Even atheists (like me), and also the virulent variety, who prize that most evasive of treasures, Truth, above all else must occasionally leap into the vast expanse of the unknown. Is there any law that proves that reductive reasoning holds all the answers i.e. simple explanations are better than complex ones? Can we measure love or justice. I think not. But just because one cannot speak (scientifically) of these things, does not mean that one must remain silent in their regard. I'm sure there are subtle and complex explanations for why simplicity is better and there are reasons offered for how and why qualia matters. There are meta rules that we accept on the basis that they are useful. I'm an atheist because at the end of the day you get nothing for nothing, sitting flat on your butt doesn't buy any bread, OK enough, at the end of the day it feels right, the secular/humanist world view resonates with me. I find it useful to know that I'm not going to live forever. I go with my gut.
I have an idea why I'm an atheist, but I'm wondering why I'm still a Mormon (a post over at irresistible disgrace got me thinking about this). Bear with me while I arrange my prejudices. There are a number of factors at play, my bishop is the man, I grew up as a Mormon so it's comfy, I like many of the values in Mormonism. These are all good reasons in my mind to hang around. But mostly I just have a feeling that it's not time to leave yet. I don't know why I'm here. That's what it comes down to really, there's no clear explanation. My gut has spoken.
31 comments:
"wondering why you're still a Mormon", but sure about being an athiest... I've taken an athiests view for a few weeks on several occasions and when I really played out all the logic and implications I was left pretty damn 'empty'... basically if death has no purpose then neither does life, beyond genetic transmission. I gave up the athiest world-view on both occasions, basically because I found athiesm leaves me feeling empty, depressed and "ripped off". How can I really be bothered doing anything when I feel that way? For me there's no urgency or poignancy created from beleiving that "once you die, then that's it". But I didn't abandon athiesm just because of that.
Ultimately the only reason why I experimented with an athiest view was because life didn't treat me the way I wanted it too.
I have no idea how you got to where u are now but did you come to that view for the same reason?
One things for sure I've got plenty of reasons to be a mormon... that's with no LDS family or strong ties with church culture. Most of my gravitation towards the LDS faith is purely logical for me. And yes, I've read the anti-stuff.
I've told myself a number of times that "if this ain't true, then nothing is", my position now is "even tho the church seems a bit weird or frustrating in some ways, how could 'mormonism' not be true?".
The most important thing I'd point to is the book of mormon itself. Explain to me man, how can it not be true? I'm often wrong but I suspect that's the reason why you haven't left being LDS just yet.
I don't just gravitate towards my faith because I find the athiest alternative completely hopeless, or because I like to stand up against people who think the church is some kind of crazy cult. Their are plenty of reasons to stay LDS simply based on the faith/religion itself.
Times permitting, I'd be happy to get specific with you on some things as you bring them up.
Justin Stewart
Justin, how's it going mate? Welcome to the blog.
How did I come to be atheist after all these years? The evidence built up slowly and eventually became overwhelming.
The way I see it, just because the when-we-die-that's-all-there-is view doesn't seem appealing, that doesn't make it untrue. For me the fact that I'm going to die, and the possibility that that may be the end, increases my urgency to do things rather than the opposite. Regardless with or without god I don't think we can dismiss the significance of the billions of lives that have been lived throughout time. They had the ability to create meaning in their lives and we do to.
As for the Book of Mormon, I've never had a a powerful testimony of it's truthfulness. I had something of a (subjective) spiritual experience about my man Joseph but not the BoM. I've always found it boring, but that's not a good reason to dismiss it. However, there are plenty of good ones for sure e.g. anachronisms, the translation process, its original translation, other possible explanations for it's origin, people changing colour etc.
One of these days we'll catch up for sure.
Nice to join you here.
"Circumstances are the rulers of the weak, instrument of the wise"
Indeed, I also believe they have intended purpose beyond what we make of them.
Loren said:
"Regardless with or without god I don't think we can dismiss the significance of the billions of lives that have been lived throughout time. They had the ability to create meaning in their lives and we do to. "
The problem I have with creating meaning in one's life, in the athiest paradigm, is that death is gonna come and take away all you have ever worked to create, all you started but never finished (and frankly when can you call anything truelly finished). That by definition is a tragedy. I don't think I'm just being a pessimist in a half-full vs. half-empty situation. The problem is the 'glass' is ONLY half full. Why?
As a person who believes that everything has purpose; death without purpose just doesn't make sense to me.
If you take an athiests view then I think it's important to:
1. explain why we are self-aware and how we became that way. or prove than we are not self-aware.
2. explain how/why humans are capable of selfless behaviour... when it defies personal or even species survival. I've heard a couple of theories, but haven't been intellectually satisfied by them.
3. Convincingly, explain that our 'decisions'/choices are just effects with a (sometimes) disguised cause. I did a silly (perhaps flawed) experiment once and I came to the conclusion that we are capable of being original causes, rather than objects being acted upon. If we are capable of original cause then how did that ever happen?
By the way, a subjective experience counts for a lot. If you can't trut a subjective personal experience then what can you trust?
"The evidence built up slowly and eventually became overwhelming."
The thought of those boring, pasty philosophy professors being right all along is just as terrifying as athiesm being true!
