What Is Man?

[seer]

“Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well”- Hawking. Thus, although we feel as though we have control over what we do and believe and act as though we do, in actuality we don't; no more than our Bonobo and Chimpanzee cousins do.

Ok so you don't have control over what you believe - you can't control what you believe to be true or false. So what exactly does control that fact finding ability?

What is “true” is in accordance with fact and reality. And scientific “fact” supports the "reality" of a Causally Determined universe with no place for the notion of Libertarian Free-Will. Your "feeling" that you have the latter is a deceptive illusion.

But you agree that you have no more control over what you consider a fact, or true or reality than a monkey. So what are you talking about?

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, I don't have to believe that science is even close to understanding these things. I mean how many times have we seen science change its view.

There is a problem with this statement in that one of the distinct purposes of science is to change its view. I hear this unfortunate meaningless 'accusation' from those with an unwarranted combative negative view of science. Changes in science are based on a sound foundation of Methodological Naturalism and peer reviewed research. Any conclusion you may reach from this is a non sequitur.

[seer]

There is a problem with this statement in that one of the distinct purposes of science is to change its view. I hear this unfortunate meaningless 'accusation' from those with an unwarranted combative negative view of science. Changes in science are based on a sound foundation of Methodological Naturalism and peer reviewed research. Any conclusion you may reach from this is a non sequitur.

So, you are making my point. Unless you are a prophet we don't know what conclusions science may or may not come to on this issue in the future. There is certainly no good reason, at this point, to categorically deny the possibility of freedom of the will.

[tabibito]

There is certainly no good reason, at this point, to categorically deny the possibility of freedom of the will.

So far, I haven't seen anything from the researchers in the field that says otherwise. They're all saying that it is too early to be making assertions.

[seer]

So far, I haven't seen anything from the researchers in the field that says otherwise. They're all saying that it is too early to be making assertions.

Well that never stopped Tass! ; )

[tabibito]

Well that never stopped Tass! ; )

So I noticed.

[shunyadragon]

So, you are making my point. Unless you are a prophet we don't know what conclusions science may or may not come to on this issue in the future. There is certainly no good reason, at this point, to categorically deny the possibility of freedom of the will.

Absolutely NO!! I am not making your point. It is most definitely a non sequitur. The change in science is consistent and progressive in its history. It is most likely that changes in the future knowledge of science will be consistent with the progressive knowledge of science in the past and the present. Yes, the present science does not categorically deny 'Free Will,' but odds on that to be consistent with the present knowledge of science, the future is bleak for any version of libertarian free will. It would be extremely unlikely that advances in science will eliminate 'potential free.'

On the near horizon of the behavioral sciences is the rapidly evolving knowledge of the relationship of will and human sexuality. It has been almost conclusively been determined that sexual orientation in most cases has a heavy natural basis in genetics, and not subject to free will decisions. People may or may not have the free will on how to express their sexuality, but again research has shown the choices are likely limited.

It is also becoming more convincing that many, not all, variations of sexual predation like pedophilia, and rape, are strongly compulsive behaviors that have limited free will control.

Tie these behavioral problems with such things like 'obsessive compulsive' disorders, ie compulsive gambling behaviors, and libertarian free will in human behavior is unteniable even with the possibilities of future advances in science. The hope of the future of science in these areas is to in some way alter the chemistry and genetics of individuals so that the these behaviors may be controlled to within acceptable social expressions.

[tabibito]

I think most people are comfortable with the concept of fettered free will, but I am also confident that intelligence, even if it is extremely limited, also confers a certain ability to exert control over the environment. Insofar as the chain of circumstance forms part of the environment, its influence too is subject to a certain degree of control.

[seer]

Absolutely NO!! I am not making your point. It is most definitely a non sequitur. The change in science is consistent and progressive in its history. It is most likely that changes in the future knowledge of science will be consistent with the progressive knowledge of science in the past and the present. Yes, the present science does not categorically deny 'Free Will,' but odds on that to be consistent with the present knowledge of science, the future is bleak for any version of libertarian free will. It would be extremely unlikely that advances in science will eliminate 'potential free.'

[shunyadragon]

First of all Shuny, we do and have seen paradigm shifts in science.

You cannot depend on some kind of paradigm shift to justify a significant change in scientific knowledge.

Actually the Baha'i Faith does not endorse the dualism of Christianity. Material considerations are essentially the physical nature of our existence as to the nature and how Creation and Revelation took place. There is not a clear and separate delineation between the spiritual and the physical.

[seer]

You cannot depend on some kind of paradigm shift to justify a significant change in scientific knowledge.

And you can not depend on the idea that it won't happen.

Actually the Baha'i Faith does not endorse the dualism of Christianity. Material considerations are essentially the physical nature of our existence as to the nature and how Creation and Revelation took place. There is not a clear and separate delineation between the spiritual and the physical.

