Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Angle]

Hmm, now that's an interesting argument. Does it matter whether we have free will or not? I think so. My views on our lack of free will inform a number of my positions. The biggest thing it means, for me, is that the whole judging people things is rather silly - People have no real choice in who they are and what they do. Now, I still think it's worthwhile to try and figure out who a person is, and to make decisions based off of that. I prefer to avoid serial killers, for example. But the whole "You do X!? Ha! I'm so much better than you!" thing is rather silly.

[Criptfeind]

Well, leaving aside whether it's good to judge people in general. I don't see why not having free will is a reason to not judge people. We might not have free will, but our actions and choices are still caused by what type of person we are (which, I mean, also isn't necessarily a choice we made with free will, but eh, close enough) and really, isn't that what judging is?

Don't we all judge people based not only on their actions, but also what those actions make us think that they are?

[Angle]

Hmm. Perhaps. I've always understood it to be based on what kind of person someone chose to be, though.

[Arcvasti]

Spoiler: I INVOKE NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD! (click to show/hide)

Newton's Flaming Laser Sword: That which cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.

Although I guess I don't have anything better to do, so I guess I might as well toss my tuppence onto the pile anyways, despite the topic's general irrelevance. Basically, my point of view boils down to this:

You make choices because you make them. You will always make the SAME choices, given the exact same starting parameters, but one of the parameters is your identity. If you were a different person, you would choose a different choice. But you're not. You choose what you would choose just as if you were given "Real" free will, wherein your decision process is independent from reality. Not that real free will is feasible at all, logically. "Real" free will would only be accomplished by having something magically different that could make two hypothetical people who were born and lived under exactly the same circumstances different people. That's STILL not "really" free will, since the magical different thing would just be an additional parameter to factour into things, if one completely undetectable to entities that are not similarly "magical".

^No idea where God would come in to any of this. They could probably make actual free will[<-Maybe They have? No real way to find out.], being omnipotent and all, but I have no idea as to how that would WORK.

FAKEEDIT:

We might not have free will, but our actions and choices are still caused by what type of person we are

^This is the gist of my position.

[Micro102]

I'd say we have free will, in the sense that everything we do is predetermined, but only because everything we choose to do is predetermined. I am posting this only because I want to post this, it's just that everything that led up to me choosing to do this was already going to happen.

[origamiscienceguy]

I'd say we have free will, in the sense that everything we do is predetermined, but only because everything we choose to do is predetermined. I am posting this only because I want to post this, it's just that everything that led up to me choose to do this was already going to happen.

Just wondering, predetermined by what?

[Micro102]

I'd say we have free will, in the sense that everything we do is predetermined, but only because everything we choose to do is predetermined. I am posting this only because I want to post this, it's just that everything that led up to me choose to do this was already going to happen.

Just wondering, predetermined by what?

Ah, I imagine that everything can be measured, and if you measure everything it is possible to predict everything. Therefore everything can be predicted, and thus everything is already going to happen.

[Angle]

Genetics, environment, and upbringing, mostly.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Nope. Once you post in a thread, it's there forever. Unless the thread gets deleted or permanently locked, anyway.

.-. Dang
I guess I might lurk around this thread
But I think I'm done posting in here

[Orange Wizard]

Nope. Once you post in a thread, it's there forever. Unless the thread gets deleted or permanently locked, anyway.

.-. Dang
I guess I might lurk around this thread
But I think I'm done posting in here

[That Wolf]

There are drugs which make you more alert and aware of the real world...
But I don't think those are the drugs That Wolf is talking about.  Recreational drugs deny reality by replacing it with imagination, or dulling the pain.  Not that either of those things are necessarily bad, but I'm very skeptical of spirituality which requires mushrooms or LSD.

