Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 951-1,000 of 12,463

[Connie]

You cannot compare the computer to the human brain and its capacity to think, judge, reason, assimilate, and so on.

Oh. So we're all just drifting through life getting blown around from event to event like a leaf in the wind according to you, Giansar? We're all just pre-conditioned, pre-destined to be where we are, go where we go because we're being "steered" there, correct according to you?

The traits and characters were the qualities within these individuals that gave them the ABILITY to make decisions, but they weren't the iron tracks on which they rode to reach the next stop. They were at the controls. We have choices. Free will had everything to do with it, after having been born with some intelligence and talent and the resources to enrich their own, and others, lives.

[Bunnie]

york-another brilliant conversationalist-i agree with what you just said--don't understand the quantum statement -don't understand quantum mechanics -wish i was smart enough though.

[York]

Bunnie wrote: "york-another brilliant conversationalist-i agree with what you just said--don't understand the quantum statement -don't understand quantum mechanics -wish i was smart enough though."

Bunnie, everyone is smart in their own way. And there is no real need to understand quantum physics/mechanics, and if anyone tells you they do, they are inflating their own sense of intelligence. The thing is quantum mechanics is a model to explain things we currently don't understand, and it may turn out to be wrong anyway. So no worries and read what you like and join the conversations. Everyone has their own perspective on things, a that is a fact.
Take good care,
York

[Connie]

Ethics and morals came long before religion and philosophy; the latter two were invented as a means by which to study ethical and moral values. Religion does not provide us with these qualities or values, it simply tries to interpret for, and establish them in, you. And, I would add, does a mighty bad job sometimes of being either ethical or moral itself!

PS - Bunnie. York didn't say anything substantial about quantum mecahnics, he said, "Oops I just got quantum entangled"--whatever that means. It was a brief comment.

Don't be too bedazzled when you think someone's used a big word, lol. You're probably smarter than you give yourself credit for. :-)

Also, York: No one's going to discover free will via scientific study! That's a philosophical question. My goodness. You said, "That's where science comes in, and maybe will finally answer whether we have free will or not."

[Giansar]

We're all just pre-conditioned, pre-destined to be where we are, go where we go because we're being "steered" there, correct according to you?
Well, speaking from the scientific point of view the times of determinism seem to have gone with the wind. I think quantum fluctuations (which were considered random at least from our perspective) are also out of fashion. The new hype are vibrating strings - which also, to my very limited understanding of the theories, are not deterministic. Therefore the answer to your questions as science would give it is 'NO' - our lives are not predestined, there is no ultimate fate.

The traits and characters were the qualities within these individuals that gave them the ABILITY to make decisions, but they weren't the iron tracks on which they rode to reach the next stop.
Again - let's not go into determinism.
You seem to be introducing another, third framework to the discussion - a philosophical one.
1. We have SCIENCE - which for now seems to have not a slightest hint how and why something like 'free will' would exist (actual free will, not an illusion of it).
2. RELIGION - which due to the character of the concept can simply assume existence of free will: God gave it to us, so it is - end of discussion.
3. PHILOSOPHY - by which we can try to define what free will is in a way that will allow us to put it in a social context without having to deal with the lack of scientific facts to uphold the theory of its existence.

Still, I am not sure whether you can by any means treat humans' ability to make decisions/choices as a manifestation of free will and thus a proof of its existence. You have no absolute frame of reference here. In order to be able to assert that a particular decision is an expression of free will you must possess free will yourself. So, to prove your proposition you have to prove your proposition first and without proving your proposition you cannot prove it.
Heh, there's some late night philosophy for you!

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm.... Giansar ....

No frame of reference due to the fact that we can't prove free will exists due to the fact that we don't have free will ....

Prior to scientists' discovery DNA, did DNA not exist ... given the fact that it had yet to be proven?

I suppose we could get into the debate of the forest and the tree falling and no one being there to hear .... I'd rather not, I think.

Perhaps we don't yet have the ability to "prove" through scientific means that free will exists. Does that mean it doesn't? Or, does that mean it simply has yet to be proven?

You asked earlier where I thought free will comes from.

I don't know, to tell you the truth. I know the religion I was raised in would tell me, as you've mentioned, that God gave me free will. I always had issues wrapping my brain around that concept, truth be told.

Here's the kicker! I don't really feel the need to explain it. Gasp! Horror! I know ...!

I don't want to live in a world, personally, in which I'm a victim. Is that over the top? I don't know. I don't think so, though. If I had no will and no ability to make choices, if I was simply a product of my neurons and chemicals and external stimuli, I'd sort of/kind of be a victim to those things ... or a slave to those things. Wouldn't I?

One of the posters, Hazel or Connie, wrote something about religion and religion trying to make people/women less than they are. Some religions do that; that's always been something I've fought against.

Here's the deal, though. If we were to believe that we have no will or no ability to make conscious choices, unless proven through scientific means, would that be an attempt to try to make us less than we are?

It's wrong when people's worth is lessened in the name of religion.

It's wrong when the same thing is done in the name of science.

What would be the point of our existence if we didn't have a say in some of the monumental things that happen in our lives? And, if were truly were just a bunch of transmitters and neurons and chemicals, etc..., would we even think to ask these sorts of questions of ourselves? Would we ponder things like the meaning of life, etc...? Would people like, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. ever lead people to Washington DC, under great threat and danger, and give a speech about the content of one's character vs. the color of one's skin ... in a country where racism was rampant ... having experienced the external stimuli, from infancy, that he was less than a white man? One wouldn't think, given neurons and chemicals and external events, that it would even occur to him to dream a different dream for himself and for his children. But, he did. How amazing for the world that he did!