Justin
Asian person:
That's gold
Justin:
one of the things that I'm slowly learning is to be more comfortable with uncertainty. Neither atheism or science guarantees all the answers. Science is an extremely useful way of finding them though. Atheism doesn't really say anything besides there is no god. And that's all I'm saying there's probably no personal god. I'm all for pantheism, existentialism, mysticism even, but let's be honest we all know god can't be proven. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise. So, that casts a shadow over any answers that religion offers, because it's all a matter of faith in the end. Consequently the questions you raised need to be asked of the church as well. Proof/evidence on the religious side is at least as lacking in relation to queries, probably more so, then anything science has to say (atheism doesn't say anything, but we've settled that already). Any answers offered would be speculation or subjective. Which is ok if you're into that kind of thing.
I can see the attraction of Mormonism though, and religion, in general. They offer clear and comforting answers to life's most challenging questions, with little ambiguity. I don't dismiss anyones experiences, I think they're important, but I just don't think things are as simple and improbable as religion suggests.
Oops, watch out for typos. I said:
"Proof/evidence on the religious side is at least as lacking in relation to queries"
I meant: "to your queries"
You said:
"How did I come to be atheist after all these years? The evidence built up slowly and eventually became overwhelming."
I'm don't want to get specific on any particular religion yet, but what 'evidence' do you mean exactly then led you to the concluion that a personal god does not exist?
Justin
I am always so surprised to hear people saying things like, "atheism is so depressing."
In my opinion (which I guess is just quite different), theism was depressing. It sets up varying hopes and expectations that don't (in my view) match with the way the universe actually appears to be. So, I feel "let down" constantly if I try to "force" a theistic model. Some theistic models are more hopeful than others...but other models are depressing in and of themselves, because of how they describe the universe (e.g., the Calvinist model is downright tyrannical. The LDS model is much better in many ways.)
I don't feel let down with an atheistic model. I realize that many of the expectations of the theistic model were unrealistic with the way the universe appears to me.
To me, it seems like a grand non sequitur to say, "If death has no purpose then neither does life, beyond genetic transmission."
Rather, it seems to me that when theists say this (don't know if this is the same for you, Justin), it's because they don't want to en-purpose their own lives (or face the anxiety of the utter absurdity of such a task). They want an auto-pilot from God with a score card, from God. I can see how, if this is the case, the lack of a god would be devastating.
However, since I don't live my life expecting a grand "score card" at the end of it, and I don't live my life believing I'm a cog in the wheel (regardless of if I truly am or not), I don't "lose" anything. Since I truly feel purpose (and this is internal purpose), it seems silly to chalk this up to atheism or theism.
I am a Mormon and always will be a Mormon because this is my culture. This is my first language. This is my language of theology. Etc., But that doesn't make me a believer. I am a cultural Mormon because Mormonism is a lens of consciousness that I use every single day.
I am not a theological Mormon, or a believing Mormon, because I personally don't find Mormon belief all that useful or relevant at all.
Justin, so you want the red pill? I'll write up a post (or catch you on skype soon) and all will be revealed.
Andrew S, well said, that's exactly how I feel.
Yup, hand me the red pill man. I dare to say ever since I was 16 all I've ever wanted was the truth.
(although I've got a bad feeling this if gonna distract me from the rest of life's responsibilies for a while!)
Thanks for the comments Andrew.
"I don't feel let down with an atheistic model. I realize that many of the expectations of the theistic model were unrealistic with the way the universe appears to me."
I may be wrong but I think that's why people end up embracing the athiestic model. Feeling let down by a theistic model. But thn anything that requires effort to understand may feel let down until they understand it fully.
Andrew S said:
".. it's because they don't want to en-purpose their own lives (or face the anxiety of the utter absurdity of such a task). They want an auto-pilot from God with a score card, from God. I can see how, if this is the case, the lack of a god would be devastating."
Perhaps, not 100% sure what you mean here. But couple of comments
1. As a convert, learning the LDS doctrines and theology.was quite an empurposing experience for me. And I have been hugely motivated ever since. It's not that I just wanted some rules and scorecard to be handed to me, it's that it all made great sense to me. The "where you're from, why you are here, where you can go" thing really woke something up in me. I started to understand the relevance of even the smallest choices and far reaching consequences. I became passionate about learning the truth about myself and the universe I lived in... and seeing I can't expect to learn and achieve it all in one earthly lifetime I sure hope I get a chance at working at it afterwards.
"I don't feel let down with an atheistic model. I realize that many of the expectations of the theistic model were unrealistic with the way the universe appears to me."
Yet surely any person who has a sense of personal purpose has a risk of disappointment regardless of his/her beliefs. That's because purpose is defined by goals. A goal may be reached or it may not be reached as expected... if a goal is not reached as expected it is likely to create a sense of disappointment. Sure you could reword 'disappointment' as 'surprise' or discovery, but I don't see any advantage of athiestism over thiesm in this regard.
Loren Said:
"Proof/evidence on the religious side is at least as lacking in relation to your queries"
I thought having spirits of intelligence was a more satisfactory explanation/answer to our existance than the secular evolution theory, but maybe I never thought about it deeply enough.
Either way, thanks for explaining your definition of athiesm a bit more.
