Are atheists more content with their souls?

pinksoir

yeah. this idea of free will and determinism has been dealt with extensively by philosophy. everything that has ever happened couldn't have happened any other way. there are vast amounts of causes that lead to an effect. a seemingly infinite regress right to the beginning of the universe.

likewise, every choice that we make is governed by countless factors. we make choices because we are a certain type of person. we are that type of person because of the life experiences we have had. furthermore, our choices are governed by our genes, our mental state at the time, and any other variable you'd like to add. even the smallest choice made, like having tea instead of coffee, is made under the same restrictions.

i seem to remember a discussion about free will and determinism referring to the fact that the only truly randomness in the universe can be observed at sub atomic level and that everything else is subject to the universal laws of cause and effect. therefore every choice is the end product of a huge line of cause and effect. it seems a bit arrogant to me to believe that humans are capable of escaping such a universal law through free will.

i'd like to hear an example of 'free will' that can be shown happening any other way. if you think of time not as linear but in some sort of objective sense.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you're really screwing around with my relaxation and video watching !

Scofflaw wrote:

1. Ingenuity and progress are a part of life. Freedom doesn't have to enter into it.

Well, yes, it does. Ingenuity can't operate in the absence of freedom. Nor is there any reason whatsoever for progress if there is no free will, since there can be no choice to improve things.

I don't understand what you're saying here....

Evolution never produces real progress - it provides better adaptation. The Internet is not adaptive - it was a piece of ingenuity in search of a use.

bipedal movement wasn't a piece of ingenuity in search of a use?

2. I'm sure a lot o work was put into that theory, not traditional labour like tilling a field or hunting/gathering.. but work all the same. And yes, that is what I'm saying.

It's meaningless to say that "a lot o work was put into that theory" if it simply followed mechanically from circumstances. It's like claiming you put a lot of work into something falling to the floor - that's a mechanical operation of the law of gravity. So, no, you're not really saying that Relativity actually followed mechanically - you're saying that the circumstances of Einstein's life set up a likelihood that he would think about certain things.

i'm saying that the circumstances of einstein's life set things up so he was pre-determined to think about those things. His experiences in life set the conditions for him to make that discovery. My experiences in life, the books I've read and ideas I've come across set the conditions for me to write this post. I think what I think because of what I have encountered, I never chose to think any of this.

3. umm... eh? how is the quality irrelevant? a better thinking apparatus will be more likely to lead to a better conclusion.

No - in the absence of free will, the quality of the thinking apparatus is irrelevant, since it is 'better circumstances' that lead to 'better conclusions'. Of course, you could claim that anyone in Einstein's exact position would have thought of the theory, but might have been too stupid to see what they were thinking about.

no.. the better apparatus would have more ability to see deeper into the problems, come at them from 'different angles', be able to see areas of the problem more limited apparatus (apparatti?) could not see. Einstein's genius was a product of his brain, the knowledge he acquired (the circumstances) aided him reach 'better conclusions' but his brain was what did all the calculation and 'thinking'. math prodigies, music prodigies.. prodigies of all sorts are prodigies because of their brain. What they learn or experience only adds to their ability.. but what they are is pretty much set in stone.

4. yes, such as his interest in the subject, his natural ability for it, whatever he learned, all the experiences of his life contributed to his formulating that theory. a led to b led to c.. led to e=mc2.

"Interest in the subject" means nothing if there's no free will. Plus, hopefully you can see that what you are saying here is that the 'quality' of the brain would be irrelevant - the circumstances mechanically dictated what he would think.

maybe instead of interest, curiousity? I don't have the vocabulary for this level of discussion, we're just going to end up confusing ourselves and using the same terms in different ways.. if we aren't already. free will implies that we can choose to do whatever we want regarsdless of the conditions. When I burn myself with a lighter, I don't think "that fire is going to do damage to me, I'd better move my hand", the nerves send messages to my brain which are experienced as pain, my hand jerks away and I think "****, that hurt". The action comes before the rationalisation.

the conditions (the fire, my hand being over it) lead me to a pre-determined outcome of me removing my hand for the reason that pain for me is not a pleasurable experience. and i rationalise it with the expletive.

the circumstances and the quality/caliber of the brain doing the thinking. my brain is not equipped to multiply 1044*41355 instantly.. but some brains are. The Brain is what lives and experiences. 'I' am an idea, the brain is real.

5. subconscious implies that we are conscious and that there is an entity to experience that consciousness.. there's no entity.. just the brain.