There are some things that can't be proven. Can love be scientifically proven? Can loyalty? Can bravery? Can sincerity? Empirically? Scientifically? You know, I don't know that those things can be scientifically proven, and I can't tell you definitively where they come from. But, in my brain and my heart and every bit of my body, I know they exist.

I wonder .... Do we ask the question ... which would you rather live without, religion or science, because the two don't seem to fit together in any logical way? Square peg. Round hole. How badly do we hate the fact that people try to fit "square pegs" in "round holes?"

Is that what we're attempting to do, though, in an odd and twisted way? We see a square peg, religion. We see a round hole, science. Can we not see that there might be something else, in addition to all things square and round, or that there might be another way of making things "fit" in our lives?

[cerebus]

Giansar wrote: "Do you believe you have free will?
Do you believe you have an ability to choose OBJECTIVELY?."
Sorry, I dropped out again for a while, and haven't had a chance to read all of the replies, so forgive me if this has been dealt with already....but, what is it about free will that requires objectivity? I have free will when it comes to deciding whether or not to buy a Celine Dion cd....I choose not to because she's crap, but that's subjective (or at least I am assuming it is, there do seem to be people who can listen to her without losing the will to live). I'd be interested in trying to understand what it is that you mean when you say free will requires the ability to choose objectively?

[Old-Barbarossa]

I think all this havering about free will is being confused by the lack of definition of what free wil actually is.
Reading the above posts I'd like to hear what Giansar's uses as a working definition...
But, aye, I think it falls more into a philosophical debate at this point.

[Giansar]

Shannon wrote: What would be the point of our existence if we didn't have a say in some of the monumental things that happen in our lives?
I fully agree. But it doesn't change anything. What you wrote is just wishful thinking: "Please let there be free will because otherwise it all makes no sense!". The way you wrote it even sounds vaguely religious.
Shannon wrote: And, if were truly were just a bunch of transmitters and neurons and chemicals, etc..., would we even think to ask these sorts of questions of ourselves? Would we ponder things like the meaning of life, etc...?
I addressed these questions already - maybe this is how the evolution equipped us. We have acquired this peculiar characteristic of being sentient, conscious or whatever you want to call it - and in order to ensure the preservation of species we need a crutch in form of an illusion of free will.

Cerebus wrote: what is it about free will that requires objectivity? I have free will when it comes to deciding whether or not to buy a Celine Dion cd....I choose not to because she's crap
The question here is: Why don't you like Celine Dion? Is it how you are wired (you just never liked this kind of music) or maybe your younger sister listens to so much of it you're completely fed up with it?
Whatever the answer, how is not buying the CD an expression of free will if you admit yourself you chose not to because you didn't like the singer while obviously not liking her is something you cannot help?

[[deleted user]]

What if Cerebus bought the CD despite not liking her music? Would that be an expression of free will/choice or something Cerebus couldn't help?

When my aunt was pregnant, she craved ice cream cones like you wouldn't believe. Not ice cream. Just plain ice cream cones. She wanted to eat them morning, noon, and night. However, despite the cravings she had, she forced herself to eat green vegetables instead. I remember hearing her talk about how desperately she wanted an ice cream cone, as she sat eating green beans.

One would think her craving the cones was something she couldn't help. Her choice of green beans and great vegetables, which she loathed, would be ....

A simplistic example, I know. But, I believe it works.

I'd also like a definition of free will.

It seems like such a ridiculous and horrifying excuse, you know. The idea that anyone can do anything and sit back and say, "It's the way I was wired. Didn't have a choice in the matter." I'm shaking my head.

Oh, I'd also like an answer to my DNA question .... Did it exist prior to discovery? (Clearly, it did!) I wonder at the human need to explain everything, even things that are beyond our grasp and ability to explain.

[Giansar]

Shannon wrote: What if Cerebus bought the CD despite not liking her music? Would that be an expression of free will/choice or something Cerebus couldn't help?
We would then ask him why did he do it. And then again why. And then maybe several times more. And we would finally get to the underlaying cause of the decision.

Shannon wrote: One would think her craving the cones was something she couldn't help. Her choice of green beans and great vegetables, which she loathed, would be ....
Challenge accepted.
If I were to talk to your aunt I would ask her why did she choose the vegetables. Unfortunately I cannot do this so let's make a necessarily simplified simulation:
"Why eat lousy vegetables instead of delicious cones?"
"I don't want to get fat during pregnancy?"
"Why?"
"I think fat people are discriminated in today's society. I don't want to be discriminated. I want people to like me and I want to like myself and my body. I need to stay fit"
"So basically the compulsion to stay thin is stronger in you than the compulsion to eat ice cones?"
"I guess..."
"Poor auntie! NO free will there!"

Shannon wrote: I wonder at the human need to explain everything, even things that are beyond our grasp and ability to explain.
You only have to if you want to be rational.
Other than that you can believe in anything you want and not seek proof - God, UFOs, free will - anything you want. And no one can prove you wrong. Allegedly Yuri Gagarin, after his return from orbit, said "Boga Niet!" ('No God' in Russian), which was supposed to mean that he didn't see God while in orbit around Earth therefore it should be surmised, there is no God. But you cannot prove there is no God just as you cannot prove there is no coffee cup orbiting the sun (I stole this one from someone - Dawkins?).