Justin,
I may be wrong but I think that's why people end up embracing the athiestic model. Feeling let down by a theistic model. But thn anything that requires effort to understand may feel let down until they understand it fully.
On the other hand, you're kinda saying the same thing, except in reverse. You're taking a theistic model because you're "let down" by an atheistic one. The difference is that you write with an undertone that suggests that atheists are let down by a theistic model because they are deficient, while theists are let down by the atheistic model because the model is deficient.
I could apply your saying, "Anything that requires effort to understand..." to your situation, but I'll take the high road, so to speak.
Your comments about converting go well with what I was saying. Why couldn't you enpurpose your own life? Why did you need an LDS framework to do so?
I'd say that the distinction between "It all made sense to me" and "I wanted it" is smaller than you'd think -- because of the subjective nature of what it means for things to make sense to an individual. "It all made sense to me" is sufficient to explain why you stick with one and why you don't stick with another.
But this "It all made sense to me" is also sufficient to explain why one framework does not fit all. "It all made sense to me," *is* a subjective measure, not an objective measure. As people are differently subjectively wired, different things can "all make sense to [them]." As a result, people can understand and learn the same frameworks and have drastically different reactions -- at no fault of their own -- because there is a key ingredient: the individual.
You say you became passionate in learning the truth about the universe. But this is a bit of a confusion. Rather, what I think more people are interested in (and it really goes back to what you said: "it all made sense to me") is learning the truth about themselves.
Sure you could reword 'disappointment' as 'surprise' or discovery, but I don't see any advantage of athiestism over thiesm in this regard.
You're right. That's because atheism and theism are about being authentic to oneself. If you are authentic as a theist, then that is what you are. If you are authentic as an atheist, then that is what you are. Since one size does not fit all, there shouldn't be a universal advantage of one over the other.
All I'm saying is that atheists don't need theism, deities, afterlives, etc., to be motivated. They are personally motivated and driven in mortality and are unconvinced (and therefore unmoved) by arguments for the afterlife or the premortal existence. This is not a deficiency. This is not due to "failing to fully understand" theism. This is due to understanding theism, and not being moved or convinced by what it has to offer (in the same way you are not moved or convinced by atheism.)
The difference is that you write with an undertone that suggests that atheists are let down by a theistic model because they are deficient, while theists are let down by the atheistic model because the model is deficient.
I could apply your saying, "Anything that requires effort to understand..." to your situation, but I'll take the high road, so to speak."
My apologies, I was not intending to make a degrading comment about athiests themelves. While I was writing I was thinking of my personal experiences with certain things when I was growing up and how my understanding and therefore acceptance of certain things shifted. At the same time tho, I am assuming that a theistic model is objectively true, seeing that's my sincere belief at this point in life. As far as I am aware, yes, I am concerned with being objctively right.
Oe of the reasons why I aded comments here is because I'm intrigued by the athiests view. I can't accept it and yet other people do accept it, and yes, they are motivated people from what I can tel... what I'm interested in is how they can accept it an how two people can come to such very diferent conclusions. I'm also intersted in why I can't accept it.
All things said tho the two views can't both be objectively right. And I do think that being right is important, as far as subjective understanding alows us to be.
Your comments about converting go well with what I was saying. Why couldn't you enpurpose your own life? Why did you need an LDS framework to do so?
Well I did have hopes and dreams an motivation, but before my conversion I think I was always at least agnostic. But my hopes an dreams and motivation and many other character attributes intensifid as a result of the LDS framework. I've already explained why I felt unsatisfied with an athiestic framework. Yes, the athiestic framwork did seem difficient to me... the LDS framework did not.
"I'd say that the distinction between "It all made sense to me" and "I wanted it" is smaller than you'd think -- because of the subjective nature of what it means for things to make sense to an individual. "It all made sense to me" is sufficient to explain why you stick with one and why you don't stick with another."
Well sure, but I'd like to think that "It all made sense to me" came BEFORE "I wanted it". Although it's sometimes hard to admit being wrong, I do my best to discard errors or weaknesses to make improvement. That's kaizen. I've changed my beleifs about things as my life has gone on, and I'm sure I will change more beliefs as my life continues into the future. The approach that I use to arrive at my beleifs is important to me.
At the same time tho, I am assuming that a theistic model is objectively true, seeing that's my sincere belief at this point in life. As far as I am aware, yes, I am concerned with being objctively right.
Well, here's the thing...it's understandable that if that is your sincere belief, you would assume the model is true. However, your sincere belief doesn't actually make it true (doesn't make it false, either), and just because you *believe* you are concerned with being objectively right doesn't necessarily mean you actually are. (The same goes for both sides).
Since different people can sincerely believe different things (and believe these things are objectively right, etc.,) it makes sense that two people can come to very different conclusions.
I mean, we see this thing in every other issue about life. Political persuasion...economic views...etc., Philosophy and religious bent shouldn't be exempt from the diversity of thought.
Well sure, but I'd like to think that "It all made sense to me" came BEFORE "I wanted it".
Sure. I think that that is the only way it can go. How do we even know what we want? Well, our desires come out of our frameworks (that is, what makes sense to us about viewing the world). We have to think with our framework...our worldview...to even be able to tell when we think some things are good and some things are deficient. Does that make sense?
