BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM

Rag,
I find it incredible that people can be so gullible as to accept such a statement.

You feel confident that if an omnipotent God existed, he would be just like you.
He would probably seek your advice on how best to order things in His multiverse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM

Hmm. In moral choices, a lot of people are choosing what someone has told them is the moral choice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 11:57 AM

I'm wondering if free will is more a matter of creativity, rather than choosing right or wrong. Could it not be, that my will is truly free when I am making creative choices?
In moral choices, I think that most people are disposed to choose what they see as right and good - even if that right or good is not for the benefit of all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 11:05 AM

Interesting stuff bill and I quite agree that developing a thesis via posts on a bulletin board is not likely to be a good way! But from the brief post so far it sounds like you concentrated on where the variation comes from, which is a little different. These experiences appear to show that at some level the brain has decided on the choice but the concious mind then continues to 'decide' and several seconds later reports what the brain settled to. Which is, to use the formal.scientific term, damn peculiar.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 10:52 AM

DMcG.... I wrote only the 1st third or so of my paper, describing the issue and the flaws in the standard attempts to explain why it 'feels like' we have free will. If I had finished it, I would no doubt have been continuously revising it as quantum physics and brain chemistry...etc. were advanced in the last 40 years.
   The point is that it 'may' be that science can actually describe how choice actually happens, and at the same time show that certain categories are free.



"For example one experiment asks people.to choose between say blue and green and we can now determine how a subject will decide by monitoring brain.activity and hence obtain their decision before they have decided. That's why they concluded free will appears to be a construct of the conscious mind."

However..IF the very elements that make the mind not only conscious, but also self-aware, deliberative and reflective/contemplative can be shown to be related to the same phenomenon that makes photons passing thru a grating behave randomly, then it becomes possible to theoretically describe how the very randomness becomes, by definition, subject to interruption by ...ummm... it's own processes. (much like the theory of Hawking radiation contradicting the idea that nothing can escape black holes.)
   There have been recent studies in how memory is actually stored and accessed in the brain that may provide additional evidence that 'choosing' among memories is not necessarily deterministic.

[You can see that whatever form this idea takes needs more than a few paragraphs to develop]

"It is rare for a single experiment to be a game changer so.this can't either. But the evidence is building that science may disprove free will at that fundamental level."

So... it will be interesting to see just how we can define fundamental level as more experiments are done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 09:04 AM

an imaginary friend in a fairy story

We created God especially for that very purpose -because we needed something greater than we were - greater indeed than nature - a literal All Mighty Father Figure so we might feel cared for, and that our otherwise meaningless lives and deaths had an ultimate purpose.

That they DO have a purpose is something we're only just beginning to figure out in terms of a more existential / empirical understanding of the cosmos, but we're barely scratching the surface here. The human adventure is quite literally only just beginning. Whether one accepts Homocentricity or not (and it's certainly implied in Carl Sagan's star stuff) the fact is we each reside at the centre of our own universe, which begins at birth and ends at death and around which everything else is relative.

We are but subjects of a greater objectivity. In the light of that, it's easy to see why we've given it an all too human face (created, naturally, in our own image) and why the idea - the folklore of the thing - persists into these more enlightened times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM

"Even believers acknowledge that it passes all understanding"


I find it incredible that people can be so gullible as to accept such a statement. Therefore you pass the responsibility of everything to an imaginary friend in a fairy story you've read.

Bonkers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 07:06 AM

where I live, I CAN look up at the night sky and see God. Our clear, black night sky makes me pause and ponder. I see God there.

A lovely image! Here in the light-polluted NW (UK) seems I must do most of my star-gazing in magazines, but we do keep a nice pair of 15x70s in the car for those times we're in the dark places and the clouds clear long enough to catch a glimpse of the majesty of it all.

I don't see God though, but if I stand there long enough I might realise that for most the time it has taken for light to reach us from the Andromeda Galaxy (2.5 million years) humanity & human culture (language, music, architecture, religion, science, spirituality etc. etc.) didn't exist.

On the one hand, I think we've done The Cosmos a grave disservice seeing God in the stars, but, on the other, when one looks long enough to tremble in the face of it all, it's easy to see why we put him there.