Shannon wrote: I'd also like a definition of free will.
Free will in my book is an ability to make completely unencumbered objective choices free from all external and internal coercions.

Somehow a lot of people identify free will with ability to make decisions, which is completely beside the point: "I want to go from point A to point B, I decide freely without coercion, which way to go - therefore I possess free will".
But people seem not to grasp the simple concept that the process of such decision making is based on a series of factors and criteria: I want the shortest route but I need to buy bread and I don't want to take this street because there's to much of pedestrian traffic there. It is simple data processing, which can be performed by any calculating machine. You can have Google Maps make the decision for you. Does Google Maps have free will?

[Connie]

Oh, for gawd's sake, you seem to forget that the human being invented data processing!! With some exceptions (because of intellectual deficiencies), all human beings have the innate ability to make rational choices, and we have freedom of choice. Free will is simply the ABILITY to make a decision without coercion. An example that comes to mind where free will is suppressed is in those countries where people are not free to dress as they choose, or where mutilations are made on their bodies before adulthood, or they are deprived of the vote, or they are imprisoned for alleged crime activity. Remove the individual from that country, and they have their free will, their freedom of choice, back again. Law and Liberty. Or, Law and oppression.

Such individuals are deprived of their freedom AND their choices, however...and this is important, the human ability remains...to be capable to choose, but oppression and fear of death, further punishment or torture, harnesses that freedom, but it cannot be destroyed. The ABILITY to choose, the Will, remains. Get my point?

The corrupt, patriarchal, oppressive, despotic culture they live in has placed them in a situation of control, but the natural-born ability to choose is still there! No, they can't break out from the physical constraints and they are so oppressed and brainwashed that they must comply, or it may be near impossible to flee that country. But the human spirit is a very difficult thing to break. Think of the numbers of people who have been imprisoned: they chose to keep their will, and not let their captors break them. Some people come out of these situations still whole, but some are broken.

When an athlete is paralyzed, how often have you seen them go on to ski without legs? Ray Charles "wrote" songs but he was blind. Think of Helen Keller, she was deaf, speechless, and blind but did that stop her from speaking and writing? Terry Fox lost a leg to cancer, did he sit down and die? He set out to run cross-country to raise money for cancer research. People overcome terrible disease every day. They roll up their sleeves and pitch in to help after a flood or earthquake. I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

And, Google maps does NOT "make the decision" for us!! You use the map to see where you're going but the choice is up to you to use it or not. You have the free will to select another route to your destination any old way you want. You don't even have to use Google in fact, maps have been around for centuries!!! LOL at that comment. :-) Google be damned. It's not robbing ME of my free will any time soon.

[Bunnie]

york-ok thanks for that--i really do wish i had the brains to understand q

[Bunnie]

york-=hit the wrong button-as i was saying i would like to be able to understand quantum mechanics-i have read articles and get a general idea -that's all-maybe i could be struck by lightening and all of a sudden become a genius.

[Bunnie]

connie- i see what you mean but you are wrong--you really make decisions based on your age,where you live, who influences you, what you really believe, you are constrained by social pressures. this is an interesting subject--what do you all say about this?

[Connie]

Go ahead and talk about quantum mechanics y'all, this is an open discussion. I didn't see much of any substance here written from that viewpoint. I don't know much about quantum anything, but it's because it doesn't interest me, not that I don't have the ability. I have lived my life pursuing other things that interest me more, and there have been vast choices for me, I'm not being led to these things because I've been pre-programmed! :-)

Bunnie, I really wish you'd stop saying you wish you "had the brains" to do such-and-such, give yourself more praise for the smarts you do have! Surely, you are capable of infinitely more than 'q'.

[Travis]

The beauty of quantum mechanics is summed up in the famous quote 'if you weren't shocked, you didn't understand it'.

Everyone is baffled by quantum mechanics, so don't you guys go thinking you're special in your ignorance.

[Bunnie]

connie--thanks for that--you are right i have never had much confidence in myself and should stop that.
i'll say no more!

[Bunnie]

travis--i'm glad you said everyone is baffled by quantum mechanics-and the string theory is another one--how i wish i could understand it-even my grandson who graduated from HARVEY MUDD did not get it all. it might not even be valid. and Einsteins theory might be wrong too after the neutrino discovery.but that is how science works!how about multiple universes?

[Giansar]

Connie wrote: "Oh, for gawd's sake, you seem to forget that the human being invented data processing!! "
I'm sorry but I have to correct you here. We did not. Data processing was around long before any kind of homo. Single cell organism process data all the time and they didn't learn that from us, did they?
Connie wrote: "Free will is simply the ABILITY to make a decision without coercion"
Yeah, but scientifically speaking (and this is the only way really to discuss about it rationally) these two things: decision making process and lack of coercion are mutually exclusive. Each of your decisions is governed by a set of internal and external circumstances, which allow you to decide on something. Without them you wouldn't be able to make the decision at all but with them the outcome of your decision is preordained and you actually have zilch to say in it. If there was someone in your head before you even made the decision she/he would be able to know the outcome beforehand just by analyzing the accompanying circumstances.
in fact this kind of stuff happens in real life on daily basis. You're a girl Connie. I bet you have a best girlfriend who knows everything about you and vice versa. I bet I could show her 20 different dresses and she will be able to correctly pick the one that you would like the most. How is that possible without you making your free decision first?