Although it's sometimes hard to admit being wrong, I do my best to discard errors or weaknesses to make improvement.
The thing is that our definitions of "right" and "wrong," "error," and "weakness," are also affected by our worldviews. Since our worldviews can be very different, we can come to different conclusions while still discarding errors and making improvements.
Yup, makes sense. If you take the notion of subjective influence to it's logical extreme tho I think it rules out having free will or genuine decisions... therefore to completely believe in subjective influence would mean one can't truely "enpurpose" ones own life... it would all just be cause and effect.
If we do have some degree of free will in an athiestic world, then were does it come from...?
Justin,
There are many ideas which, if taken to a logical extreme, will rule out free will. Subjectivity REALLY shouldn't be your concern, especially with more potent players like, oh, say, physics. In fact, I've heard your argument for many things (like physics), but NEVER for subjectivity itself.
I still get the sense that you don't fully *get* what I mean with subjectivity. Still, you seem to be talking about *objectivity*. You are saying, "If x, then free will doesn't *objectively* exist."
Now, I don't even know what logical extreme you're taking subjectivity to that you would make you conclude this (again, I've never encountered the argument with subjectivity), but what I'd argue is that it doesn't matter if your argument here is sound or not
How could that be? Well, if subjectivity is taken to its logical extreme, the *objective* existence or nonexistence of free will wouldn't mean a thing!
We obviously perceive free will (well, most of us). Therefore, regardless of if we do have free will or not (it does not matter), our perception of free will will be integrated into our actions (whether we choose them and free will does exist OR whether they are predetermined and free will doesn't exist.) That is what it means to pay attention to subjectivity.
So, if I may adjust your final question, I'll make it the much easier question: "If we do have some perception of a degree of free will in an atheistic OR theistic world, where does it come from?"
Answer: our status as subjective beings.
congratulations guys we've just created the longest thread in SliModSoC history. Justin, I've got a new post up as promised chronicling my adventures that lead to atheism. Proceed with caution.
Andrew S,
I think we've gone in diffferent directions, so I'll back up a bit to try to clear it up.
On February 7, You said,
"...We have to think with our framework...our worldview...to even be able to tell when we think some things are good and some things are deficient.
"The thing is that our definitions of "right" and "wrong," "error," and "weakness," are also affected by our worldviews. Since our worldviews can be very different, we can come to different conclusions while still discarding errors and making improvements."
I may have used the wrong words when I said "..take subjective influence to it's logical extreme" but I'll try to explain what I mean (and it' basically the same as a theme in the second and third matrix movie).
If we could ever take two identical people and give them parralel lives, that is born into the exact same circumstances and going thru the exact same experiences and making the exact same choices up to 'point x'. At 'point x' they must make a decision (lets just say it's whether they will be athiests or not.). If they both consistently (say the test could be run many times, with variation in the experiences that have up to 'point x') made the same decision then could we safely conclude ('beyond reasonable doubt')that they are objects that lack free will? On the other hand if they came up with different decisions at point x then could we assume that they do have free will?
In the case of them both consistantly making the same choices, could we conclude that human behaviour is based strictly on a formula and if the formula is properly understood then we can reliably predict what a persons choice will be at a given moment?
Conversely, in the case of them NOT both consistantly making the same choices, could we conclude that human behaviour is not strictly based on a predictable formula?
This is what I was thinking of with your talk about the frameworks or worldviews that we use to make conclusions/wants... I did use the word "subjective influence", but it was just to describe our personal conclusions/wants about an objective world around us.
Perhaps this is going on a crazy tangent, but I think it will be possible to steer it back to our original posts.
Justin,
I would like to clarify a few things here. The nature of "identicality" you're speaking of would be much greater than what we're normally used to. For example, identical twinship wouldn't work because even identical twins can have different gene expression (and don't occupy exactly the same space, etc.,). So I'll assume you are taking the more advanced identicality (which would make every single thing the same, including these less thought-of details). This actually proposes a problem for your thought experiment, because it makes some of the consequences impossible (these identical people, with the same situations and same everything, could NOT ever diverge...or else, something would have had to not be identical!)
Now, to try to get to the questions. I find something off about them...so I'll try to go through them.
I'll get to question 3 and 4, first, since they set up a fallacious argument: If two guys make exactly exactly the same decisions (etc.,), then their behavior is perfectly predictable by a formula (if perfectly understood). So, suppose that the two guys don't make exacltly the same decision. Therefore, their behavior isn't perfectly predictable by a formula.
This seems like a case of denying the antecedent.
The same problem happens with the coupling of 1 and 2.
There are further problems with the nature of identicality and free will. If they are identical, there is no reason to believe that they would ever come out to be different. Rather, this conclusion would suggest that -- in some way, shape or fashion -- they or their environments are not identical in every way. So you either have to downgrade the idea of "identical"ness or downgrade the idea of "free will."
This is all far off from what I wanted to discuss though. Free will is really a dull and pointless topic either way. Even more important, this doesn't really hit the heart of subjectivity at all, but instead is a discussion about objectivity. These arguments of determinism vs. free will, ESPECIALLY with talk of "formulas" are better discussed with hard science...so that is why I said I would have expected this argument to be phrased as, "Doesn't physics rule out free will?" NOT in the form of, "Doesn't subjectivity rule out free will?"
