Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 901-950 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Folks, if Dogma floated your boat try and hunt down Preacher, Vol. 1: Gone to Texas and the rest of the series. Smith wanted to make a movie of it, ended up doing Dogma due to assorted..."

I've read all of them, couldn't put them down until I'd completed them. Brilliant stuff

[Hazel]

Connie wrote: "I think it is only the christians, Barbar. "

This now makes me imagine Old Barbarossa as an elephant... >.>

There have been a muslim or two in this conversation, but they came, they said their piece, asked a couple of questions and then went again. Maybe it just means that Christians (and the be fair its not all types of Christians, I don't see any Quakers getting hot under the collar) are more about the fire and brimstone than others, and some denominations promise you a better place in the afterlife if you convert people.

And if that's not a self defeating philosophy, I don't know what is.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Read an Alan Moore thing a while ago that had Barbar living near Kurtz from Heart of Darkness...
For the record though...I am not an elephant, not tusks or trunk...antlers though...different story...

[Hazel]

Alan Moore is ace aswell.

[Connie]

Hehehehe, "Barbar" I like the new nickname and I'm stickin' to it, tusks or no tusks. Old-Barbarosa is just too long for my busy little digits. :-P

[Hazel]

Connie, I just wondered, after browsing to keep my recall about the current state of the thread* (which, by the way, appears to be insanity), which of my posts actually triggered you to ask for my brain in marriage? :P


*read that as bored as hell.

[Steven]

It's not a good thing to have to choose between. But my intended girlfriend would want me to say 'a world without science' and not 'a world without religion.'

But that is just the bias of her father and mother.

Personally I would have to vote for 'a world without Religion' because Religion has been the cause of more death and violence on Earth than Science ever caused.

I'm for Science and against Religious Intolerance, no matter what her parents think.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Connie wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Connie, I just wondered, after browsing to keep my recall about the current state of the thread* (which, by the way, appears to be insanity), which of my posts actually triggered you ..."

Now in a world without science the brain would be in an ornate reliquary...in a world without religion it would be in a jar and able to communicate via a complex network of electrical and chemical relays.
Which option is more creepy?

[Bunnie]

all of you--neither religion or science has been the cause of all the turnoil in the world -in my opinion it is the nature of man himself that is the instigator-we are all different in intellegence, advantages,circumstances and this affects the way we live and interact with our fellow man-

[Hazel]

so, choose between this:



and this:



well, i can honestly say which I prefer. That reliquery is about as wrong as a porcelein doll.

[Hazel]

Bunnie wrote: "all of you--neither religion or science has been the cause of all the turnoil in the world -in my opinion it is the nature of man himself that is the instigator-we are all different in intellegence..."

where did that come from, in the middle of a conversation about brains in a jar? We've moved on from religion, we're talking about making plans for my immortality through a jar, electrodes and a daily diet of fish flakes now.

[Travis]

So, the choice is now between one of those evil statues from Doctor Who and a brain in a jar...?

Tough choice, but I think I'll go with the brain in a jar.

Read a good article where they explained that the comic book stories where Thor fought Hulk was actually a metaphor for science vs religion.
I always liked that idea.

[[deleted user]]

I'd like to live in a world where people didn't have to choose. I was raised as a Christian, but I always felt more Jewish than anything else. I remember asking, "But, .... Jesus was a Jew, wasn't he Mommy? Wouldn't he want me to be a Jew?" Lines like that, coming from a 1st grader, rather taxed my mother. Of course, I also have American Indian ancestry, so .... Let's just say organized religion and religions that insist on converting others (Christianity AND Islam are two of those...) make me rather nervous. Despite my confusion and questioning, I believe in God and feel I'm a better person for my belief. Having said that, though, I don't feel the need to divorce myself from science. In addition, I'd like to live in a world in which people embrace and accept differences and support others in their beliefs ... their right to such beliefs at the very least ... whether they be religious, scientific, or a combination of the two.

[Connie]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Now in a world without science the brain would be in an ornate reliquary...in a world without religion it would be in a jar and able to communicate via a complex network of electrical and chemical relays.
Which option is more creepy?