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "The beauty of quantum mechanics is summed up in the famous quote 'if you weren't shocked, you didn't understand it'.

Everyone is baffled by quantum mechanics, so don't you guys go thinking you're ..."

If you claim you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics... now, I'm trying to remember who said that...

now, back to lurking, because I don't do well at philosophy >.>

[Giansar]

Everyone is baffled by quantum mechanics, so don't you guys go t..."
Quantum mechanics may be next to impossible to grasp but it is still kindergarten stuff compared to string theory. Try to get your mind around a multidimensional Calabi–Yau space!

[Hazel]

OK, from a quick read through, I'd say that we have free will within parameters. We are each a product of our genetics and our environment, we were each raised by our parents, or other adults in the case of those without parents, who will have, when we were young, imparted their "knowledge" etc onto us, they effected who we are, what attitudes we were likely to take, and even our very expressions and mannerisms(the other day, me and my mam were sat next to each other, we'd put the puppy in her crate as she was getting overwrought, and we both sighed at exactly the same time, in exactly the same way, with the same shoulder sag, and the same hand to face gesture). On top of this, our genetics do have an effect on our personalities, our intelligence etc. So, everything we do in life is effected by these factors, our decisions, throughout life, find their basis in what we have been moulded by these influences to be.

Now, I would contend that we also have some effect on ourselves, and some influence on how we are moulded. The effect of others, and our genes starts us off, but we are the ones who take it onwards. SO, though our decisions may be based outside of our will, from when our parents and teachers still exerted influence (which can end at different ages for different people - my mam never tried to push me in a particular direction, she left it up to me. My dad tried to get me into art, like he was, I went the science route), and our genes dictate the intelligence etc we may achieve, we take that basis, and we expand on it ourselves, using our will, not someone elses.

So, you could argue that all our decisions are ultimately a product of who our genes, and influential adults made us when we were very small, but that we can then go any direction within the parameters we have had built for us, or even that we build for ourselves. Rarely, very rarely, you find someone who breaks the parameters completely, but even then, you can say its a product of those parameters - for eg, the person who manages to break the vicious cycle of abusive home life that repeats generation after generation within their family. "Rebellion" against what you have been taught is still a reaction to those lessons, and thus caused by them.

Of course, everything we want to do is based upon our ability to achieve those ends, and if its something like wanting to have a decent house etc, its down to having enough money, which is down to having a good job, and in the end, no matter how well you do in interview, that decision is not up to you. All you can do, is do your best.

Or I may just be talking utter rubbish. And obviously, I'm really bad at lurking... >.>

[[deleted user]]

I'm in agreement with Connie at this point in the conversation.

Giansar ...

Regarding my aunt .... :) I can answer why she ate all those green veggies. She wanted to take in healthy nutrients for the baby. Now, you might be tempted to tell me this was also a compulsion and that it was a greater compulsion. However, you weren't there! Oh, my! She thought about those cones constantly, even dreamt about them. I remember watching her sit there noshing on pea pods or green beans with a grimace on her face. She'd eat them and go on about how much she hated them and would go on and on about those darned cones. My grandmother actually tossed a whole box of cones at her and told her to eat the silly box and get it out of her system. She did; it didn't. I'd say the craving for the cones was the compulsion, an all consuming one. Her CHOICE to eat the veggies was an example of my aunt's ability to get past her compulsion and "wiring" in order to make a better choice for her pregnancy.

With respect, I think the examples of Google Maps and the dresses is too simplistic. We recently passed the anniversary of 9/11 here. There are all sorts of stories about survival from that day. Some involve people, on their way to safety, stopping and risking all to save others, strangers in some cases. If we were just neurons and whatnot, I'd say one of the things we're wired for is survival ... first and foremost. So, why would people stop to help perfect strangers when they might die as a result? Another example .... I work in a town through which the Underground Railroad ran. Some of my students live in some old houses that were used for that purpose. Being October, the kids are starting to tell ghost stories about these houses. Irrational, I know! At any rate, think of the people who risked their reputation, their property, their lives, and the lives of their family members to save people they didn't know and bring them to freedom. Given our instincts for survival, why would some choose to risk all for an ideal and for perfect strangers?

Yes, if you asked people who knew me whether I'd choose to read a Steven King or Sharon Kay Penman novel, they'd tell you the latter without hesitation. Coke or Pepsi? Heck! They'd say Coke. Yes, people know my tastes. But, do they know how much I'd be willing to risk for another or for an ideal?

I don't believe our humanity can be explained simply by our wiring and our experiences. As Connie mentioned, some of us go through horrible things, yet some of us overcome those experiences.

Here's one .... My mother was raised by racists, I'm sad to say. My mother shared DNA with her parents and her siblings, was raised in the same house, went to the same school, etc.... My mother's parents and siblings were and are racists. My mother is not. I believe my mother, despite nature and nurture, made a choice to overcome genetics and upbringing. My mother's choice to treat people as equals regardless of race actually led to serious problems with her relationship with her own mother. But, she made the choice. She stood for her beliefs and ideals despite the fact that she almost lost her relationship with her mother. Doesn't that defy human wiring?