The objective existence of free will doesn't matter in any case. Even if we were going to use the case of the two identical individuals. Regardless of if they have free will or do not have free will, they would both perceive free will. They are both wired to subjectively perceive free will, at least in action.
My argument with beliefs, worldviews, etc., is a bit different. I believe that with beliefs, worldviews, etc., regardless of whether or not we consciously have the ability to directly choose our belief states, I think we do not subjectively perceive such an ability.
So, when we "feel" something is right and something else is wrong, we don't perceive that we consciously choose to feel this way, and we don't perceive that we could consciously choose to feel another way. While these things certainly do change, they aren't from a direct conscious choice, but rather from an indirect and unconscious reaction to data. The problem? We don't agree on what is right and what is wrong.
So, that is why I called into question your statement:
Although it's sometimes hard to admit being wrong, I do my best to discard errors or weaknesses to make improvement.
Since individuals can (and do) start from different positions relating to what we believe is "erroneous" or "weak" or "wrong," and we can interpret new data in different ways still, two people could be "doing their best to discard errors or weaknesses to make improvement" yet be DOING completely different things!
OK, from what I get so far, Andrew S, you have an 'existentialist' perspective. I don't think I know much about that school of thought, and we have different backgrounds, so our communication may be cumbersome, but I'll try to wrap some of this up anyway.
The experiment I described is not in my mind possible, it was just a "what-if" to explain what I meant in the previous post.
Your description of different views/behaviours depending on individual experience is something I accept. But I beleive that it is not the only thing that determines a persons behaviour, decisions or beliefs.
The other factor, in my mind, is free-will. Since we both perceive self-awareness and free-will (which I assume somes from self-awareness) we might as well assume that it is real. I know that you said it isn't an important issue but I'll talk about it a bit.
For creativity and 'enpurposement' to be possible there must be some degree of free-will. Otherwise it would just be disguised cause and effect.
I will also assume that my free-will allows me to have at least some degree of freedom and objectivity in my evaluation of what is true and what is not.
Even tho they may be hindered by all my subjective experiences/understanding.
OK, I think you've said we do not consciously choose the feelings that we have. Therefore we don't agree on what is right and what is wrong. I'll assume that you beleive our perception of what is right or wrong is based upon our subjective feelings.
So, do you think it's possible to use my perceived free-will to do something I don't feel like doing? or 'resist temptation'?
I disagree that our perception of what is right or wrong is based SOLELY upon our subjective feelings.
Regarding my theistic world view and people's failure to 'enpurpose' their own lives. I doubt that I have been incapable of enpurposing my own life because I frequently find myself in a struggle between choosing/trusting what is apparently God's will vs. my own will based on certain experience, understanding or feelings.
One of the reasons why I haev choosen a theistic model is because of my beleif that my percieved self-awareness and free-will is real. When evaluating a worldview I want to know what explanation it offeres to me on something so fundamental to me. I'd come to associate the world "athiesm" with "materialism" which may be innacurate. But I haven't been able to accept materialism because I havn't been satisfied by it's explanations of why perceived self-awareness and free-will exist. I can't even see how a philisophical conversation like this could ever exist if materialism were true, seeing the conversation seeing I can't see how this conversation is relevant to survival.
Regarding my earlier quote:
"If death has no purpose then neither does life, beyond genetic transmission."
The reason why I say it is because I'm looking for a reason why I exist in the first place, as well as a reason why I die. Yes that level of purpose must come from a source other than myself. However I still percieve my own chosen purpose within that bounds of that 'given purpose', there's still planty of room for creativity. the 'given purpose' simply gives me a guideline for how I choose my more personal purpose.
Although I may be able to percieve a personal purpose for life without a god who designs, I am unable to perceive any purpose for death without a god who designs.
The view that death gives urgency and drive to life does seem deficient on it's own. Sure it gives urgency, but I can't help but wish for more than that. The loss caused by death is phenomenal. Am I wishing too much? I'd be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees with me on this.
Justin, many times, your logical process is...interesting...to say the least.
I don't think it necessarily follows that since we perceive free will, we should assume that it is real. After all, the alternative that you mention a little bit later -- that we have disguised cause and effect -- isn't too unreasonable. Whatever the actual case is, we don't *need* free will to be real. All we need is the *perception* of it...and we both agree that we perceive it.
I wouldn't say that free will would give you objectivity either. I don't know what logic you are using to come to that conclusion.
I don't get your logic later on. Our disagreement on what is right and wrong is not caused by not consciously choosing our feelings. So I don't know why you put "therefore". The two aren't very related. It just so happens that the facts on the ground are that we disagree on what is right and wrong. It also just so happens that we also do not consciously choose our feelings (or even PERCEIVE the ability to do so. Whereas we PERCEIVE the ability to choose actions [this is the perception of free will], we don't perceive the ability to consciously choose emotions.)