I was once completely creeped out (not being catholic) when looking at this little card with a window in it. I was chatting with a nun who was a patient of mine at the time. I asked, "What is this thing in this little window, it looks like onionskin paper?" To which she replied that it was a piece of so-and-so saint's skin. Eeeuuuwww. And in my naiveté, I said, "Isn't that kind of morbid?" LOL! THAT was creepy. OMG! I was reported, and my nursing supervisor (also a nun, Sr. Angela Marie) said that the poor old nun felt that maybe I took catholicism as nothing but a bunch of hocus-pocus. (Do ya think?) Well, naturally, my defense was that nothing of the sort was true. (I choked on my words when I got home...)

[Bunnie]

hazel--see that proves my brains have already turned
i must get back to Sherlock

[cerebus]

So true.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Cerebus wrote: " So true."

Top stuff...I particularly liked the comment:

"Science didn't kill Schrodinger's cat.

...maybe "

[Old-Barbarossa]

Bunnie wrote: "all of you--neither religion or science has been the cause of all the turnoil in the world -in my opinion it is the nature of man himself that is the instigator-we are all different in intellegence..."

I think your correct...but as rational as your point is you just can't get the mileage out of it on a thread like this...as Saint Bill said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvM-WQ...

I'll see you at the next meeting...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Bunnie wrote: "hazel--see that proves my brains have already turned
i must get back to Sherlock"

You watching the bbc modern take on Holmes then?
Thought it was top stuff and easily beat the Guy Ritchie film.
I think there's another season due out later this year.

[Old-Barbarossa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-...
I had been pondering the reliquary option...but having read this I think I'll go with the jar and electrodes...and a giant mechanised battle suit Mwah-ha-ha-ha...Robo-Barbarossa crush puny humans!

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-...
I had been pondering the reliquary option...but having read this I think I'll go with the jar and electrodes...and a giant mechanised battle suit Mwah..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s46jNf...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-...
I had been pondering the reliquary option...but having read this I think I'll go with the jar and electrodes...and a giant mecha..."

Sweet...but I was thinking less manga stylee and more ABC Warriors...but really big...Godzilla killing big...now...back to my lunar base

[Kyle]

Even though Science makes these things work, and it's the reason why you're reading what I wrote here right now, without Religion, do we, even as Atheists, have a reason to get together, to live? Religion brings us together. Science just makes us happier, get a better understanding of the world around us. And, I won't say both, since Science says the truth, whether we like it or not, and Religion says the truth, whether we like it...or like it. Personally, I'm more of a Science fan than Religion fan, but without Religion, without a common belief, there's no reason to get together and discover things about our world, discover Science. I know I'm probably repeating myself here-it's my first post.

[Hazel]

thats one of those really common arguments that's utter bollocks. People get together because people like to be in company. You don't need religion. It is human nature to create groups, that's why religions are so popular. The human tendency to form groups encourages religion, not the other way round. Otherwise we'd not get together for other reasons other than religion, which is patently ridiculous, and obviously not the case. I get together with people because they enjoy discussing science, because they have kids too, and I want my daughter to socialise, because I want to catch up with people I haven't seen in a while, so I can LARP, so I can tabletop roleplay, but mostly because I like being around other people. We form communities, its what we do. In the end, people need people, like chimps need other chimps, like lions need other lions, and wolves need other wolves... yet we're the only ones to make up a magical man in the sky, and then try to claim that without him there's no community. Bollocks, you needed people living in groups before they could create their religions.

Also, diametrically (is that the right word?), there are lots of religions, and derivatives of them, each with their own "common" beliefs, that cause division and segregation.

Your statement would also imply that all atheists are loners who don't interact with others or discover things about he world, and that agnostics are in two minds about whether to socialise with people or not. Which is also completely ridiculous.

[Hazel]

SEX!!! sex is what makes us come together!! :P

[[deleted user]]

Bunnie -- I also believe you're right. More often than not, it's the nature of humans that leads to our conflicts ... not religion or science. Did Constantine really see a cross before battle and hear a command to conquer under the sign of the cross? Or, did he use the "cross" and Christianity to give diverse groups of people one cause to unite behind, binding them together and making them more manageable? Religion? Power, control, and greed? Did Pope Urban II really want to free the "holy lands" from the "infidels" in the name of God? Or, did he want to unite the lords and knights of the time, who were a diverse people, in a fight against a common enemy instead of risking that the ongoing skirmishes amongst themselves would tear his empire apart? Religion? Or, diversity leading to conflict and the need to have power and control at all costs?