[Giansar]

First of all - the discourse is to large extent philosophical so I wouldn't call even a wildest train of thoughts rubbish.
Also, speaking for myself, I enjoy the discussion immensely and nobody commented on my English so far so that is an additional perk for me.
I'd say as long as we manage to keep the discourse civil and not insult each other every input is welcome and can teach us something.

Elaborating further on my perception of the concept of free will...
A lot of you seem to identify free will with freedom of choice. I can choose, I live in a free country, I am a free man, I have good family and money which gives me all opportunities I want therefore I have free will.
To my understanding free will, if it exists, must be something that is intrinsic for us and cannot be identified with the physical/material act itself nor can it be impeded by direct physical coercion.
I am not sure whether I am being clear here. What I mean is that if you have free will you cannot lose it because of imprisonment or enslavement. Even if you are physically unable to perform a material act, which is the result of your free decision, it doesn't matter - what matters is that you are able to make the decision. The decision is the manifestation of your free will (if it is), possible subsequent action is only the consequence of you exercising your free will.
Oh my, please let me know if anybody understood this - maybe it is too late in my t-zone to write this kind of stuff.

[Bunnie]

GIANSAR--if english is not your native tongue you are doing extremely well with it-what is your native tongue ?--i have to give you kudos because english i think is a very difficult language.

[Giansar]

Shannon wrote: "Her CHOICE to eat the veggies was an example of my aunt's ability to get past her compulsion and "wiring" in order to make a better choice for her pregnancy"
Or... might it have been that the compulsion coming from her growing maternity instinct was greater than or other compulsions?
Shannon wrote: "Some involve people, on their way to safety, stopping and risking all to save others, strangers in some cases. If we were just neurons and whatnot, I'd say one of the things we're wired for is survival ... first and foremost."
Actually this has been dealt with by behavioral psychology extensively some time ago. And this is something entirely aside from free will.
People are all (with maybe an exception of mentally ill) perfect egoists. All we do we do solely for ourselves. The only exception from this are cases when we act on immediate reflexes and instinct.
To give an example. I am strolling a river bank in a middle of winter and a random little kid standing next to me suddenly falls into icy water. I'd probably go after him without thinking.
On the other hand if I had been standing 50 meters from the kid as he'd gone into water I mightn't had gone after him. Because my consciousness together with my subconsciousness would have had time to calculate my slim chances of survival in the ice cold water and remind me of my other obligations like my own wife and kids. This said, I might still have gone after this kid because it might have turned out that the compulsion of the social contract might have won over the survival instinct.
I don't remember the exact behavioral theory right now but we apparently possess a mental calculator that takes in account all factors that play role in this kind of situations - such as chances of success of our rescue attempt, chances for our own survival, relationship/kinship with the victim and so on.
Shannon wrote: "I believe my mother, despite nature and nurture, made a choice to overcome genetics and upbringing."
I don't quite get your reasoning here.
Kudos to your mother for overcoming her racist upbringing but how does the nature come to play in here? Are you implying people can be born racists?

Bunnie wrote: "GIANSAR--if english is not your native tongue you are doing extremely well with it-what is your native tongue ?"
Thanks for the kind words!
I am Polish and frankly speaking I have yet to visit a country, in which people speak English as their native tongue.

[[deleted user]]

Giansar said ... I don't quite get your reasoning here. Kudos to your mother for overcoming her racist upbringing but how does the nature come to play in here? Are you implying people can be born racists?

I don't believe people are born racists, no.

But, then, I also don't believe we're pre-wired for everything and don't have free will.

This line of thought is a distraction.

Question? How would you explain the fact that she overcame her upbringing ... when everyone else in the household did not? Same genetics, whether a factor or not, same upbringing, same education, same .... That is the question.

I give her kudos for overcoming it; thank you for doing the same.

[Giansar]

Just as a sideline. I have been brought up by very tolerant parents and I remember from my youth how difficult it was for me to grasp the concept of racism at first. For me discriminating people because of the color of their skin or place of birth was akin of discriminating them for the color of their eyes or hair.
Shannon wrote: "I also don't believe we're pre-wired for everything and don't have free will. "
That s perfectly ok, but once again if you believe in free will I don't see how we can discuss it. Belief needs no proof. We can discuss free will only as a possible scientific fact.
Shannon wrote: "Question? How would you explain the fact that she overcame her upbringing ... when everyone else in the household did not? Same genetics, whether a factor or not, same upbringing, same education, same .... That is the question. "
Well, maybe she was consciously or unconsciously exposed to some other external stimuli? Or maybe the difference in genetic code allowed her to make the decision?
You could as well rephrase the question: why did all the other members of the household remain racist? Were their bad people? If so, how come? Were their born that way? Or did their acquired the 'badness' on the way? If they were not bad people how come none of them exercised her/his free will in order to uproot the racism?

[[deleted user]]

...Belief needs no proof. That is true ...

[York]

I love the way blogs work; they are similar to evolving life, starting with a simple premise (religion or science) and changing in structure and content as people post replies.
The structure of this one went from pondering which world would we rather live in and metamorphosed into a nurture vs. nature discussion focusing on a racism tangent.
And then the dead ends (as in evolution of life)
incorporating determinism, freewill, quantum mechanics, racism, vegetables... The conversation also contains emotions (happy, stern, anger, kindness, support, contempt...) and all from what was originally a choice. I think it is all wonderfully characteristic of humanity's potential for greatness.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "If you claim you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics... now, I'm trying to remember who said that..."
It was Niels Bohr, one of the 'fathers' of quantum physics...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

[Connie]

Bunnie wrote: "connie- i see what you mean but you are wrong--you really make decisions based on your age,where you live, who influences you, what you really believe, you are constrained by social pressures. this..."