Which operates in some complex way to produce consciousness, which may well be an emergent property (handwaving, handwaving). This is the bit that makes me think you're actually arguing about the non-existence of the 'soul', or any other perceiving entity that's not the brain. Fine by me.

Whether the bit that thinks it's the "conscious decider" is actually the decider or not isn't relevant, as long as something is making at least partly unconstrained decisions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

to produce the illusion of consciousness I would say.. but I don't think we're really disagreeing here just arguing...

except that

Whether the bit that thinks it's the "conscious decider" is actually the decider or not isn't relevant that's what I have been arguing against...

, as long as something is making at least partly unconstrained decisions. ..

no decision is unconstrained, thoughts lead to one another. decisions/actions come about as a result of known information, calculations based upon needs and the brains best solution.

pinksoir

yeah. you put it much better than my garbled, directionless post! i agree with what mordeth says. all choices are made as a result of the cumulative process of experience.

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

i seem to remember a discussion about free will and determinism referring to the fact that the only truly randomness in the universe can be observed at sub atomic level and that everything else is subject to the universal laws of cause and effect. therefore every choice is the end product of a huge line of cause and effect. it seems a bit arrogant to me to believe that humans are capable of escaping such a universal law through free will.

It is, if we assume that we are the only creatures capable of it. Otherwise, the assumption may be incorrect, but hardly arrogant.

pinksoir wrote:

i'd like to hear an example of 'free will' that can be shown happening any other way. if you think of time not as linear but in some sort of objective sense.

If you think of time from the outside, then everything that has ever/will ever have happened has happened, and is seen like a sort of tapestry. From that perspective, we are like flies in amber - we cannot change a thing.

The question is - is such a perspective meaningful? All it amounts to is saying that the past is the past.

As to how we can have free will (without assuming some external 'soul' free from mundane constraints)...well, we're clever enough to think up quantum computers - who's to say our brains don't take advantage of quantum randomness? It's not like our thinking processes are made of levers and other great big solid bits of engineering - they rely, to even our current state of knowledge, on events at the molecular level.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

woh

i was gona say that you put it better than my post

I wouldn't have said garbled and directionless, but again.. you put it better

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

As to how we can have free will (without assuming some external 'soul' free from mundane constraints)...well, we're clever enough to think up quantum computers - who's to say our brains don't take advantage of quantum randomness? [It's not like our thinking processes are made of levers and other great big solid bits of engineering - they rely, to even our current state of knowledge, on events at the molecular level.

so do levers and other big solid bits of engineering, why don't they have free will?

pinksoir

of course, once free will is debunked, all kinds of moral difficulties arise. how can someone be guilty of murder if it couldn't have happened any other way? it wasn't their choice.

i suppose the same can be said of the absence of a soul. if i committed a murder, i am not now the same person as the one who committed the crime. to put it rather crudely.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yep, that's a doozy. might just be though that we don't have a choice in the matter

i suppose laws are just man made constructions to help societies flow smoothly, they're not neccesary or natural in or of themselves. With an ideal like you've described, focus might shift more towards rehabilitation rather than punishment. or it could just as easily not I guess.

pinksoir

yeah. i see what you are saying. but i think that decision making, whilst very very complex, isn't so complex as to be affected by the quantum workings of our brains. it just seems a lot more logically intelligible than to incorporate randomness.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, bigger brains enabled by language produces relatively complex thought.. but in the end, we are animals.. if rabbits don't have free will I don't see how we can either. the brain is just doing what the brain is doing.

these videos deal with free will and consciousness et al

http://www.tsntv.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/

the woman at the end of the second file, susan blackmore set the conditions in my brain that resulted in alot of the actions/thoughts I've been sharing here.

she is my personal fav speaker at this, but the entire thing is worth watching

pinksoir

yeah. i remember watching a documentary about how punishment for crimes is a dead end street. i wish i could remember the guy's name who presented it because he put forward a very convincing alternative that was centred around, as you say, rehabilitation. it definitely seems that that could be a possibility for the future. what with the progression towards a more reasonable and rational world and all that!

pinksoir

exactly. rabbits' brains have quantum randomness too you know...

pinksoir

sweet. i'll watch that tomorrow. man, science never fails to fascinate me.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

you're really screwing around with my relaxation and video watching !

I live only to serve...

Mordeth wrote:

I don't understand what you're saying here.... &
bipedal movement wasn't a piece of ingenuity in search of a use?

Er, no. Bipedal movement is not the product of ingenuity at all - ingenuity is clever thinking. Bipedal movement is an evolutionary physical adaptation - to what, the arguments continue, but it's a reaction, not an action.