*

But note that Joe, a Catholic, has a respect for the ancient religious traditions of the various cultures of the world.

Maybe so, but Catholicism hasn't. Its ruthless persecution of ancient religious traditions is one of the things that define it. Indeed, if it wasn't for Catholicism, and (let's face it) Christianity as a whole, we'd have a whole lot more.

But such traditions are of the past; we've transcended them, historically, scientifically, happily and inevitably. Thus the Atheist is an optimist who lives in hope of an ultimate objectivism, where subjective spirituality might be celebrated in human terms, rather than those founded on religious dogma & supernaturalism.

The great Atheist hope is that humanity might one day collectively tremble afresh beneath the stars in a different awe entirely to the desperation in which we created God and, in our arrogance and ignorance, saw ourselves as the centre of it all.   

As Carl Sagan said : The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:49 AM

If God exists Rag, why would you expect to understand His ways?
Even believers acknowledge that it passes all understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM

Looks like I'm wrong and that Jesus is real after all.

A drunken man staggers out of the pub into the path of a priest. He says to the priest in a very slurred voice, "Oi, padre, I'm Jesus Christ!"

The priests smiles and says "My son, of course you're not Jesus Christ. You're deluded, but never mind!"

"I can bloody prove it!" says yer man. "Just come in here and I'll show you!"

So they walk into the pub, and the barman looks at the drunk and exclaims "Jesus Christ, you're here again!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:00 AM

I don't care whether you blame God or not. I happen to be almost certain that there is no God so I can't really waste a awful lot of time on that one.

As a biologist who studied evolution quite a lot (though I don't keep up with the detail as much as I should), I like the idea that beauty in nature is the synergy of form and function. By form, I don't just mean physical shape. I mean all the attributes of morphology, anatomy, physiology and biochemistry from the macro level right down to the level of organelles and cell chemistry. And also those things that are slightly harder to get a handle on, such as the mental processes in animals that inform behaviour. I don't care much for philosophical ramblings, but I suppose we are talking about things that we have, so far, got only rudimentary information about such as altruism and, er, free will. In any attribute of a living thing I'm looking for some selective advantage. That butterfly may send you into paroxysms of poetic delight (and why not), but, the last I heard, there isn't too much evolutionary advantage for an individual butterfly in looking pretty to a certain kind of receptive human eye (I might come back to that). In other words I'm looking for a a good reason for having every attribute. We can see a lot of apparent waste in evolution, though the struggle for existence requires that "waste" (even though it makes God look like a prize shit, something that, thankfully, keeps theologists off the streets as they twist around looking for excuses for him). There has to be economy in evolution that ends in every trait of every organism having the potential at least to impart evolutionary advantage. Changes in the environment can make advantages into liabilities, which is integral to the process. So, if you posit free will as a genuine attribute, look for evolutionary advantage in it! Over to you...

As for that butterfly's subjective beauty, well it has pretty colours and an agreeable shape for very good reasons relating to increasing its chances of mating and passing on its genes. We see its beauty contributing to our own sense of wellbeing in a slightly different way (those poetic raptures again). There's something to build on there, not just something for our own aesthetic delight. Real appreciation of the natural world means increasing real knowledge of it. The more we know, the more fiercely we'll try to protect it. The more we protect it, the more likely we are to survive as a species. This needs work and a true understanding of evolution, not prayers. The greatest destroyers of the environment in Victorian England forced their employees to chapel on Sundays.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

Very strange creature this God. I'll build a beautiful plant and inhabit it with a vast array of beautiful creatures and create wonderful landscape. Then I'll put people on it. Lets see, I'll put some in land "A" and some in land "B" and let them fight and try to destroy not only each other but the land around and I'll sit back and watch.

Interesting theory about something that is supposed to be the supreme being because to me that looks pretty dumb.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 04:46 AM

Steve, I did not misrepresent what you said, and you just said it again.

"appears to be letting us wreck it all on his watch, even though, we're told, he's all-powerful, etc."

We know right from wrong and we are responsible for our actions.
Why blame God for what we do?