I believe diversity causes many of our conflicts. Many of us like to pretend that we value and respect the differences in those around us. In truth, many of us don't, as evidenced by this thread. It's a fascinating, frankly. Of course, given the fact that it's 2011, it's also fairly sad.

And, science .... Did the science behind atomic bombs lead to the carnage in Japan? Or, was the nature of the men in power at the time at fault?

Kyle, I have to say I disagree with you. I think humans developed religion in order to explain a confusing and frightening world. It was an attempt by the ancients, I believe, to better their chances for survival in a time when survival was of paramount concern. Even now, I think religion gives many people comfort. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm rather conflicted when it comes to organized religion. I don't go to church. But, I do believe in God ... not in order to gather with others. I believe because I do and I can and it gives me a sense of comfort and strength.

Having said that, Kyle, I also have to say you have a right to your opinion. I'm reminded of a trip I took to Charlotte, NC in the early '90's. I went to visit my uncle and his family and was totally and utterly shocked. At that time, many of the neighborhoods surrounding the city were organized by religion. There was a neighborhood, a very large neighborhood, with houses and stores and schools, etc... where the Baptists lived ... and where the Catholics lived ... and where the Mormons lived, etc.... Being a New Englander, it blew my mind. My aunt said she rarely left their particular neighborhood. Every time she gathered with others, on the street where she lived, at her children's school, at the grocery store, she was gathering with people who practiced the same religion. :o I remember asking why they'd do such a thing and what happened to the people who didn't believe or belong to a church. My relatives looked at me as if I'd lost my ever-loving mind. So, Kyle, if you live in this type of area, I can see why you might think people "need" religion in order to gather and live together.

Even if that's not your experience or reason for writing what you did, I think you're brave for having shared your opinion.

[Connie]

Let's face it, religion provides their leaders with an imaginary but quite effective shield--the guise of virtue, claiming messages handed down by a masculine, patriarchal god, as they preach to the masses about morality and right living and break all the rules themselves. How can celibate (supposedly) males be taken seriously when dictating to their blind followers about sexuality, marriage, and birth control, for instance? It's hypocrisy under a bright light! It really is a sham. They should abolish religion, but sadly, that will never happen.

[[deleted user]]

Would the point in abolishing religion simply be to abolish religion?

If, instead, we were to come to the conclusion that we should abolish hypocrisy and manipulation, doing away with religion will not accomplish that. Such things will be committed under other guises and in other names.

To deal with things like hypocrisy and manipulation, abuse of power and greed, we'd need to shine a very bright light on ourselves and our natures. Having done that, hopefully enlightened, we'd need to rise above our baser instincts.

Fascinating that many prophets of various faiths have encouraged us to do just that. (Of course, some leaders in history, politics, science, etc... have encouraged the same.)

Ultimately, is it really about choosing between science and religion? I think it's about something else.

[Connie]

Shannon, you can't abolish hypocrisy, and that's certainly not the only reason for the desire to get rid of the institution, which will never happen anyway. But, people can turn their backs on the corruption of religion if they want to, and refuse to support it, which lots of people have done.

It's not the "little people" like you and me who need to be examined under the light, it's those phonies who tell us how to live and do not think it's necessary to practice what they preach! Always turn the blame on the populous, that's just what they love. Maybe you've been indoctrinated a little?

What are those base instincts that you refer to, if I may ask. I don't personally have any, except for the need to eat, sleep and have shelter. What base instincts were you thinking of?

Religion, with all it's trumpeting and preaching cannot save lives, stave off floods or earthquakes, keep newborn babies from dying, cure all disease, change human nature for good or bad, and it certainly can't give me my next meal. It's about hope and faith, which by the words alone, implies that we're not REALLY sure that there is an afterlife, or any real reason for us being here, but we have 'faith', and we sure 'hope' there is a reason for all this.

[Hazel]

First, I'd like to apologise to Kyle for my abruptness in my reply to him, it was uncalled for. I really hope I haven't scared him away.

Second, no we can't abolish hypocrisy, but we can have wishful thinking about a world without a sanctioned (nay, encouraged) hypocrisy that causes as much damage, pain and suffering as religion does.