Mordeth wrote:

i'm saying that the circumstances of einstein's life set things up so he was pre-determined to think about those things. His experiences in life set the conditions for him to make that discovery. My experiences in life, the books I've read and ideas I've come across set the conditions for me to write this post. I think what I think because of what I have encountered, I never chose to think any of this.

Hmm. None of what you say there precludes free will - it just precludes "total" freedom of the will. The end sentence is an assertion.

Mordeth wrote:

no.. the better apparatus would have more ability to see deeper into the problems, come at them from 'different angles', be able to see areas of the problem more limited apparatus (apparatti?) could not see. Einstein's genius was a product of his brain, the knowledge he acquired (the circumstances) aided him reach 'better conclusions' but his brain was what did all the calculation and 'thinking'. math prodigies, music prodigies.. prodigies of all sorts are prodigies because of their brain. What they learn or experience only adds to their ability.. but what they are is pretty much set in stone.

Again, you seem to be putting forward a loose coupling of circumstance to outcome, rather than a tight one.

If there is no free will, then we are literally automata, just as fixed in our motions as the puppets on a mechanical clock - there is no "pretty much" about it.

Mordeth wrote:

maybe instead of interest, curiousity? I don't have the vocabulary for this level of discussion, we're just going to end up confusing ourselves and using the same terms in different ways.. if we aren't already. free will implies that we can choose to do whatever we want regarsdless of the conditions.

Ah. No, it doesn't mean that, not in the sense of existing or not. Free will implies that we can choose, that we have a choice, no matter how constrained it is.

To claim that we are entirely unconstrained would indeed be ridiculous. Many many things shape our decisions - the question of free will is whether they are decisions.

Mordeth wrote:

When I burn myself with a lighter, I don't think "that fire is going to do damage to me, I'd better move my hand", the nerves send messages to my brain which are experienced as pain, my hand jerks away and I think "****, that hurt". The action comes before the rationalisation.

the conditions (the fire, my hand being over it) lead me to a pre-determined outcome of me removing my hand for the reason that pain for me is not a pleasurable experience. and i rationalise it with the expletive.

Yes, but that one is a bad example, because it is a true reflex. There is a direct neural pathway that doesn't actually go to your brain. However, you can stick your hand in a fire, and even though you flinch, hold it there.

Mordeth wrote:

the circumstances and the quality/caliber of the brain doing the thinking. my brain is not equipped to multiply 1044*41355 instantly.. but some brains are. The Brain is what lives and experiences. 'I' am an idea, the brain is real.

I would agree with that - "I" is a synthetic concept. I think of myself as the same person I was yesterday, or 10 years ago, but that is clearly not really the case.

Mordeth wrote:

to produce the illusion of consciousness I would say.. but I don't think we're really disagreeing here just arguing...

except that

Whether the bit that thinks it's the "conscious decider" is actually the decider or not isn't relevant that's what I have been arguing against...

, as long as something is making at least partly unconstrained decisions. ..

no decision is unconstrained, thoughts lead to one another. decisions/actions come about as a result of known information, calculations based upon needs and the brains best solution.

Again, you're missing the 'partly unconstrained'. There is no 'best solution' if there is not free will, because there is no choice between different solutions - there is only the predetermined outcome, best or not. That a very large number of our decisions are best or near-best solutions is itself an argument for only partial constraint on our decision-making.

I'm pretty certain we are arguing about different things here.

You seem to be arguing that the belief we have that we simply make decisions based 100% on 'thinking them through' is false. Sure - no argument there - at best 5-10% of a decision might be really based on that.

I am arguing that we can, and do, make decisions - that we are not automata, and that it is possible to make decisions at all.

Where the two become confused is the question of who is making the decisions. You could say that the conscious mind makes no decisions at all - in other words, the 'me' I think I am is not really the one making the decisions. That sounds like I'm an automaton, but it doesn't mean that at all - it just means that the 'me' I think I am is not the 'me' I really am.

pinksoir wrote:

all choices are made as a result of the cumulative process of experience.

If there is no free will, there are no 'choices' to be made. There is, simply, no choice.

Now, if there is quantum randomness, we can easily prove that there must be free will.

Imagine a scientist doing an experiment involving quantum effects. If the experiment goes one way, he/she will write it up one way, if it goes another, he/she will write it up another.