If He exists, He has clearly chosen not to control us, giving us free will instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

I should say that I'd also love to have a discussion on the philosophical side with Bill d (Pity you never wrote that paper, bill, I be glad of a copy) and the theological side with Joe, mcgrath and Pete, but I think it's best to stick to the science implications with Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 02:50 AM

Which reminds me: is Hannibal Lector Cockney rhyming slang for The Elector of Hanover?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 02:17 AM

You will remember from 1984 that Winston says "Freedom is the right to say 2 + 2 = 4. If that is granted all else follows".The point being that if is not granted all else collapses.

As said, we are talking science. All those
Constraints on acting freely Steve mentioned are predicated on the assumption that beneath it all we could freely choose
But the science isn't about the social constraints. It is whether we have free will at that basic 2 + 2 level. For example one experient asks people.to choose between say blue and green and we can now determine how a subject will decide by monitoring brain.activity and hence obtain their decision before they have decided. That's why they concluded free will appears to be a construct of the conciouws mind.

It is rare for a single experiment to be a game changer so.this oan't either. But the evidence is building that science may disprove free will at that fundamental level. Which, as Orwell points out, impacts all the rest.

It is the implications of this science for scientists I was interested in your views on, Steve, not a general discussion which we could have had decades ago before the sciencific studies had been done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 01:29 AM

Joe Offer, they say the Atlas Mountains has the most spectacular night sky

The ancient Greeks saw God as the author of the book of nature

"If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it"
(or something like that)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 11:05 PM

Joe sez: As I've said before (and Steve has not responded), Europeans tend to disregard and destroy the wisdom and religious practices of every culture they have conquered, attempting to replace such "primitive" thought with their own "enlightened" thinking - just as they have politicized and destroyed the ancient wisdom of their own culture. Alliance with European government has not done Christianity any favors, and Christianity is finally learning that lesson after being in bed with government for most of the last 1500 years or more.

Steve finally does respond: Well, Joe, just replace "Europeans" with "Catholic imperialists" there and you have it about right!

But note that Joe, a Catholic, has a respect for the ancient religious traditions of the various cultures of the world. Steve, an atheist, does not. Steve's attempt to limit blame to Catholics, is a failure to acknowledge that as Europeans, his own ancestors share the responsibility for the destruction of the wisdom which conquered aboriginal peoples held sacred.

---

I attended a retreat today that was directed by one of the Sisters of Mercy. The theme was "thanksgiving." Here's an Iroquois prayer from the handout given us by Sister Diana:

We return thanks to our mother,
the earth, which sustains us.
We return thanks to the rivers and streams
which supply us with water.
We return thanks to all herbs, which furnish medicines
for the cure of our diseases.
We return thanks to the moon and the stars,
which have given us their light when the sun was gone.
We return thanks to the sun,
that he has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye.
Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit,
in whom is embodied all goodness,
and who directs all things for the good of his children.

Full text here: http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/celebrations/we_return_thanks.html

This is a very anthropomorphic view of both nature and divinity, but I see value in it. It establishes a kinship between humankind and the rest of creation - and between humankind and The Divinity. And if one recognizes that kinship, one is likely to respect and appreciate those other aspects of creation (and yes, I'm sure that some of the hairsplitters here won't like the word "creation.") Nonetheless, if one recognizes the anthropomorphism for what it is, it can be a helpful tool for appreciation of what surrounds us. There are other ways to appreciate what surrounds us, but that doesn't mean the anthropomorphism is "wrong." And whether one sees God in our surroundings or not, it is worthwhile to view our surroundings with awe and respect and humility - to see something beyond the self is to broaden our horizons infinitely.

The use of metaphor is a very effective tool that can enable us to see beyond our own, narrow perspective. Belief in a God is one metaphor that is very useful to many people, but of course it is not useful to those who claim to be atheists. What I seek to do is not to convert atheists to belief in God. I ask only that they see belief in God as a different perspective that is not necessarily incorrect.

Whether God is metaphor or real, is a question I do not care to address. I find it most effective to me to accept the religious tradition I was raised in, and to be somewhat literal in my acceptance - knowing full well that my tradition may be more metaphorical than real, or maybe not. As I tell people in the Bible studies I teach, it is important to respect the integrity of the story and not to intellectualize it too much - knowing full well that there is legitimate discussion whether the story is real or metaphorical.