Our perception of right and wrong is not based on our subjective feelings. Our perception of right and wrong are some subjective feelings. E.g., when we say, "murder is wrong," we are essentially codifying an emotional reaction, "Murder boo!" When we consider certain actions, we have certain internal reactions. THESE reactions *are* our beliefs about right and wrong (because, presumably, we want to avoid negative affects and draw closer to positive ones.) But our beliefs of right and wrong also are subjective feelings regarding what happens *after* we do certain actions. When we do actions we feel are wrong, we FEEL guilty, embarrassed, ashamed, disgusted, whatever.
Since your perceived free will covers your actions, it is very easy for you to do something you don't like doing...or to resist temptation. But let me try to show you what I am saying you can't and don't choose. You can't and don't choose that you "don't like" doing something...and you can't and don't choose that you have or do not have temptation. So, when you resist temptation, you are making an action that is incongruent with your emotional state. You are *resisting* temptation, rather than *eliminating* temptation. If you have something you didn't want to do and you did it, then you did something *you didn't want to do*. You can't directly change your emotional state so that you suddenly want to do that thing.
(to be continued)
I'll try to use the analogy with your next few paragraphs.
You say you chose a theistic model. But I think that you are severely overestimating your choice. Even if you choose your beliefs, this choice is extremely skewed...so that you effectively don't choose at all. Your description makes it pretty clear.
Why "choose" theism? Because atheism entails materialism for you (NOTE: You did not choose for this to be. It just seems that way to you). Because you perceive free will, and free will "doesn't make sense" in a materialistic worldview (NOTE: you don't choose whether or no to perceive free will, and you don't choose whether free will will make sense to you in a materialistic worldview. It just seems that way to you.) However, free will does make sense for you in a theistic worldview. So, even if there is a choice, your brain has already decided. It goes for what makes sense: theism.
This is not an objective evaluation of the data. Rather, it is crucially underpinned on YOUR perception and sensation. It is CRUCIALLY underpinned on YOUR underlying "operating system" -- the basic instructions for processing through data. You SAY you chose your belief, but what you are unaware of are all the unconscious assumptions you have made throughout that have all culminated to make one side seem most "sensical." You CANNOT consciously change this "operating system," its instruction set, or your unconscious assumptions. All you CAN do is ACT. And an ACTION you could take is to seek more data. With more data, perhaps you could find the missing puzzle piece for your internal operating system. Or perhaps not.
Reading on, I continue not to get your logic. I'm sure it seems perfectly sound to you, but to me, it seems like you're making a ton of unjustified leaps. Why must purpose come from a source other than yourself? Your earlier quote about transmission of genetic information STILL is unsound and specious, but you continue to wave it around as if it were fact.
The view that death gives urgency and drive to life does seem deficient on it's own. Sure it gives urgency, but I can't help but wish for more than that. The loss caused by death is phenomenal. Am I wishing too much? I'd be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees with me on this.
To answer your question, YES. You say it seems deficient on its own. But what you have to remember is that IT isn't doing anything. Rather, YOU perceive it as deficient. So this is your subjectivity. This is not an objective statement about death.
Man, help me out, I got totally lost regarding your critique on my comment "I think you've said we do not consciously choose the feelings that we have. Therefore we don't agree on what is right and what is wrong. I'll assume that you beleive our perception of what is right or wrong is based upon our subjective feelings. "
You said:
"Our perception of right and wrong are some subjective feelings. E.g., when we say, "murder is wrong," we are essentially codifying an emotional reaction...
"..You said "THESE reactions *are* our beliefs about right and wrong "
according to your logic:
belief is necessarily the same as perception or not?
new perception = emotional reaction to new data input + previous perception?
"Our disagreement on what is right and wrong is not caused by not consciously choosing our feelings."
I got that, but,
" The two aren't very related. It just so happens that the facts on the ground are that we disagree on what is right and wrong"
aren't feelings reactions to data?
aren't we reacting to "the data on the table" in a different way, hence our disagreement (our disagreement being about what is right and wrong?)
Sorry! I definitely need to trim my comments down too, since they are getting to be multi-comment size.
Belief is a perception, yes. Not *all* perception, but a *set* of them, yes. I don't see anything wrong so far with saying, "New perception = new data + old perception." Although I'd probably specify that perceptions can be pretty deep. For example, the "old perception" is also a *framework*. It feels better (perception) to have things "make sense." But "making sense" requires a framework. Since we have frameworks, we simply check data against frameworks. Different data => different perception.
"Our disagreement on what is right and wrong is not caused by not consciously choosing our feelings."
I got that, but,
To clarify, my critical point here was the "not consciously choosing our feelings." I'll get more into that in responding to your last part.
" The two aren't very related. It just so happens that the facts on the ground are that we disagree on what is right and wrong"
aren't feelings reactions to data?
aren't we reacting to "the data on the table" in a different way, hence our disagreement (our disagreement being about what is right and wrong?)
Yes, feelings are reactions to data. We ARE reacting to the data ("the facts on the ground") differently (as well as seeing DIFFERENT data...perceptual bias or different experiences), and so we DO disagree.
But the clincher (which is actually unrelated to the fact that we interpret the data and react to it differently) is that we can't CONSCIOUSLY choose how we will interpret and react to the data. That is what my first part meant.