Pretty simply, then, quantum randomness dictates the outsome of the experiment. This, in turn, dictates what paper he/she writes. This, in turn, may dictate the course of their future career. Voila! You have broken free of the 100% causal chain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

so do levers and other big solid bits of engineering, why don't they have free will?

In brief, because they don't have a will, as far as we understand the term. What they can have is freedom of action - that you cannot determine exactly what will happen with a lever because of quantum randomness. It could break, it could move a tiny tiny bit, etc.

Same basic idea. Our brains would be a lot more sensitive to such effects, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

i think what we have here is a classic example of the impossibility of language. you explained your position much more clearly and it would be akin to my interpretation of choice. but i would not be so hasty as to call it 'free will' per se. mainly because whilst it is a choice at the end of the day, it is a severely constrained choice. but i know what you mean.

ok. for example. if there are 2 choices, you would be more inclined to choose one over the other, as a result of what sort of person you are. and even if you go against your preferred choice, lets say to try and excercise your free will, you are still doing so as a result of what sort of person you are. you cannot escape the (universal) conditions that are there when you make that choice. nor the ones that came before and culminated in those conditions. if you catch my drift.

pinksoir

Pretty simply, then, quantum randomness dictates the outsome of the experiment. This, in turn, dictates what paper he/she writes. This, in turn, may dictate the course of their future career. Voila! You have broken free of the 100% causal chain.

cordially,
Scofflaw

this is still causal though. isn't it?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Pretty simply, then, quantum randomness dictates the outsome of the experiment. This, in turn, dictates what paper he/she writes. This, in turn, may dictate the course of their future career. Voila! You have broken free of the 100% causal chain.

the randomness only changes the conditions which act upon the meat puppet, you've given no reason to suppose that the meat puppet is free to act upon anything. as with any example it is just reacting to stimuli. The theoretical free event had the potential to set the M.P. up for different outcomes sure.. but the mp just reacted to what was perceived.

Again, you're missing the 'partly unconstrained'. There is no 'best solution' if there is not free will, because there is no choice between different solutions - there is only the predetermined outcome, best or not. That a very large number of our decisions are best or near-best solutions is itself an argument for only partial constraint on our decision-making.

there is choice between different solutions,it's just they're not free choices. they are analyses of the brain regarding certain situations.. there is no I in there pulling strings and looking at what's going on. Yes there is a pre-determined outcome.. but that outcome was not known to the mp prior to it's existence. many actions lead to the outcome, before even the mp became involved

hat a very large number of our decisions are best or near-best solutions is itself an argument for only partial constraint on our decision-making

you've lost me ...

If there is no free will, there are no 'choices' to be made. There is, simply, no choice.

again we're on to semantics here, this Mp is using choice to mean an action, where I (the meat puppet) advocate a preference for a certain idea/action.
I don't mean that I have a literal choice between many options and I, me and myself sit down together and rationally, freely debate pro's and con's.. I mean the conditions that I experienced before the need for this choice/action set the conditions for how I will act when faced with this need. I do not have any real practical say in the matter.

Yes, but that one is a bad example, because it is a true reflex. There is a direct neural pathway that doesn't actually go to your brain. However, you can stick your hand in a fire, and even though you flinch, hold it there.

yes, and this action would be a result of the chemical/neurological activities of the brain as much as the reflex was. stupidity isn't a great argument for free will. There are many reasons why a mp might stick it's hands in a fire, a rush of adrenaline, the conditions in their life could have set them up with a desire for pain, self loathing or a wish for self harm (which again, often has it's roots in chemical imbalances in the brain.. if we have free will.. why do anti-depressants help people? surely we have to be reasoned into happiness).

pinksoir

yeah. what i mean to say when i say 'choose', is 'select an action'.

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

i think what we have here is a classic example of the impossibility of language. you explained your position much more clearly and it would be akin to my interpretation of choice. but i would not be so hasty as to call it 'free will' per se. mainly because whilst it is a choice at the end of the day, it is a severely constrained choice. but i know what you mean.

ok. for example. if there are 2 choices, you would be more inclined to choose one over the other, as a result of what sort of person you are. and even if you go against your preferred choice, lets say to try and excercise your free will, you are still doing so as a result of what sort of person you are. you cannot escape the (universal) conditions that are there when you make that choice. nor the ones that came before and culminated in those conditions. if you catch my drift.

Sure. That version doesn't require one to be simply an automaton, though. There's a lot of constraint on free will, but free will is the power to decide at all.