Now, Steve wonders how this "faith" that can invite lengthy discussion by theologians, can be relevant to people who are not drawn so such academic exploration. That's the beauty of expressing faith by sacred stories instead of by doctrines and theological discussions. Stories can be understood by everyone, at whatever level they're at - both children and college professors. I think that's why Jesus preached in parables.

Steve wonders why Jesus didn't get more "press coverage" in Roman documents. To most Romans, Jesus was just another Jewish preacher. There were lots of them, and many were executed as revolutionaries or zealots. Why should the Romans take any special notice of this Jesus?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:15 PM

A little boy was drawing in school with crayons. The teacher stopped by and asked: "What are you drawing, Johnny?"

"Oh," said the boy, "I'm drawing a picture of God."
"But, " said the teacher, "nobody knows what God looks like."
"Well, they will after I'm done."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 09:24 PM

I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't satisfy me in the least. What's even more puzzling is that your epic piece of obscurantism should satisfy you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 09:17 PM

The simple answer to "where did God come from", which I recognise won't in any way satisfy you, is God didn't come from anywhere. He is He who is. Or She is She Who is.

Here is a photograph of God from Thomas Merton

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 08:01 PM

(and I don't understand your remarks about 'our brains')

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:56 PM

Pete--- the rocks are near the San Andreas fault in California...:they are sedimentary layers that were first laid down in the ocean, then exposed and hardened, then folded as explained below.

"Shown above are exposed sedimentary layers that have been drastically deformed by movement on the San Andreas Fault. The location here is a freeway road-cut on SR-14, just north of the Avenue S off-ramp in Palmdale, California -- the camera is looking east. The San Andreas Fault is an approximately 700 mi (1,127 km) stretch of the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. It's a right lateral transform fault (one of the longest in the world) and has played an important role in the geologic, as well as the human history of California." Palmdale, California Coordinates: 34.562907, -118.132587

they are sedimentary layers that were first laid down in the ocean, then exposed and hardened, then folded .

They are similar to these:also in California...long explanation on the page. (rocks in the 2nd page are described as "sandstone, siltstone and limestone."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:24 PM

Well, Shimrod, we could always ask God instead to help us out. Unfortunately, while we praise him to the rafters for this amazingly wonderful world, with its beautiful land and seascapes and its fantastic diversity and complexity of lifeforms, all of which he's supposed to have created, we say nothing about the fact that he appears to be letting us wreck it all on his watch, even though, we're told, he's all-powerful, etc. Odd chap, this God, but let's not think too much about it. Let's just settle for the fact that he works in mysterious ways. Yeah, that's all the explanation we need!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:12 PM

Shaw said: "all men are complete bastards"

You may be but I'm not.

Well, between you, me and the gatepost, neither am I, but I was trying not to exhibit favouritism. :-)






(Er, you are a man, are you...?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:02 PM

Joe Offer wrote:

"Shimrod, where I live, I CAN look up at the night sky and see God. Our clear, black night sky makes me pause and ponder. I see God there."

When I look up in the night sky I see the moon, in its various phases, and lots of points of light. I certainly don't see a gigantic, quasi-human father figure!

I have it on good authority (are you listening, Pete?) that the points of light are either planets in orbit around the Sun, and shining as the result of reflected sunlight, or stars. Our Sun is a star and it consists of a a gigantic accretion of gas and dust which is undergoing nuclear fusion and is held together by its own gravity. The distances between the stars is beyond comprehension - the nearest star to our Sun, Proxima Centauri, is (if I've got my calculations right) around 25 million million miles away. Some stars are so far away that their light has taken many, many thousands of years to reach us. Nevertheless, stars themselves form unbelievably vast accretions - or islands - of stars called galaxies.