[Giansar]

Very interesting discussion. I hope it's not too late to join up.
The choice is a tough call actually.
On one hand it would be nice to live in a rational scientific world for a change.
On the other, there is one problem with not having religion (if by not having religion we understand not having any god).
If we agree that it's all physics and nothing above then we also have to bid farewell to our free will.
And the question is - can we accept not having free will (which eventually equals no morals, no responsibility for our actions) and still go on with our lives and civilization?

[[deleted user]]

Responding to Connie's questions ....

I believe we've all been indoctrinated to one extent or another and in various ways, not just religious indoctrination. That happens as a natural course of events as we're raised and become adults. So, yes, I have been indoctrinated in various ways and, likely, more than just a little. The key, I think, is to use our brains and try to be open-minded and get beyond it.

Baser instincts .... We all have them and they go beyond Maslow. Hazel gave one to add to your list, sex. You and Kyle gave one, the need to be part of a group. Humans, with few exceptions, are social beings with a need to belong. Of course, there are also things like our being uncomfortable around and, sometimes, our instinct to lash out at people who are different. The list goes on.

Finally, regarding the "light" that needs to be employed by people, I believe that "light" should be accessed and used by all. Yes, people in power, religious or otherwise, should be held to a very high standard. However, I don't see myself, I don't see you, I don't see any of us as "little people."

Science and religion aside, I know for certain that I want to live with equality. Yes, it's horrifying when leaders are hypocrites or abuse power or .... Given the fact that they're leaders, they have the ear of many others and can have a huge and negative impact on society and the future. However, while I don't tend toward hypocrisy, I do fight other things, as do we all. We, all of us, matter. Every choice and every word of each one of us counts, sometimes in ways we'll never know. Who is to say what our choices will lead to ... stone, pond, ripples anyone?

We could all stand truth in our lives. And, until we live under a "light" of truth, how can we adequately see truth, or the lack thereof, in others?

[Connie]

Oh my. What to address first? Shannon, when I referred to ‘indoctrination’ I was of course, referring to religious indoctrination, meant in the sense of brainwashing or propagandizing, which occurs in all religion, thus I have nothing to do with it any more. I found that I absolutely could not lend my support to a ‘churchianity’ that lied to me, expected me to take mythology as fact, that historically has viewed Womankind as lesser-than, that even seeks to usurp the very birth process itself by brainwashing followers into thinking the IMPOSSIBLE!: that man once gave birth to a woman via his rib-bone. Give me a royal break! Utterly, unimaginably, preposterous.

People should see through this and the other trappings of religion, ask, for instance, WHY? Why is a creation story told in this manner, and not in the true way? The answer is really quite simple: because the male sought to dominate, pure and simple. Fear of the real truth, and a desire to take dominion over Mother Nature and Natural Law. And so, their campaign to usurp all power from Woman, had to include every minute and basic power that was within Her grasp, even Her power to create life and bring life onto this earth. How human beings have read, believed, accepted, and assimilated this into their thoughts, without laughing out loud, without saying, “Oh, come on already!!”, baffles me to no end. It is ridiculous, illogical, untrue and unsound. A very unwholesome mind or set of minds, made up this story; it is beyond pernicious, it is evil. Yet the great irony is, most followers simply go, “ho-hum”, allow it to seep into their subconscious, and keep on believing!

What is more stupefying is that after this COLOSSAL lie, they go on to preach truth, honesty, morality, virtue, respect, blah, blah, blah…when the bible is so full of killing, violence, rape, dominance, warring, and further lies and myth that it spins the head around. HOW CAN PEOPLE SWALLOW THIS STUFF? Furthermore, man begat man, begat man, begat man, begat man, begat man, begat man without ONCE mentioning the amazing, wonderful, loving, hard-working, beautiful Mother who gave life to generation after generation of these selfish and self-centered patriarchs. Now, that’s really contemptible. Yet, this is how ‘the greatest book ever written’ starts out in the first chapters. Still, people go along with this ‘religion’.