Mordeth wrote:

the randomness only changes the conditions which act upon the meat puppet, you've given no reason to suppose that the meat puppet is free to act upon anything. as with any example it is just reacting to stimuli. The theoretical free event had the potential to set the M.P. up for different outcomes sure.. but the mp just reacted to what was perceived.

OK. Now that does suggest that we're automata. It suggests that the writing of a paper on quantum physics is equivalent to a physical reflex, containing no freedom of action whatsoever.

Mordeth wrote:

there is choice between different solutions,it's just they're not free choices. they are analyses of the brain regarding certain situations.. there is no I in there pulling strings and looking at what's going on. Yes there is a pre-determined outcome.. but that outcome was not known to the mp prior to it's existence. many actions lead to the outcome, before even the mp became involved

I'm assuming that this means the brain doesn't really make a choice as such. The "option" it "picks" is predetermined by all preceding circumstances, which have pre-conditioned the neural pathways to produce a specific outcome.

In other words, we "think" we choose, but in fact all that is happening is that the brain is going forward to the pre-determined outcome, and we are rationalising this after the fact as being our "choice".

Unfortunately, this doesn't address the question of why there should be an illusion of self, if such an illusion does not contribute in any way to survival. There is no need for us to be conscious machines, if consciousness is meaningless - and if the observations of evolution tell us anything, it is that expensive and unnecessary dies out quickly.

Mordeth wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

That a very large number of our decisions are best or near-best solutions is itself an argument for only partial constraint on our decision-making.

you've lost me ...

If the brain simply moves to a pre-determined choice as a mechanical response to the available stimuli, there is no difference between a good solution to an engineering problem, and a bad one. There is no difference between a good solution to a programming problem, and a bad one, or none at all. The brain did not evolve to solve programing problems on a stimulus-response basis, because there simply hasn't been enough time for it to do so - programming has only really been something humans have done for about 20 years.

I do not have any real practical say in the matter.

That is a different point. There are things you have a lot of control over, and things you have virtually no control over.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Interestingly, this just appeared in today's BBC online news.

Altruistic' brain region found
Scientists say they have found the part of the brain that predicts whether a person will be selfish or an altruist.
Altruism - the tendency to help others without obvious benefit to oneself - appears to be linked to an area called the posterior superior temporal sulcus. Using brain scans, the US investigators found this region related to a person's real-life unselfish behavior. The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience.

Selfless tendencies
The participants were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work, and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism. The study authors say their work could have important implications. They are now exploring ways to study the development of this brain region in early life and believe such information may help determine how altruistic tendencies are established. Researcher Dr Scott Huettel explained: "Although understanding the function of this brain region may not necessarily identify what drives people like Mother Theresa, it may give clues to the origins of important social behaviours like altruism."

Reciprocal helping
Dr George Fieldman, member of the British Psychological Society and principal lecturer in psychology at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, said it was conceivable that there would be a region of the brain involved with altruism. He added: "If you can educate from an early stage to be more altruistic that would be good for the community, and if you could also show that had an impact on brain development that would be very interesting." He said true altruism was a rare or even intangible thing.
"Altruism is usually reciprocal - you do something for someone and you expect something back ultimately." The other types are kin altruism, giving to ones relatives, and being cheated or cuckolded." He said it would be interesting to study people at the extremes of altruism and selfishness and see if their brains differed significantly.

CL7

Free will and Determinism are not mutually exclusive IMO.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/on-free-will-i.html

Son Goku

If you define free will as the ability to act independantly of the past, then we already posses it, being constructed out of quantum mechanical components.

The difficult thing about the brain is that it is a classical NP (or possibly non-Turing) computer built on top of a quantum mechanical physical sturcture. The smallest bits of this computer are small enough for quantum noise to effect them(to an unknown degree).

Add to that how the brain works on a software and hardware level, the capability to restructure its entire code midway through a thought. Or even more drastic, its ability to restructure its physical connections.

The main thing however is that you must clearly define what free-will is. Since the brain is a computer, the definition of free-will would have to be put in a computable form. Some algorithmic statement whose ability to be computed would indicate something possesed the quality of interest.

(Of course if P=NP, there is nothing a human can currently do that a supercomputer couldn't eventually.)

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

In other words, we "think" we choose, but in fact all that is happening is that the brain is going forward to the pre-determined outcome, and we are rationalising this after the fact as being our "choice".

The universe is sufficiently beyond our comprehension for it not to matter whether this is the case or not.

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, this doesn't address the question of why there should be an illusion of self, if such an illusion does not contribute in any way to survival. There is no need for us to be conscious machines, if consciousness is meaningless - and if the observations of evolution tell us anything, it is that expensive and unnecessary dies out quickly.