Now, conventionally, all of these facts are supposed to evoke awe and wonder and thoughts about God (who probably doesn't exist) etc. But as I get older what they do for me is to provide a rather terrifying perspective on my life and the future prospects for my species. When our planet Earth is viewed from space it is shown to consist of a relatively smooth ball of rock with a thin 'rind' on the surface. This rind is the 'biosphere' and, as far as we know to date, it is the only place in the entire, inconceivably vast Universe in which our species - and other Earth-bound species - can survive. And what our species is currently doing is destroying this biosphere so, probably in a small handful of generations (an infinitesimally minute fraction of a cosmic 'microsecond'), there will be NOWHERE in this vast Universe where we can survive! In my humble opinion, this horrifying prospect - and what to do about it - is far, far, far more important than fretting about whether God exists or not!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:43 PM

Shaw said: "all men are complete bastards"

You may be but I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:22 PM

If you say that, all our minds are,       Shuffle chance of chemical change.         Why should anyone, trust anything you,re saying.          Yer brain just might need a rearrange !.             No time for anything else tonight, but can you tell me where the folded rocks are and of what rock they consist, bill?.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:20 PM

But you do think that it is simple and obvious that the notion of God can have no place in reality, and that the cosmos exists and came into existence, entirely of itself"

Well I do think that. All of it. If you disagree, you have to tell me where God came from. Dozens of people on this board have asked that very simple, childlike (not childish) question. Sometimes the most cutting questions are the simplest. As yet, no-one has even begun to answer it. With science, we have at least begun to answer some of the mysteries of the cosmos, and we find that the enquiry is far more beautiful and edifying than any inexplicable Godly intrusion, which is entirely your invention, without supporting evidence. Try it some time.

"...and that our consciousness is a transient and essentially meaningless ripple on the surface of a completely lifeliess reality."

Well this is a very interesting topic, and I've been reading a lot about it ever since that puzzling fellow TimeStamp brought it up. So I disagree with your characterisation. Another time maybe. This Nero d'Avola is delicious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I just find some of these tedious philosophical squabbles to be a bit pointless.

But let me see now. Free will. Means I can do what I want when I want, is that it? Well what I think is that many things tug me away from being unfettered like that. What things? The whole context of my life, my relationships, my instincts, my conscience, the law of the land, my undisputed drive towards diplomacy. Frankly, I'm not getting warm, am I?? As far as this business of God and free will is concerned, well the God of religion is a thoroughly cruel bastard. He kills children with terrible diseases that he himself has invented and presides over horrendous wars fought in his name. He could intervene and make the world a garden of Eden, but he's decided to not do that, apparently by giving us the free will to be even bigger bastards than he is. Great guy. What I think about that kind of thinking is that it's a great big dishonest let-off for God.

Number one. There almost certainly is no God anyway, so none of that applies. Number two. You asked so I've told you, and probably haven't advanced the argument one jot. But I'm bloody knackered so pass the corkscrew.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:54 PM

I wasn't saying you thought the cosmos is simple, Steve. But you do think that it is simple and obvious that the notion of God can have no place in reality, and that the cosmos exists and came into existence, entirely of itself, and that our consciousness is a transient and essentially meaningless ripple on the surface of a completely lifeliess reality.
...............

Good film. One thing that struck me and my wife looking round at the audience when we went was that I seemed to be about the only bloke present. Surprised really the film hasn't set off a thread here talking about related issues. Which would no doubt end up pretty fierce.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM

For 'certain' read 'personally convinced as a result of all available evidence' .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:32 PM

Tried to see that on Sunday and because there was a match on there was nowhere to park so had to abandon it.

But it is not a pointless philosophical discussion in my view. The science seems to be heading towards the position that there is no free will. I think that puts scientists in a really difficult position, since it means they have to behave as if we have free will - laws, for example, require it - while actually being certain that is no free will at all.   And it is hardly being "simple and honest" to act as if there is no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:19 PM

Oops, sorry. As I was trying to say, that was supposed to be a joke. The whole free will thing was started off by Keith misrepresenting something I said. I've been to the flicks tonight to see Suffragette and I'm far too obsessed with the fact that all men are complete bastards to contemplate heavy and rather pointless philosophical issues.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:11 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:09 PM

No. My wife won't let me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:07 PM

Have you thoughts on free will, though, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:58 PM

"Why do you think he tries to persuade us to do anything?"