OOOOOoooooohhh! Methinks not. I was raised supposedly as a Christian, in a Christian culture. Am I Christian? Absolutely not, never felt I was, never wanted to be, and I never will be. I alone decided not to go to church or be associated with it, despite the frowns and rejection and disapproval that I thought might be there. My family didn't say a word; they never interfered in my choices in that area or in the choice to marry or not marry, have kids or not have kids--I come from a very open and free thinking family. We don't try to influence or manipulate one anothers lives. There was nobody pulling me away from religion, I found the way out on my own for entirely my own set of reasons. I also decided where to live, choosing to leave Toronto and come to the city I now live in. Okay, so I chose not to move outside of Canada, therefore I alone limited myself on that one, but, left with what I had, I still had numerous cities from which to choose, and I chose my current one. Simple as that. Really, no one in my life influences me, I've always been a private person, and even tho' I have plenty of friends, none of them tell me what they think I should do, eat, wear, read, watch or whatever, I really do live my own life designed uniquely for myself. And you said I was "constrained by social pressures". That's absolutely not true, my life has been very unconventional, you have no idea. I didn't do the traditional get thru school, go to college, get married, have 1.5 kids, grow older, retire..... I got out of high school and worked for a while. 10 years later I became a Nurse. Later I went to University and studied French Literature and Translation. Then later I became a Librarian. After that, I went back to Nursing...chose that over librarianship because it paid better as I had discovered. I went back to school my dear, when I was 47 years of age...did my age have to do with the decision? Not at all I made that decision IN SPITE OF the age factor. It was there, but did not in any way influence my decision--it didn't phase me to go to college at that age. Another person would have let age hold them back, but not ME! Nope. Conventional and traditional I am not. I float my own boat.

Giansar wrote: "You're a girl Connie. I bet you have a best girlfriend who knows everything about you and vice versa. I bet I could show her 20 different dresses and she will be able to correctly pick the one that you would like the most. How is that possible without you making your free decision first?"

First of all G. I'm a woman, not a girl. Haven't been a girl for a lot of years. Wrong. My best friend(s) don't know everything about me in the slightest! I actually find my closest friend a mystery and that's part of why I like her; she intrigues me because she's Jewish, came from Europe, spent time in a D.P. camp with her parents at the age of 8, came to Canada, married, husband ended up being murdered by a guy he rented an apartment to, and when she came to my city to forget the past and be closer to her daughters, we became friends. She's never seen inside my closet! We're not concerned with each other's wardrobes. We get into much more cerebral conversations than our pretty little dresses. I don't wear dresses even tho' I have a nice body, I just have always liked pants better. But anyway, I really don't get the point of your idea.

[Tony]

I think Religion and Science can work hand in hand perfectly, my understanding is that God uses natural laws (scientific Laws)to accomplish his work. I am sure scientists of faith understand that.

[Alfie]

Bunnie wrote: "HAZEL,DAM YOU NAILED IT! RIGHT ON! BUT DO YOU THINK YOU WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS? IT IS SO SIMPLE TO SEE BUT THEIR MINDS ARE CLOSED."

who? me?look, bunny...It is you who is imprisoned within your immanentist view..It is you who cannot get out from your mind...And you allow yourself to be imprisoned by it....

[Alfie]

Tony wrote: "I think Religion and Science can work hand in hand perfectly, my understanding is that God uses natural laws (scientific Laws)to accomplish his work. I am sure scientists of faith understand that."

I agree, Sir Tony...But many people here are not scientist of faith....They are absolutising science, and leave religion like a garbage...I assume that having mentioned Natural LAws here(which you did) will also lead them to deny it...

[Alfie]

Hazel wrote: "Bunnie wrote: "hazel, i was thinking Alfie does not make sense-he cannot be reached so why bother.he cannot even express himself in a clear way."

Bunnie, I can forgive him not expressing himself c..."

Yoohooo...well, sorry guys...I think I am worthy to receive your considerations for the wrong, or shall I say, the erroneous grammar I have committed for some reasons: first, as what you, Hazel, said I am from Philippines..For that, I believe and surely believe, that even if you are the one in my position speaking an alien language, you would also commit the same mistake, and I would be the one mocking you; second, I believe that age matters in everything, and you are older than me, therefore, I am excusable. My assurance is that, by next year, after my graduation in high school, I would enroll myself taking up a course that majors English so that I can explain myself clearly and vividly...hahaha

[Giansar]

Connie wrote: "I was raised supposedly as a Christian, in a Christian culture. Am I Christian? Absolutely not, never felt I was, never wanted to be, and I never will be."
You never wanted to be Christian. Interesting. Doesn't that mean that you were born (or maybe even conceived) not wanting to be Christian? How is that free will?
And once again - you give great examples of different decisions you made throughout your life. That's all well and good but it doesn't prove anything with regards to existence or not of free will. You observe yourself and your decisions from within your own frame of reference therefore you are unable to assert whether what you do is a manifestation of free will or not.
Talking a little physics (basic stuff). Imagine yourself hanging in an endless space (without any external points of reference. Suddenly another person flies by you with immense speed. "Wow that guy was going fast, you may think" and it is how it looked like from your point of view. But in reality you cannot know what happened without external frame of reference. It may well turn out you are going like a rocket and the guy was actual stationary.
Connie wrote: "First of all G. I'm a woman, not a girl. Haven't been a girl for a lot of years. Wrong, my best friend(s) don't know everything about me in the slightest!"
The garment stuff was just an example. And I meant no offense calling you a girl. If I did offend you, I am sorry!