I will forever wonder how human beings can be so astoundingly STUPID! Even as I say this, I know there will be those who’ll pray for me, claim I’m speaking blasphemy, I’ll burn in hell, my life will be cursed…..and on and on. (I can’t feel anything yet!) But if I go out today and get hit by a bus, they’ll say it was my punishment. Shit happens, with or without a god, goddess, or religion heaping false notions into your brain like an open shopping cart, to allude to Terry Pratchett. (“The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.” ― Terry Pratchett, Diggers )

The funny thing is, people have come to rely on religion to ‘guide’ them, help them navigate through life, as if they cannot figure it out any other way. The human mind is quite a remarkable thing if we were to lean on it instead, and perhaps turn to other, far more interesting and vitalizing resources. Do we really need religion, or have we been convinced that we do? If so, someone needs to solidly tell me why.

More later, I'm having dinner with my JEWISH friends today. LOL!

[Hazel]

Giansar wrote: "If we agree that it's all physics and nothing above then we also have to bid farewell to our free will.
And the question is - can we accept not having free will (which eventually equals no morals, no responsibility for our actions) and still go on with our lives and civilization? "

Hi, its never too late to have your two pennies worth. So, that in mind, I'm going to tackle this question. First, I really hope you're joking.

Second, free will as provided by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is an illusion. If they are all these things, then they can take the free will away at any point, thus rendering it into "gods will" instead. How many times do things go wrong for a christian, and they shrug and say "oh, its gods will, he has a plan"? If we accept for a moment that a god exists, then any action taken by anyone that isn't prevented or punished by such a being only happens because that being has decided to allow it to happen. Thus your will is not free.

And that divine plan thing gets in the way of free will too, god created his divine plan, and set it in motion, and as he's a god, nothing can alter that plan, so everything that happens is by his divine will and according to his plan, thus nothing you do is of your own free will, as it can only occur if it adheres to his divine plan. This is also the reason that prayer is pointless, because god will not grant anything that goes against his divine plan, so skip the prayer bit, and just go to gods will, and accept that you just have to hope that what you want is what god wants too.

Now, to the last two points, no morals or responsibility for our actions without religion or god? I'm sorry, again, that's the wrong way around. If you believe that the only thing that makes you moral is religion, then you're stating that without that book, you would be out there committing crimes and atrocious acts. That in and of itself is a terrifying idea, that you feel that without the religion you wouldn't be able to prevent yourself behaving terribly. It wouldn't make me likely to want to trust you with my child, I can tell you that. Next, there have been atheists forever, there were atheist among the ancients, and there have been atheists throughout history, yet the majority of wars have been due to religion, the ratio of theist to atheist in modern prisons shows a higher percentage of theists in those populations than in the general population, and a lower percentage of atheists than is representative of the general population. Highly atheistic countries have lower crime rates than theistic ones, studies have shown this. Gun crime in America is one of the highest in the world, and the USA is a highly theistic country.

Now, to responsibility for our actions. The bible (at least) created a moral system that cannot be lived up to, it tries to control how you think, things like "do not covert", I'm sorry, but that's creating thought crimes. And so, because this system cannot be lived up to, and leaves every christian as a sinner, the book claims that god, instead of simply forgiving his followers for the "crimes" they have no control over, sent his son, who is also him, and he sacrifices himself to himself in order to create a loophole in his own rules, so that anyone and everyone can gain forgiveness if they only ask for it, and accept him in their heart. Now, read that again, it says everyone, so that person who has been raping girls, and never got caught, so never punished by human law, as long as he accepts jesus and asks for forgiveness, he gets into heaven. He doesn't need to be responsible for his actions, because he will be forgiven them upon his death. The only crime that always gets punished in christianity is apostasy, if I refuse to accept the existence of god, then according to the bible, I burn in hell, and it doesn't matter how good a person I am, according to the christian faith, that's my fate. I'm sorry, but that's immoral and evil.

So lets remove god from the picture again, and re-enter the real world. As an atheist, I make my moral choices by understanding that my actions have repercussions for both myself and other people in a community, that they can in fact have far reaching effects, this makes me much more careful and considerate in my decisions. Now, to the things that we all find abhorrent -rape, murder etc - as a species, the norm is to not wish to carry out these actions, and thats an innate response, and they have actually found a gene that codes for psychopathy (its more prevalent in men than women), and so we can see that antisocial behaviour is coded for, and as a result we can infer that those people who displayed the behaviours these sort of genes cause tend to be ostracised from society and thus their genetic code tends not to get passed on. Obviously, the gene still appears in some people, so it has been passed on, those people do include rapists, and also, a gene can be dormant, or need something to trigger it. They have found that the gene for psychopathy doesn't make everyone who has it act in a bad way, but that those who have it and have suffered in some way (ie, were raised in an abusive household) are more likely to start displaying socially unacceptable behaviour.