Wrong! Don't you even know what your own faith teaches? That a man has an invisible, rational, everlasting soul. So we are made of a material body and immaterial soul - that is dualism by definition. I didn't say there was a clear delineation, only that both exist. So as believers in a rational, immaterial soul we are not limited to what "science" discovers when it comes to human abilities. Agreed?

the will, which represents the capacity for self- initiated action; and
the "heart," or the capacity for conscious, deliberate, self-sacrificing love (sometimes called altruism).

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-5-1.html

[shunyadragon]

Wrong! Don't you even know what your own faith teaches? That a man has an invisible, rational, everlasting soul. So we are made of a material body and immaterial soul - that is dualism by definition. I didn't say there was a clear delineation, only that both exist. So as believers in a rational, immaterial soul we are not limited to what "science" discovers when it comes to human abilities. Agreed?

Actually no, Christian dualism believes in two or more opposing principles, as in good and evil. In the Baha'i Faith it is true there are different kingdoms, and the human soul and spiritual nature represents a unique world or kingdom, or spiritual world distinct and separate from the physical world, but does not believe these are opposing principles or forces as in the Christian view of good and evil. Many, but not all Christians consider the physical world tainted by evil in the Fall.

Those that describe 'Dualism' in the Baha'i scripture, describe different separate worlds, ie substance dualism, and not two or more opposing opposites.

Source: http://carm.org/questions-dualism

Dualism designates “two parts” and is the position that the universe consists of two opposing principles--though not limited to only two. There are variations within dualism. Moral dualism would see the opposites of good and evil. Personal dualism would deal with the human being as consisting of mind and body. There are property dualists (the mind is a property of physical matter) and substance dualists (the mind is a different substance from physical matter). Religious dualism is the belief that there are two opposite powers in the universe: good and evil. Some say that this is manifested in the biblical revelation of God versus Satan. A common representation of these opposites is known from the Taoist religion as Yin and Yang.

Dualism is unbiblical since Scripture does not teach that the universe consists of opposites, nor does it affirm that Satan and God are equal and opposing forces. God, according to Scripture, is infinitely greater than Satan and will eventually cast Satan into hell. This could not be done if they were equal and opposing forces.

© Copyright Original Source

In terms of the opposing forces of good and evil 'Dualism,' most Christians, of course, do not consider them equal opposing forces, but nonetheless opposing forces.

Yes, the [human] will "represents the capacity for self- initiated action;" and
the "heart," or the capacity for conscious, deliberate, self-sacrificing love."

but this does not define the degree of freedom of our will.

[shunyadragon]

And you can not depend on the idea that it won't happen.

I never said that paradigm shifts do not happen. It is not realistic to hold your breath in hopes that there will be a paradigm shift when you do not like the evidence.

[seer]

Actually no, Christian dualism believes in two or more opposing principles, as in good and evil. In the Baha'i Faith it is true there are different kingdoms, and the human soul and spiritual nature represents a unique world or kingdom, or spiritual world distinct and separate from the physical world, but does not believe these are opposing principles or forces as in the Christian view of good and evil. Many, but not all Christians consider the physical world tainted by evil in the Fall.

Those that describe 'Dualism' in the Baha'i scripture, describe different separate worlds, ie substance dualism, and not two or more opposing opposites.

We are speaking of two different things Shuny. I'm speaking of dualism as the duality of man. Body and spirit, look at your quote:

Dualism designates “two parts” and is the position that the universe consists of two opposing principles--though not limited to only two. There are variations within dualism. Moral dualism would see the opposites of good and evil. Personal dualism would deal with the human being as consisting of mind and body. There are property dualists (the mind is a property of physical matter) and substance dualists (the mind is a different substance from physical matter). Religious dualism is the belief that there are two opposite powers in the universe: good and evil. Some say that this is manifested in the biblical revelation of God versus Satan. A common representation of these opposites is known from the Taoist religion as Yin and Yang.

Dualism is unbiblical since Scripture does not teach that the universe consists of opposites, nor does it affirm that Satan and God are equal and opposing forces. God, according to Scripture, is infinitely greater than Satan and will eventually cast Satan into hell. This could not be done if they were equal and opposing forces.

So since we are both dualist we know that man is not merely a "material" being, therefore "science" is not in a position to ultimately decide the question of free will - agreed?

[shunyadragon]

We are speaking of two different things Shuny. I'm speaking of dualism as the duality of man. Body and spirit, look at your quote:

What I said was that the Baha'i Faith did not believe in the Christian view, and this is true. The Baha'i Faith does not believe in the Dualism of opposing principles and/or forces.

So since we are both dualist we know that man is not merely a "material" being, therefore "science" is not in a position to ultimately decide the question of free will - agreed?

To a degree this is true, but I have reservations to stating things in absolute terms. The substance dualism of the soul and body believed by the Baha'i Faith the ultimate spiritual, intellectual and will nature of humanity resides with the mind soul relationship. Ultimately some sort of 'Free Will' would be essential to the nature of the soul/physical mind relationship, but a libertarian free will is unlikely.