Tony wrote: "I think Religion and Science can work hand in hand perfectly, my understanding is that God uses natural laws (scientific Laws)to accomplish his work. I am sure scientists of faith understand that."
I also don't think science and religion in its various forms are mutually exclusive. To my view they are complimentary. We should only be careful about mixing them together. I don't like when someone tries to prove of disprove religious views using science because I think is beside the points. Ans I am allergic to so called scientific creationism, which for me is just a contradiction in terms.

[York]

Giansar wrote: "Connie wrote: "I was raised supposedly as a Christian, in a Christian culture. Am I Christian? Absolutely not, never felt I was, never wanted to be, and I never will be."
You never wanted to be Chr..."

Giansar, great job trying to make Connie understand true free will from perceived free will. But, alas I think no matter the strength of your theses, it will fail the prove to her that she may not decide each action in her life.
Warning: quantum discussion ahead (sorry), read at your own peril: I come back to quantum issues because, for me it presents the best argument against free will. If one believes in quantum action, it will alter your view of free will... if you believe what leading physicists theorize (that quantum particles "pop" in and out of existence constantly)then you must believe that these particles can alter processes in our brains and therefore can change signals in the brain one way or another. Which posits that these changed signals may lead to a different thought or choice every microsecond we exist. The choice to leave your house one second earlier than you wanted this morning may have come down to a quantum change in your brain signals or even someone else(a phone call, a decision to use the bathroom before you leave, a cat or dog demanding a little more attention, answering a blog post, a child or spouse calling out...). Each and every second we make choices about what to do next. Sorry if i didn't get my thoughts across so that readers understand, but I'm only human.

[Connie]

Giansar I will never believe that idea of us choosing our lives before we're born, so I won't even go there. I don't believe in the supernatural, it is what it is, thus the reason that I am not religious, as it is based upon supernatural beliefs which do nothing to help me understand this world. Anyway, from the way you describe us all as making decisions "within a frame of reference", appears to me that you think we are all thinking INSIDE the box, and can't get out of it!! Sorry, still don't buy your argument. I cannot be convinced that free will doesn't exist. If everything was pre-destined for us, why didn't the universe make robots? And, you didn't offend me, it takes a lot to offend me and I'm not that thin-skinned, so no apology necessary; I was just setting you straight as to my mature place in life. :-)

@ York: All the information of human life vis a vis quantum theory is just that: theory and no more. They can try to understand the workings of things all they want. You use the word 'posit', which also reinforces my point: they too, are searching for answers and haven't solidly proven very much. Why did the quantum theorists decide to become quantum theorists? Did quantum theory exist before them, or is that simply the artificial label they came up with to apply to their field? Hmmmm...

If we did not have free will I think all of our lives would be pretty much the same. There are a lot of factors that take us where we go: will, desire, circumstance, genetics, intellectual level, interests, influence or the lack of it, what we are exposed to in the course of our lives, talent, expectations, drive, need, experience, encouragement, moral and emotional and financial support, economy, self-esteem, goals, politics, beliefs, geography..... Are you saying that these things limit us to what we can do? I say that this world is our oyster and what we can achieve is limited only by our CHOICES! Free will.

I don't care what you call the changes that occur at the cellular level within the body and brain with every drawn breath, label it "quantum" if you like, that's just an area of study they labeled it, but it still doesn't change how it all works in the first place. "Leading physicists theorize". Exactly. They have a theory, not proof, ergo it's just as nebulous as religion! Oh dear, have we got two left feet here or what?

[York]

Unfortunately (or not) not all quantum action is just theory. Particles have been recorded that appear out of nothing, and disappear as well, this happens all the time, everywhere. Also physicists have proven that particles can be entangled and therefore communicate instantly with each other, even though they are separated. How it works, no one knows, but it does happen. Einstein was right when he called it "spooky action at a distance." Reference article for the layperson: 'Spooky action at a distance,' by Peter N. Spotts; 4/10/01; Christian Science Monitor

[Hazel]

Shahmida wrote: "A world without religion sounds really nice. But most of us who say that have had bad experiences with our own religion or those of others. The truth is, for many people, a belief in a higher deity, a promise of a better Afterlife is needed in order for them to overcome obstacles in their lives or for them to behave in society. ."

I can get ion board with the idea of a world without religion being nice.

But I'm sorry, I have a couple of issues with what you've said. So can you clarify, do you honestly believe that old line about most atheists having had a bad experience with religion?

And do you honestly believe that MOST people need to be offered an eternal reward in order for them to cope with life (I can see how some people would find comfort if they pick the right bits of the bible, for eg, but I wouldn't say they can't find that comfort elsewhere) and more importantly in what you say, to behave in society? Can you clarify that bit please? And please don't say that people don't have a moral compass without religion.