I don't, Keith. Do think before you post rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:54 PM

There is nothing simple about the cosmos, which is why we have to keep God, ironically the arch-simplifier, out of it. The quest for truth will never end, no matter how sophisticated our technology or how advanced our thinking. That's how "simple" it is. God not only gives simple-minded people a simplistic answer, he infantilises the whole concept of the universe. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone who proposes a Godly explanation can accuse anyone else of being simplistic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:48 PM

My masters thesis was to be on a 'possible' way to resolve the free will/determinism issue. I intended to show that the ONLY possible resolution would be in a system much like the concept of "actual entities" in the writings of Alfred North Whitehead... which had some real similarities to today's quantum physics.
I'm sure my thesis committee would have grilled me over it, but at least they approved the topic...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

Somehow, whatever scientists might come up with claiming freewill is an illusion, nobody has ever believed that for a moment in real life.

And yet in the totally mechanistic cosmos which seems such a simple and obvious reality to Steve, I find it hard to envisage how there can be any meaningful sense in which anybody has freewill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

Popped in to see if the conversion had got of the rut!

I think it worth reminding everyone that ' free will' is a tricky concept. Theologically it has been a problem for centuries if not longer (whether the mother of God had the free will to say no and wreck God's entire scheme is, for example, not an easy one). But just as interestingly there has been scientific studies over the last few years suggesting it might be an illusion of the conscious mind. And as Bill D will confirm, it's had its fair share of consideration in philosophy as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

Rag,
You made a statement and only you said it was not his job, now tell me how you KNOW that to be the fact.

Since we have free will, and are not puppets, it is not anyone else's job to make us good.

Steve,
what has free will got to do with what I posted in any case? (If there's one thing God's not very good at, it's persuading his various flocks to keep the peace.)

Why do you think he tries to persuade us to do anything?
We have free will.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:29 PM

Oh, I can infer a brain being used in order to even be used fallaciously,,, *grin*...there's nothing wrong with Pete's brain... he is simply being human and doing what we all do at times-- using free will to selectively pick which premises to use.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:48 AM

the brain the God gave you

Assuming facts not in evidence, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

You may take "doing a Bill D" as a compliment, Bill. It means patiently, repeatedly and exhaustingly trying to explain something to someone whose head is full of nonsense, knowing that you probably won't get anywhere but regarding the journey as somehow worthwhile. For now...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:17 AM

No way to keep up, as I was away doing a craft show all weekend, and monitoring repairs to my house for the last 3 weeks... there were several posts that I ought to reply to... but I can't imagine finding the time these days.

So...

"Doing a Bill D"

I'm flattered...I think... to have an entire method named for me. I do suspect it is a very localized technique used in a very specific set of circumstances, but fame is fleeting and I've already had 10 minutes of my 15.
----------------------------

So, Pete... you say: "The past is gone, and the data left behind is subject to interpretation. Historical science cannot be verified conclusively either way."

The first sentence is essentially a tautology and tells us nothing significant. (example... when you look at the moon, you don't **conclusively** know it is still there, as it takes several minutes for the reflected light to reach us... and you 'know' is that it was there several minutes ago. We can, however infer that is probably still there.)
   Now, the 2nd sentence is either true or false depending on how you read it. But is IS just plain misleading. Just as we may infer something about the status of the moon from repeated observations, we may also infer things about the past based on testing and comparisons to what we see today. The evidence OF the past is still there, and much of it is way easier to get data about than the moon. Geology has all sorts of things we can look at... like this folded rock layer. Surely we can infer a few things about it just from looking... and more by chemistry and radio-carbon dating. We KNOW that it takes forces to do that to a bunch of rocks, and it isn't done in a short period of time. "Historical science" can be verified in ways that are useful and... the important point.... predictive. We can use data from historical science to tell us how to do...or not do.. relevant things in our lives. In fact Pete, YOU use it and depend on it everyday... except when you find some of it **seems** to be at odds with something you 'believe' about the past that is even harder to verify!
You use selective dependence about various scientific data and deny perfectly good science...often by referring to dubious science.

   There is no reason you cannot have a basic concept of Creation and 'believe' that a God started it all.... but you gotta use the brain the God gave you to discern the complex stuff that has happened in the universe after God gave it it a kick-start.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

oh no kenny baby, its just me trying to get a straight answer to a straight question. do you really have a problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM

I recognise that "style" Keith, that is a pin dancing troll for sure. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM

Not only that, what has free will got to do with what I posted in any case?