’t want evidence, they want a miracle. Nothing would ever be good enough, unless it was so obviously undeniable, that it would be the equivalent of a Heaven speckled letter delivered by angels, and autographed in dancing cotton candy rainbows. You want creme puffs in your aquarium.
Evidence, ha! Proof is what you want, not evidence. The evidence is already all around you.
That claim seems clearly false. Would you mind pausing to defend it?
I told you specifically what I would need, and it’s not excessive. It’s precisely what any reasonable person would want. If you say, “I know somebody who can fly,” people will want to see him or her fly. If you say, “I know someone who can smash through building with his bare hands,” people will want to see that.
Evidence for what? Different claims require different sorts of evidence to support them.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
That’s called proof. That’s exactly what I said your side demands.
Do you have anything similar for evolution?
phoodoo,
If that’s proof (I’d call it evidence myself, but whatever), then it seems to me perfectly reasonable for people to want proof. And if that is proof, then yes there’s a lot of what you are calling “proof” for evolution. It’s in all the text books.
But again, you’re using “proof” weirdly here.
Right. Exactly.
walto,
Human’s evolved from Apes-you saw that happen?
walto,
The universe started from nothing, with a giant bang 14 billion years ago, you saw that happen?
I did not see that happen. Is that what you require to believe in evolution, an eyewitness of humans evolving from apes? If so, it is not surprising that you do not believe in evolution. I think you never will.
But I deny that that requirement is analogous to someone wanting evidence for the existence of this or that God claimed to exist. Richard’s link is an example of hard evidence of the the existence of evolution in action. It’s not proof, however.
Again, what is the nature of the God you think you have evidence for?
I did not. Does that suggest to you that Jesus must have done it?
walto,
The universes existence is hard evidence of a God.
But you said you want to see one. If so it is not surprising you don’t believe in a God, I guess you never will.
You seem to save your reliance on faith for things like evolution.
Do you also believe the Egyptians built the pyramids. Were you there?
Let me ask you this, phoodoo? Do you think there is good evidence for Thor or Ganesh? What would you require of someone who insisted that they exist?
Why is that?
walto,
Maybe Thor did. All we know is that bacteria in a petri dish is enough for you to believe humans evolved from apes, so you don’t seem like you should be one that is that hard to be convinced.
I guess you are selective, you seem to require the least evidence for things which you also prefer to believe.
petrushka,
We can’t stick to reality. The question is about what kind of evidence that doesn’t already exist would convince you, as an atheist, that God exists. If such evidence already obtained, you’d be a theist right now.
The question is inherently counterfactual.
I’d understood that the Jews built them, BWTHDIK? I was not there. Is it your view that I should think that Ganesh or Thor exist because stories have come down to us to that effect? It seems to me you save your reliance on faith for one particular deity that you have been told about in some church you happened upon.
The thing to do, I think is start without insistence either on your favored God or evolution, or Thor, or Ganesh, and see what evidence we can find for any or all of them that does not depend on them (i.e. Revelation). We are pretty much forced to depend on our perceptual systems. But we don’t have to stop with what we ourselves have seen. We simply have to be consistent. What’s good for Jesus must be good for Thor. And we have to admit that we have no PROOF of evolution–just evidence, like that which can be found in Richard’s link.
There is a world, yes. So why is that evidence for Odin or Zeus or Jesus?
phoodoo,
Got a mirror handy?
Maybe Thor did what?
walto,
For the same reason that if you see a car sitting in the desert, you don’t believe that it just got there all by itself, because sometimes that is just how cars come to be.
KN,
Following up on this comment, are you aware of any instances of downward causation from the personal to the sub-personal level?
Its irrelevant to me what name you chose to call a God Walto.
But you are a guy who just wants proof some of the time. Other times you are willing to let it slide.
I don’t believe that humans evolved from apes because of bacteria in a petri dish. I believe that humans evolved from apes because of my willingness to render unto scientists (who have brought me the internal combustion engine, the microwave oven, and the internet) that which belongs to them. I have no theories about this stuff myself. .
To gainsay them seems to me a lack of humility. I’m prepared to revise my judgment if and when a consensus of biologists change their mind. But I wouldn’t consider substituting my judgment for theirs. What the fuck do I know about these things? As Woody Allen says, I don’t even know how this can opener works.
You want to substitute your own judgment. So I ask you, why should I listen to you rather than them, and rather than give me any evidence at all, you mostly insult me. I’m sticking with the microwave guys.
When I see a car sitting in the desert, I figure somebody drove it there, based on my prior experience with cars. That’s how I think you ought to look at these matters, rather than pumping in supernatural entities when you find a car in the desert. We use otherworldly explanations of elephant-headed gods as a last resort, not as a first one.
And ignorance is also available as a viable option. I may simply say, I have no idea how the car got there. Why must I know? There’s a ton of stuff I don’t know. So what?
walto,
I am sorry, I thought you were saying you prefer to see things with your own eyes to believe them. If its simply a consensus of thought you were after, why didn’t you say so?
Most people on the planet believe in a God, btw. Just thought you might find that interesting.
I said I’m going with people who have demonstrated they have some idea they know what they’re talking about; I’m not just counting heads. Of course, if there’s visual evidence around I can use, I’ll use that too. Why wouldn’t everyone?
Look, I do what you do on every issue except this one. I think you should trust your general procedure.
Yep, could be that the car just appeared. Who knows.
Its also hard evidence for ‘Steve, the universe pooping rabbit’
That strikes me as an “otherworldly” explanation. A last resort. You want to start with that for some reason.
The smarter you are the less likely you are to believe in a God, btw. just thought you might find that interesting.*
*Fallacy battle.
I don’t think phoodoo likes the idea of Steve any better than that of Thor, but he doesn’t want to say what properties the God he does like must have for some reason.
What I’m gleaning from this discussion, though is that by “God” he means anything that created the universe and maybe makes it rational. I myself don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. And I don’t believe there are ANY experts on that issue.
phoodoo seems to follow Aquinas in holding that if there’s a universe somebody must have created it and that denying that is cuckoo. I don’t see things that way myself.
Isn’t that the first resort scientists use for explaining the existence of the universe. Isn’t that yours also. Its just appeared.
I probably should have said “any non-rodent that created the universe….”
walto,
Except when it comes to cars in a desert, of course.
I ask you again–why must I have an explanation? I can’t explain much. Start with the little things. Do you know how your pants were made? Can you explain that? I can’t. Then move up to why “King of Queens” was on for so many years. Again, I can’t explain it.
When I get up to why there is something rather than nothing, I’ll be sure and let everybody know. phoodoo, I think you’re a bit of a know-it-all if you think you know THAT!
As I’ve said, when I see a car in a desert, I presume somebody drove it there and then maybe broke down. So? Are you saying the universe is akin to coupe? A sedan?
Well if God is truth, his revelation should be absolutely true
Nor does modern cosmology: See Sean Carrol’s decimation of WLC’s kalam.