So, in answer to your question, to summarise, religion does not provide us with free will , it enslaves us. Religion does not provide us with a moral compass, it teaches us to hate (see all the rape, genocide, murder, incest in the bible, and other holy books).

I think this may be the longest post I've ever written, anywhere, that wasn't just a cut and paste of some information someone asked me for.

[Bunnie]

hazel--again you nailed it-but again you can't convince those that believe--they won't change unless they want to -what you say makes perfect sense to me-so why can't they see it?

[Bunnie]

Giansar--there is no such thing as free will-you may think you have but when it comes to disasters,diseases,decisions you are constrained by circumstances no matter what you believe.did the people of japan have the free will to decide not to have an earthquake or tsunami-did Steve Jobs decide he didn't want pancratic cancer? of course he had the free will to consult a doctor-our free will is limited to only what we can control which isn't much.

[Hazel]

Bunnie wrote: "Giansar--there is no such thing as free will-you may think you have but when it comes to disasters,diseases,decisions you are constrained by circumstances no matter what you believe.did the people ..."

On top of this, neurobiologists/scientists (whichever the right term is) have discovered, using brain scans, that the subconscious mind makes a decision first, before the conscious mind becomes aware of the decision. So even when we decide to do something, we're not consciously deciding to do it - you may postulate the idea that we have the ability to rail against a decision if on a moments reflection we realise its a bad one, but the subconscious would still reach that decision before the conscious mind does...

[Bunnie]

hazel--very interesting--they still know very little about the brain.are you able to get the Charlie Rose series on the brain over your way? he has on many experts in the field from many places and they discuss the latest research-quite a complicated organism we all have.

[Hazel]

quite a complicated organism we all have.

and thats just the bactria that live in our guts... I'm guessing you meant its a complicated organ, as we're the organism?

I've never heard of Charlie Rose to be honest, I shall google him now (which sounds far filthier than it has the right to do)

[Bunnie]

hazel-yeah i guess --a slip of the brain--i'd watch out for that google stuff if i were you.

[Hazel]

Bunnie wrote: "a slip of the brain"

Showing just how complex it is :P

I think the funniest ones regarding the word organism is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7DYFd...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "I've never heard of Charlie Rose to be honest, I shall google him now (which sounds far filthier than it has the right to do)..."

That reminds me of the following exchange:
"Do you like Kipling?"
"I don't know I've never Kipled..."

[York]

A world without science? Not a chance, I want a world without war, poverty, sick, etc. Sure! Religion is responsible for much tragedy, and the formerly listed problems in this world, science solves the problems. although science can create the weapons of war, we (religous or not)choose to use them. So picking one or the other should be a no brain er! Science is wonder, mystery and the best way we have of describing the universe we live in. Religion is not...

[Giansar]

Wow girls and guys - I didn't count for such a wide response to my humble statement. First of all I'd like to thank you all - especially Hazel who really puts in a lot of effort.

I have a suspicion I haven't been understood entirely correctly. Maybe my pronouncements was not quite clear (by the way - I do hope no one is offended by my English - it is not my native language).

I am not a religious man (it is not an excuse - I have nothing against religious people, I don't regard them as the worse kind, I have lots of religious friends and frankly I envy their faith sometimes). What I wanted to say is that if we agree that God (no matter what we understand by this concept) is a delusion then we are left with science and so far science hasn't managed to find a trace of evidence that humans might have anything to say about their own lives (and I am not talking determinism here).
In the scientific world we apparently have no free will whatsoever. It's not that it is limited - it does not exist at all.
By free will of course I don't mean stopping earthquakes from happening.
Free will is simply the ability to make informed and OBJECTIVE decisions base on external information/stimuli.