[Giansar]

@Connie - I think you're starting to make the same mistake, which creationist make by dismissing scientific theories as "just theories". Scientific theory is not equal to an "idea" or even hypothesis that something works either this or that way. In order for some idea to become a scientific theory it must be well thought out, well worked out, supported by scientific method and experiments and above all must have a solid base in scientific facts. That is where creationists go wrong twofold:
1. They try to disparage theory of evolution as 'just a theory' without being aware what a 'theory' in science means
2. They seem to not notice that even if they managed to prove Darwinian theory of evolution wrong they would achieve nothing creation wise. Because undermining theory of evolution hardly affects the evolution itself - which is a scientific fact.
It's the same with gravity. It's the same with quantum mechanics. Theory of gravity may turn out to be a load of crap, but you will still die if you fall from a tall building. You can laugh at quantum theory as long as you want but if the scientific facts of quantum mechanics were not true we wouldn't be able to chat right now.

Let me ask you two things. You are a rationalist - you don't believe in supernatural. Yet somehow you are convinced that we are not only biological machines capable of reproduction. If your conviction of existence of free will is not irrational (a belief) then what is you theory about it:
1. Where it is coming from? I presume it must be somewhere deeper than the standard electrochemical activity of our brains but where exactly is it coming from in us?
2. How and when did it come to be? Do only humans have it? What about other primates? What about other mammals? ... and so on - I think we can agree that a protozoon does not possess a free will therefore if we have it we had to acquire it somewhere on our evolutionary way.

[Hazel]

Just to clarify, in case anyone doesn't know the definition:

A theory, in science, is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[Hazel]

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. I'm used to the "bad experience" argument meaning "you're only atheist because you're angry at god/religion". Thanks for clarifying :)

I see where you're coming from with the fundies as well.

[Bunnie]

giansar-wasn't it you that said something about english not being your native tongue? you express youself very well as i can see and with a great deal of intelligence too-i just looked up quantum mechanics--i have read a little about it but do not understand it very well -maybe i should get a book for dummies on the subject.i think it is all very interesting and really hard to get your mind around. but i keep trying.maybe some day i will see another point that makes sense.

[York]

Giansar and Bunnie,
Both of you have put forward great issues and questions. I think you both deserve respect for a great discussion. I wish others could carry on a discourse without bringing emotions and(an unwavering belief in their own righteousness) to the blog. Thank you both for making me think differently about the wonderful universe in which we are a very small part.

[[deleted user]]

Ah, York ...

I agree with you regarding the discussion. I've rather enjoyed my discourse with Giansar. While Giansar and I aren't always on the same page, the comments made were highly respectful and made me think. I enjoy thinking, even having my thinking challenged. I believe that's what makes us grow and makes our lives more rich.

The reason I said, "Ah, York ...." Your words, "I wish others could carry on a discourse without bringing emotions and ...," made me shake my head and smile. We've been discussing free will and choice. I would contend, though my contention is not based in science, that this is the point. We might have an initial compulsion to react through our emotions or to lash out at people who are different than we are or who have different opinions or beliefs. The question .... Will we act on our initial instincts, or will we overcome them and take a more reasoned and respectful path?

This is actually where I entered this discussion. I believe I'm the one who took us off on the "tangent" and "havering" about free will and choice and, dare I say it, veggies. You see, I was reading the comments a few days ago and noticed all of the posts about the Amish and Christians and how, if I remember correctly, "easy" it was to pick on them. That was followed by pictures of plastic ponies. Finally, some posts were made in response to someone named Kyle that made me a bit uncomfortable.

Hence, my comments. People could rail about religion and say it led to most of the wars throughout history. Well .... While organized religions have committed horrible atrocities, doing away with religion will not do away with human beings' compulsion to lash out at one another for real and perceived differences.

So, you find yourself wishing that others could have a respectful discourse. I feel the same way. But, if people believe we're
pre-wired and that free will is an illusion, how can people make the choice to engage in a higher level of discourse?

I know. Giansar would tell me it has to do with experience. :) I'm sure that has something to do with it. Definitely. But, I also believe there's something else ... this ... thing that can't be proven or adequately described ... that leads us to choose a different path.

[York]

Shannon wrote: "Ah, York ...

I agree with you regarding the discussion. I've rather enjoyed my discourse with Giansar. While Giansar and I aren't always on the same page, the comments made were highly respectfu..."
Shannon, I believe you captured the same "feelings" that I have, and stated them beautifully. I came to the blog very late in the discourse without and quite honestly did not read every post, or even more than the last hundred. And at that time it had become more of an argument about freewill and whether or not religion is a good thing. Funny thing is both science and religion can be used for very good or very bad things, however I would say the rules of science are not evil or good, but rules created by man for religion can be good thoughor many are very bad. The exclusive nature of most religions is just one example. But again i digress. I thought the blog became an argument between a few about the nature of free will that some didn't understand, and I was just trying to explain how science approaches free will.
What I was somewhat bothered by was that one or two contributers wanted "things" their way or the "see ya later i'm not going to listen unless people see things 'my' way" approach. Unfortunately that leads nowhere but towards nasty comments. I strive to keep an open mind and to learn from others, but I don't always achieve what I strive for, and as I said I'm only human.
take good care...

[[deleted user]]

I do believe we're largely in agreement. Even if we weren't .... :)