I think the idea of the self can be explained as a by-product of empathy.

Scofflaw wrote:

The brain did not evolve to solve programing problems on a stimulus-response basis, because there simply hasn't been enough time for it to do so - programming has only really been something humans have done for about 20 years.

Hmmm... that's a bit of a strange argument!

Computer programming didn't just pop into existence, it uses reasoning that has been around for thousands of years, probably some of the oldest mathematics on the block. We needed to solve complex problems, we created these logic machines and as a result a need for programming arouse.

Maybe I'm not getting your point?

5uspect

Mordeth wrote:

how can you control your own destiny? we don't have free will **** happens because of other **** that happened before it, we are no different. all our choices/decisions/expressions of free will are just complicated risk/reward/energy calculations being done by the brain.

Oh no I've started a free will debate! :eek:

What I meant by that statement was that by rejecting religion the number of possible outcomes to the events that I will encounter in my existence has greatly increased as I am no longer confined by religious blinkers. I feel that I can look at the world in a much more open way. How this effects free will, I don't know, TBH I'm still reading on that topic (And I'm still reading the rest of todays posts).

Tim Robbins

_Brian_ wrote:

Thanks tim and 18AD ,
I'll get a book on it ,any paticular authors/writers that would be unbiased ?

Brian.

No problem, Brian.
For Atheism, Colin McGinn is the best in IMO, a genuis. He hasn't written a book on the subject, parts of it come up in places in his books. He did do an interview with Jonathan Miller called "the atheist tapes" which was completely abou it.
Also Steven Weinberg isn't bad.
Bertran Russell's, 'Why I am not Christian?' is good.
A lot of people go for Richard Dawkins. 'The God Delusion' is selling spectacularly well. I read it, it's not bad, but I think many his arguments are just sensationalist and have logical flaws in them. I also think he simplifies the complexity of atheism / theism.
Sam Harris, is another dude, he's american - not bad.

For theism, Robert Pollack (Jewish Scientist is good). Robert Beckford (Christian theologian) is also very good. Karen Armstrong, (ex-Catholic nun) now more interested in spirituality is also excellant.

The hardcore Christians love CS Lewis and Lee Strobel.
They try to argue it is actually logical and rational to be a Christian and not just a spiritual decision. I think their stuff is rubbish but many people like it.

Anyone I've met or debated with who likes CS Lewis or Lee Strobel usually hasn't a clue about any other religion, atheism or Science. But sure if they're happy, who cares?

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

Hmmm... that's a bit of a strange argument!

Computer programming didn't just pop into existence, it uses reasoning that has been around for thousands of years, probably some of the oldest mathematics on the block. We needed to solve complex problems, we created these logic machines and as a result a need for programming arouse.

Maybe I'm not getting your point?

It's in response to Mordeth's assertion that we don't make choices - that the brain simply responds to the available stimuli without any 'intellectual' input.

Were this the case, it is difficult to see how we could produce a programming solution, since the capacity to do so is hardly likely to be 'hardwired' into our brains.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

It's in response to Mordeth's assertion that we don't make choices - that the brain simply responds to the available stimuli without any 'intellectual' input.

Were this the case, it is difficult to see how we could produce a programming solution, since the capacity to do so is hardly likely to be 'hardwired' into our brains.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I suppose it depends on how you define "intellectual".

If you mean:
The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.

I don't think Mordeth is arguing the fact that we are intellectual.

I think he means more that our intellect is an illusion caused by a long causal chain, therefore, the mechanisms that come up with something new, like computer programming, are merely logical steps in that chain.

[edit]I hope this is what Mordeth is on about

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

For Atheism, Colin McGinn is the best in IMO, a genuis. He hasn't written a book on the subject, parts of it come up in places in his books. He did do an interview with Jonathan Miller called "the atheist tapes" which was completely abou it.

The atheist tapes and a "Rough History of Atheism" are excellent.

Tim Robbins

_Brian_ wrote:

As far as I'm concerned a soul is something that every living thing has .
It's the only pure thing that no one can effect.

I'm not talking about a parcel in storage waiting to be delivered ,I'm talkning about a movement withing a living being that reacts to whats around it.

You might be interested in a philosophical idea of dualism. Where the soul or mind is considered separate from matter as opposed to simple being made from it.
It sounds like you've got a spiritual buzz going on but you're not mad into the hole religious thing.
You might like some of the eastern Religious or belief systems. Buddism for example.