It well maybe that the illusion of free will that we have is an evolutionary trait developed as a means to ensure survival of the species. That is why even those convinced of nonexistence of free still cannot help but act as if they had it. Maybe an entity, which is capable of pondering over the sense of its existence must have a crutch of free will delusion in order to be able to go on.

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm.... It's pretty early where I am, so I'm not sure I'm getting all the key points here. But, .... Putting aside the question of what I'd rather live without, religion or science, I would like to touch upon the idea of free will, which I don't link to religion, though it is a concept discussed in certain religions. I absolutely believe in free will, in choice. Think about times when we've done something that is beyond reason. For example, think about the time "you" saw a child being picked on. All the kids were doing it. If anyone ever tried to stop it, that person would be targeted. Stimuli to brain, go along to get along. Survive the situation. Yet .... Sometimes there's that kid, perhaps you, who doesn't care about mere survival, despite the fact that we've been "coded" to survive. Sometimes there's that person who makes a choice and lives it out regardless of how painful the decision might make the person's life. Hasn't that ever happened to any of us? It's happened to me. I remember a child being picked on while we were growing up. Despite the fact that I knew I'd get shunned, I always tried to stand up for and protect that child. Now, lest some of you think I'm a raving lunatic and religious nut, despite what I've said in my posts, listen to this one .... In college, I noticed a young woman in our science class, Geology, wasn't picked to be part of a lab group. I mentioned to our group that she was all by herself. They told me she was gay and no one wanted her in their group. They knew she was gay, because she had short hair and played softball. Yeah.... I got up and went over and asked if I could be in her group. She said yes. Well, word spread over our campus like wildfire. Girls in my suite argued against my working with this girl. (It was 1989.) People might think I was gay. As a result, they might think they were gay. My boyfriend even asked that I stop working with her; he was taking a lot of heat over it. Given how many religions stand against homosexuality, my decision was not based in religious doctrine or indoctrination, folks. My decision wasn't based on stimuli sent to my brain and my need for survival. Both would tell me to leave her to her own devises ... to go alone to get along ... to act like all the other people and not act at all different ... everyone knows what people who are different get treated to, right? Well, it took me about a nano-second to make my decision. I continued to work with this young woman and I ignored everyone else. After a couple weeks, my original group asked if we
wanted to join with them. I left the decision up to the young woman and she said yes.

I will not abdicate my ability to make choices to ... a) religious leaders or any leader or b) science. What exceptional excuses both would be!

Do we really want to argue, do we really believe that free will doesn't
exist? Again, take the religious aspect out of this particular equation. Do we really believe people don't have the ability to make choices? (I guess that would let all of the corrupt and hypocritical religious authorities off the hook, huh? Read irony here.)

[Giansar]

Do we really want to argue, do we really believe that free will doesn't
exist?Do we really believe people don't have the ability to make choices?
Do you believe you have free will?
Do you believe you have an ability to choose OBJECTIVELY?
If so - you are completely outside of scientific framework. You may not have to necessarily be a religious person but it is still your belief in some kind of deux ex machina.
You wrote you don't want to link the concept (of free will) with religion (by which I mean all kinds of supernatural explanations). So, in your opinion: what does your free will come from?

[Bunnie]

Giansar--boy are we getting philosophical-i am spending so much time on this computer with all of you interesting people that i am not reading much anymore-what to do-this has been so much fun since i never have had a chance to talk with like minded people very much-have we solved any problems yet?
keep talking--i'm listening!!

[York]

We are chatting about issues which have been discussed, argued and fought over since humans began to think and make decisions, whether "preordained" or not. Science is the tool which will parse these beliefs and maybe ultimately find the truth of our existence or reality. Unfortunately religion is made up of beliefs which are typically based on ethics ( right or wrong), and then are used to exclude others in society. People misinterpret that ethics come from religion or a God or gods. Ethics need not come from religion and most people know right from wrong but choose to ignore or bend there beliefs at their convenience. There in lies the problem. You can be ethical without being religious, that is a fact and millions choose one path or the other every microsecond. That's where science comes in, and maybe will finally answer whether we have free will or not. Oops I just got quantum entangled.

[Connie]

Of course human beings have "WILL"! Folks, putting WILL into the term "free will" gives it (vicariously) a hint of coming from a religious perspective, and the reason I say this is that I have seldom heard the idea explored other than from within that context, and I think that is what's true here--we're discussing science and religion. There is the additional perspective from a Philosophical viewpoint, but that doesn't exactly fit here, although it does in an indirect way. But I’m not going there.