Let's say we could consciously choose how we reacted to data. Then it wouldn't matter if we disagreed and had different perceptions. You or I could just "choose" to react to the data differently and have harmony. But we can't do this. You can't just decide for something to "make sense" or "seem right." You can hope to flood new data in, but without any new data, you can't just take the old data and churn out a different conclusion on your own will.
" You can hope to flood new data in, but without any new data, you can't just take the old data and churn out a different conclusion on your own will."
If I'm painting a picture I percieve that I'm making creative decisions with the tools in front of me, I'm very familiar with these tools, is it then fair to call them "old data"?
The outcome of my painting will change depending on which of my old data I choose to focus on. say I have ten different paints and on my first painting I choose to focus on 5 of them, and on the next painting I choose to focus on all 10 of them. The outcome of the second painting is different to the first.
When interpreting something, doesn't the interpretation depend on which data we look at within our existing framework?
Therefore, can't I just take the old data (by choosing from it) and churn out a different conclusion on my own will?
If I'm painting a picture I percieve that I'm making creative decisions with the tools in front of me, I'm very familiar with these tools, is it then fair to call them "old data"?
The problem aren't the TOOLS. The problem are the *creative decisions*. Since your creativity is limited (biased...you likely have a very particular kind of taste), your artwork will similarly be limited. Furthermore, another bottleneck is your technical skill -- how well you can translate creativity into art.
The outcome of my painting will change depending on which of my old data I choose to focus on. say I have ten different paints and on my first painting I choose to focus on 5 of them, and on the next painting I choose to focus on all 10 of them. The outcome of the second painting is different to the first.
I think you're incorrectly understanding the idea of "new" vs. "old." When you say "depending on which of the old data you choose to focus on," you are actually describing "depending on focusing on the status quo data ["old data"] or investigating previously unfocused on data ["new data"]
However, even more important, your style and "quirks" will always tell certain things about you...such that we could probably match paintings to you with a certain amount of understanding of your style and quirks. This style is unconscious and unchosen -- you can attempt to ACT out of your style, but you will face consequences (learning curve, dislike of efforts, etc.,)
When interpreting something, doesn't the interpretation depend on which data we look at within our existing framework?
What you are describing is getting new data. When I say "new" data, I don't mean new as in "novel." I mean new as in "previously uninvestigated."
Therefore, can't I just take the old data (by choosing from it) and churn out a different conclusion on my own will?
No, not quite. But you can take new data (from discovering/investigating it) and *indirectly* hope for a different conclusion. There are no guarantees that you can churn out a different conclusion, mind you. You are at the will of unconscious processes.
Let's say you are Republican. You want to understand your Democrat friends. So you start reading new books (e.g., you CHOOSE to look and investigate different data.) You inundate yourself with the best Democratic thinkers and discuss with them.
Now, you have chosen new data (not meaning that the data is novel...but that it was previously uninvestigated -- at least not to the extent you are doing.) Does this mean you can consciously choose to agree with Democrat policies?
No.
Even after inundating yourself with all this data, you are still at the mercy of an interpretative framework that you did not choose and do not consciously change. It could be that, after your escapade into liberal Democrat ideas that you come out believing they are more despicable, ill-thought out, and nonsensical.
If you could somehow change your interpretative framework though (your artistic "quirks" and "style" from the analogy), then you could easily adopt Democrat values. The problem is you can't really do this in real life. Your innermost self will know you're lying to yourself.
-----
Andrew S said:
"What you are describing is getting new data. When I say "new" data, I don't mean new as in "novel." I mean new as in "previously uninvestigated."
-----
My choice of words may have failed me again.
Lets say I can choose to draw my picture with red pen or blue pen. I've used both plenty of times.
I can just as easily draw a picture (within my scope of skill and style) in red pen and then draw the same picture in blue pen, or vice-versa depending on what colour I choose. I'm able to churn out a different coloured picture based on my free will.
This is in a creative context. It is not a moral choice in any way, it is just experimenting with different known/available colours to see what kind of result I get.
From a more moral standpoint, I could take someone significant in my own life and do a similar thing. Lets say my wife. I have a collection of experiences/memories with her, some of these may be dug up more often than others. They are all none-the-less stored within my mind and accessable. Now, I could spend a few hours thinking about all of the pleasant experiences I've had with her, and all the things I like about her... by the end of it I'll feel pretty good.
On the other hand I could spend the same amount of time thinking about all the unpleasurable experiences I've had with her and all the things I don't like about her. I'll feel a whole lot less in love after the experience.
Now the more I focus on a set of data within my mind the easier (more automatic) it will be for me to access that same data again in the future (seeing my brain works as a shifting neural network. On the other hand if I chose to focus on other data then the data that was previously focused on will become less automatically accessible due to neglect (for more info check out the popular book "The Brain that Changes Itself").
None of my memories are fully removed from my mind tho. I just CHOOSE to put my 'mental spotlight' on a particular set of data already within me. I could, for whatever reason, choose to do what I described above right now, in any order I decide.
Now, I choose to love my wife because of a conscious choice to focus on particular data that is helpful in accomplishing my goal, and to neglect other data that is destructive to my goal. The more I do this, the easier and more consistant it becomes. Old habits and mindset are replaced by new. The old neural pathways are actually overwritten with new ones.