I will answer this.
I agree with you in a way. As a permanent solution psychedelic compounds are not useful, however most our psychological reasearch was formed during the 40s due to the reasearch on many compounds.
For me personaly it pushed my perception, and introduced a spirtitualty into my life I never would have found any other way and I believe there are many others in the same predicament that I was in.
However
It isnt for everyone, especialy the sanity is an unachored peice of paper easily blown away by a light breeze kind.
For the comment on the alertness of somebody on lsd or psilocybin, I will describe my personal experiences of both
Lsd: after 40 minutes of being slightly nervous of what was about to happen,my friends and I (one now a doctor, the other an artist studying language and social development, im just a cook) finaly started to feel the effects of it, I can decribe an intense alertness of not only others emotions but the environment and sounds around me, I was filled with a joy and the energy of a child and we started racing eachother only to become exausted and in a pile on the ground laughing at eachother, we finally looked at eachother and saw eachother we continued to decribe the feelings to eachother and listened to tool, tom petty, billy holiday etc and ate doritos (The bag seemed to last forever) all the while we all could decribe and easily pinpoint the intense feeling of being home. It does sound weird, but it was the warm feeling of home.
Psilocybin: alot calmer of a feeling. I could read emotions better than normal, the beginning effects are tingling in the hands a increased heartbeat and the obvious dilation of the pupils creating slight optical effect (very slight) I personaly began to feel a oneness with all. Stones, bugs, water... everything. Only peaked by the actual knowing of it. Its like (to me) a feeling if the bottom of your feet met the earth and the top of your head touched the sky and above, all touching and seemed to become one and touch eachother ( sounds like im mad) it at first startled me but I began to feel comfortable with the sensation. Music was very clear and each note becomes noticeable and distinguished, above all was the state of love for my fellow life, flora and fauna was so very interesting for me to observe and I loved all of it, not any mesurable love but a constant and understood love (something that if we all experienced every day the world would be a nice place not the compound but the love) I am the first person to be skeptical about these things and I would never suggest harmful narcotics or neurodegenratives like MDMA or PCP (despite the experience you can have with such, like unfiltered love) because I don't want to harm anyone, I only want to share what I know for your benefit.
Both have the feeling of still being yourself and being alert but thinking differently. A quote from a skeptical friend who wanted to scientifically observe us while under the influence (to see if we were different)
"you guys dont seem out if person, your still making me laugh but your also saying meaningful things" my response to this was gripping my face and screaming "I have no idea where my hands are." Knowing my humor we all laughed and had a mild night.
Biologically they are safe. Mentally however certain people in certain 'set and settings' can have dysphoria.
I have, and I can only say that once the door is opened ( positive or negative ) it doesn't close, both mine are open.
I can sympathize for people with mental disabilitys now though. I can only imagine the prisions some brains can be.
Only have seen a small side to it.
What I gained was the ability to sympathize and see through others eyes, to see that the state of conciousness is unchanging and that it is pure.
From what I used to be, im different
If you say that thats a bad thing then I can only wonder.
So for me and many others it can change you for the better.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I would like to thank Orange Wizard for letting me share, and whoever read it.

[TD1]

So, one of my synoptic extracts for my exam. Regardless, what do you all think? His stance is logical positivism.
https://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/philosophy/a2/a2-religious-language/900-ajayergodtalk

[Arx]

My first impression is that he manages to obfuscate his points to a remarkable degree. It took me two read throughs to work out what he was even trying say.

Otherwise, my impression was "you can't even prove there is probably a god because I don't like metaphysics", "I don't think there can be a god because the supernatural doesn't make sense", "if you can't define God in terms that I approve of He doesn't exist", and finally "if you can't empirically measure it then religious experience is bunk."

I assume there's some vital context I don't have on the first, because as an argument that makes as much sense to me as "I don't believe in sub-atomic particles because I don't like quantum mechanics".

The second has the same problem as the first.

The third is like a blind man saying elephants don't exist because he can't see that they're grey, at least from my impression of it.

The last point I actually sort of agree with, but it seems to hinge on his earlier assertion that there can't be a god he doesn't understand, which is not the best way I can think of to swing that argument.

Of course, there might be something I'm missing because a) this is apparently supposed to be about talking about God and b) I'm sick as a dog right now.

[Bohandas]

I think the main point was that the claims that "god is unknowable" or "god cannot be described in words" and things like that are inherently incompatable with claims to know what god thinks and what god wants and what his salient attributes are and the fact that these two types of claims are ofen made by the same people, at the same time, with a straight face, quite frankly calls the whole thing into question.

[Orange Wizard]

Eh. We can make deductions about a hypothetical god from the observable universe, it's just not necessarily wholly accurate (limited human cognition, bias, and so on and so forth). Things like "if God's so good why do bad things happen", among other things.