In any case we are obliged to think of "free will" originating from a basic assumption that by natural law, there are always things that are beyond the scope of the human mind. That is a given. So why then are we even referring to earthquakes? We now know how they happen and why they happen because of scientific study. It's understood and agreed that we can do nothing about the "will" of Mother Nature, if you want to call it “god” then be my guest. Okay, we have that out of the way.

Now, we cannot choose our eye or hair colouring, or our birth date. (And, please don't let's get into induced labour, hair dyes and plastic surgery or coloured contact lenses!) We cannot choose our parents either. We cannot alter the sun, moon, and stars. Let's not be ridiculous and try to start talking about the notion of choosing between heaven and hell. We don’t have any proof that they exist and I don’t want to talk about something that frankly isn’t there. Not in my mind anyway; I’m not a believer in hooey. Let's stay concrete about this.

We most assuredly DO have free will. We cannot deny the basic desire for food, but we can choose when to eat, what to eat, how much to eat, and so on. We can choose the recipe book as well. This is a very simple example but you get my point.

Let’s put it on the table: science is infinitely more sophisticated than religion. Now, while religion has expanded over the centuries, it still remains an institution that relies heavily on people--CHOOSING (free will) to believe what they teach about the--POSSIBLE existence of heaven and hell, the--STORY of creation, the--MYTH of Jesus the Christ and messiah, the--FANTASY of the virgin birth, the--TALE of the commandments being written by “the hand of god”, the--OPINIONS of the men who wrote the stories, and many unsubstantiated--CLAIMS that if you take Jesus as your Lord and saviour, you’ll be guaranteed a place in heaven, an unknown and unseen product of the imagination. You must be somehow drawn into accepting notions which is what they are. Notions.

Now, with science all you need is an open mind, a subject area or subject, some research dollars, a lab or a reasonable facsimile like a test area, a hypothesis, a means with which to test it, and good record-keeping to keep your facts straight. (Note that I said facts.)

Physicist and chemist Madame Marie Skłodowska Curie was awarded numerous prizes including the Nobel Prize for outstanding work in radiation and also other discoveries. Let’s not forget that Alexander Graham Bell discovered the telephone here in Canada, proudly, my home. Insulin was also discovered right on my home turf by Nobel Prize recipient Dr. Frederick Banting. Dr. Christiaan Barnard performed the first heart transplant. And does anyone here know that it was a woman named Hedy Lamarr who helped to launch the Communication Age with her discovery?

Are the above just figments of the imagination, opinions, lame notions? Was not free will a basic requirement for these individuals to have pursued their studies? They made choices and followed through with those choices, one after the other, which eventually led them to their ultimate findings. Findings that have been enormously useful to humanity in saving lives, in communications and in helping to advance future discoveries.

One more thing: we have to remember that no matter what religion teaches, it takes the human body and mind to put it all into practice, and religion too, is an invention of, by, and for human beings. But it IS an invention and we cannot forget that, for it did not exist when the earth was made. Physics and chemistry and all of the other sciences that I know nothing about, did it all.

[Giansar]

We most assuredly DO have free will. We cannot deny the basic desire for food, but we can choose when to eat, what to eat, how much to eat, and so on.
Now, do we and can we really?
We can of course exercise our WILL and make DECISIONS but it does not necessarily consist an expression of our FREE WILL.
You always make your decisions basing on a set of factors, circumstances, conditions or whatever you want to call it (unless you're throwing dice each time but then the whole free will concept is out of the window anyway).
You can decide whether you want to eat a tomato or a cucumber based on which of those two vegetables you ate most recently (or any other criteria). But is it a manifestation of your free will?
You can program a computer to select one of the above vegetables basing on a set of criteria, even a very complex one and your computer will be perfectly capable of making the decision each time. Does it mean that because of your programming it somehow acquired free will of its own?

Was not free will a basic requirement for these individuals to have pursued their studies?
Well, actually not at all. I'd say it was their individual character and intellect traits (internal) combined with environmental (external) influences that pushed those people in the right direction. Free will needn't have anything to do with it.