So AGAIN, can't I just take the old(already known) data (by choosing from it) and churn out a different conclusion on my own will?
Andrew, a large part of what you've been explaining to me about human behaviour is absolutely agreeable to me.
The physics you have described indeed exists within our brains. For instance, take someone who knows both manual and automatic driving, but has been driving automatic for the last 10 years, then suddenly put them into a manual car and ask them how much more they have to concentrate on their new driving patterns. Their rate of actual mistakes while driving may also increase.
The problem is you're describing it as tho "cause and effect" type physics is all there is to it. As you already know I beleive there is a "gap" between stimulus and response, and that gap is what allows us to make choices about what what available data we choose to focus on. That gap is outside of the bounds of physics that you describe. In fact, that the person can indeed drive the manual car when enough concentration (by tapping into their memory) is applied is indication of their free will.
From both a creative and moral standpoint, I perceive free-will as I've defined it, and I'd be interested in hearing from anybody living a practical life that isn't based upon a perception of it. I also have no reason to doubt it. I see it as separate to but compatible with the physics you have described.
If you admit that you percieve free will, then what reason do you have not to believe it?
Justin,
Let's say you're in a sour mood about your wife for some reason. Could you instantly and immediately think of good times to quell the sour mood and get to a happy one...or do you think it would take some work and may not even be successful at all?
If you think you could change your mood immediately (or relatively quickly), then do you apply this everywhere in your life? Do you manage to always cut off your anger/sourness/sadness/negative emotions as quickly as possible? Do you think that you could?
I'd argue that most people cannot do this, or if they could, we would see a lot less angry/sad/sour people, because it would behoove us all to practice this technique. Rather, I think people recognize they don't choose their emotional states and, therefore, when they are in an emotional state, rather than fixating on the emotional state, they focus on actions. Now, these actions still don't directly change emotional states. So, thinking of good times will NOT make you less angry or sour. Rather, the first thing it'll make you do is think, "This is silly; why am I trying to think of x when I'm angry?"
Even when people use actions to preoccupy themselves, they don't directly change the emotion. Counting to ten is a good way to prevent from ACTING in a regrettable way, but as soon as you reach "10" doesn't mean your anger will disappear. Rather, it will ebb and flow on its own based on nonconscious process.
I think you're taking neuroplasticity way too far. If you were not attracted to your wife, I don't think any amount of thinking of good thoughts about her, for example, would make you attracted to her. On the other hand, if you were head over heels in love with her, I'm sure that even thinking about all the bad times wouldn't shake you out -- even when the bad times should shake you out (e.g., if you were in an abusive relationship)
At all times, you are free to choose your actions (thinking about x, thinking about y, doing x, doing y), but these thoughts and actions are processed through a deeper framework. So there is no strong correlation between thinking happy thoughts and being genuinely, deeply, spontaneously happy.
If you say you only choose to love your wife, and you are not attracted to her, then I'm sorry, but I feel bad for you BOTH. I feel the same way, quite frankly, of the many blogs of mixed orientation marriages husbands and wives. It is so torturing to all parties involved.
So, I have to be pretty skeptical. I think you're purposefully downplaying some pretty huge -- and unchosen -- foundations. You do not choose to love someone as easily as you choose to extend your hand. You do not even choose to love someone as you would choose to set a new habit. While you can create habits and *hope* that inspires and unconscious change, you are still at the mercy of the unconscious framework.
To be continued
PART II:
Justin, your second part of the message assumes that this "gap" is outside of physics without anything to back it up. Basically, from your automatic/manual analogy, I seem to get the sense that you feel that I'm saying that "autopilot" actions or "habits" are what is physically determined (e.g., the guy has practiced automatic for so long he doesn't have to think about it.)
But that's not the extent of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is...what if the "gap" -- the time the guy takes to remember the motions for manual -- is just the *perception* of free will, but is actually just as deterministic as everything else? As soon as sense data of a manual hits his head, what if this starts a chain reaction of searching the brain, searching for memories, getting memories, sending signal to hands and feet, etc.,? We know there *must* be some determinism involved (e.g., when he "wills" to remember, he should not instead flail his arms. His willing to remember should be causally connected to one action [thinking] and not others [flailing arms])...the question is how far does this determinism extend? That's why the perception of free will is different than actual free will.
I don't know why you keep coming to this point, because my point isn't to actually answer whether or not we actually have free will or not. This doesn't matter. It is as useless an answer as answering whether the universe was *actually* created last Thursday (with the appearance of being billions of years old) or whether the universe is *actually* billions of years old. As long as we *perceive*, this is good enough...if we recognize perception can be incorrect. Your "gap", at best, proves the *perception* of free will...which I'm not denying.
To answer your final question, I of course believe I perceive free will. I have never denied that. But I'm not sold on whether you or I or anyone ACTUALLY has free will. Because of that, it doesn't matter if -- by some way -- free will is effectively disproven. I live by my perceptions, and I still PERCEIVE free will.
So do you personally care about why you actually perceive free will or do you just take it for granted?
I personally don't care, because it doesn't matter and you won't get anywhere by fussing and fretting over it.
thanks for the long chat Andrew, I think I understand at least one athiest's view a little better than before.
Post a Comment