A Plea for Understanding

[Tassman]

Again,

Calvinists were by far the first that supported Divine Determinism and no Free Will,

regardless of whether you feel they are influential or not. Arminianism vs Calvinism remains an issue between churches in Christianity. Your wrong that some scientist were the first to propose no free will. The issue remains that it divides Christianity. Actually in Arminianism God has fore knowledge of those that will select to be saved by Free Will, so what good is 'Free Will'?

Actually, well before Calvin, Augustine in the 5th century didn’t leave much room for free will either: “By the grace of God” someone accepts the Gospel and is thereby saved”. Very similar to the Calvinist doctrine that God extends grace and gives salvation only to the chosen, which is the basis of many denominations today, including e.g. the Presbyterians.

[seer]

Again and again and again, NOT ALL scientists in the appropriate field DO NIOT support that no 'Free Will' exists.

Again Shuny you are the one who took me to task for bringing up the idea of determinism - when it is the scientists themselves that are using these terms, and suggesting that free will is an illusion. And I never said that all scientists agree, all scientists seldom agree on anything. Just that these ideas, like free will being an illusion, or that we are deterministic beings, are coming from science.

[JohnnyP]

Ascending into Heaven and descending into Hell, as Jesus is described as doing, is hardly the way to convey those realms occupy the same space.

Or it could be that your Christian teleology has adapted to what we know about the sky and beyond.

These would be symbolism of higher/lower dimensions, rather than going into literal bottomless pits in the Earth, or clouds into Heaven like the Giant's Kingdom in Jack and the Beanstalk. I'm no scientist and not saying this refers to Heaven/Hell or that it is even accurate, but it somewhat illustrates:

Theoretical physicist Oskar Klein later revised the theory, proposing that the fourth dimension was merely curled up, while the other three spatial dimensions are extended. In other words, the fourth dimension is there, only it's rolled up and unseen, a little like a fully retracted tape measure. Furthermore, it would mean that every point in our three-dimensional world would have an additional fourth spatial dimension rolled away inside it. -How Stuff Works

How have angels helped you and demons tried to foil you? Maybe our experiences are similar.

In a general way I've experienced a lot of coincidences and strange things that are evidence to me of both, others may not see it that way and chalk it up to natural occurrence, imagination, etc. Sometimes the following experience with an utterly evil force, then a godly force taking control of me and casting it away, as if I was not speaking but God's power was speaking through me:

People also experience, sense or see a presence around them during their paralyzed state. Fear grips them and some of them have said that a demonic force was out to possess their soul or was trying to crush or smother them. -Sleep paralysis

Once coming out of that to see a demon sitting in the corner of my room laughing at me...I believe it was real, but admit the possibility these may only be realistic nightmares, even if I don't think so.

IOW, the Father knew that he was creating a food chain with disease and calamity built into the system.

I think both Father and Son knew that, yes.

Which is interesting in the context of demons tasked with foiling humans. I sometimes wonder if some Christians truly understand the implications of this behind-the-scenes war for souls.

My impression is that some Christians don't really believe angels and demons are active in the world, or if they are, their influence is minimal (SEE THIS THREAD). Either that or they don't want to be labeled as nuts by discussing it.

JohnnyP, apologies if it sounds like I'm making sharp cracks. I might be. I'm going through an ordeal with a family member who is Christian whose teleology has affected part of the family, and it affected the tone of my previous post. Again, apologies.

I didn't sense that tone but thanks, no problem.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but Calvinists don't really have influence today. These present ideas are coming from science.




Not the point Shuny, the point is that it is scientists (science) that are saying that free will is an illusion and, like Haynes said, that it is all deterministic.

Again and again and again, NOT ALL scientists in the appropriate field DO NIOT support that no 'Free Will' exists.

Again, Calvinists were by far the first that supported Divine Determinism and no Free Will, regardless of whether you feel they are influential or not. Arminianism vs Calvinism remains an issue between churches in Christianity. Your wrong that some scientist were the first to propose no free will. The issue remains that it divides Christianity. Actually in Arminianism God has fore knowledge of those that will select to be saved by Free Will, so what good is 'Free Will'?

[seer]

No, Calvinism long ago also rejects 'Free Will.'

Yes, but Calvinists don't really have influence today. These present ideas are coming from science.

You may be right about Haynes, but not Adina Roskies. Read further in the article.

The reference in Scientific American still stands. The jury is still out on the view of Free Will from the Scientific perspective.

Not the point Shuny, the point is that it is scientists (science) that are saying that free will is an illusion and, like Haynes said, that it is all deterministic.

[firstfloor]

A Turing test for Free Will: Seth Lloyd knows what he's talking about. You can get a pdf download at this website:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225

[shunyadragon]

Good.... So this idea that free will is an illusion is certainly coming from science.

No, Calvinism long ago also rejects 'Free Will.'

And you are completely wrong about John Dylan Haynes, from Nova:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insiden...t-have-it.html

You may be right about Haynes, but not Adina Roskies. Read further in the article.

Few scientists are convinced that this is the death knell for free will, though. Marcel Brass, of the University of Ghent, Belgium, points out that the 60% figure is not that much better than chance, but adds, "It shows our decisions are influenced by stuff that happens in our brain before we decide. But it is not showing our decisions are completely pre-determined." Jeff Miller, of the University of Otago in New Zealand, agrees: "Finding that brain activity predicts a decision does not undermine free will." He explained the brain activity used to make the prediction could just be a leaning towards one choice or another, and that the final decision could still have been made consciously.

Today we are learning more about how the brain prepares our body to perform actions. At the very least we know as Marcel Brass said, some "stuff" happens in our heads before we are aware of it happening. Some take this as evidence against free will as the cause of our actions, and some do not feel O.K to go that far yet. As technology improves we can predict with more accuracy what that "stuff" might be telling us, but as Haynes noted there is a difference between finding brain patterns that are predictive of our actions and ones that determine our actions. It will be a long time before we have a definite answer as to how exactly real-life decisions, which have greater importance than deciding to press a button, work.

The reference in Scientific American still stands. The jury is still out on the view of Free Will from the Scientific perspective.





BS Shuny, according to the above Nova quote. And you are just playing word games again. If free will is an illusion, then determinism is all that is left - if you have another option then please present it.[/QUOTE]

[seer]

I did not say Sam Harris was alone. Read again here . . .

Good.... So this idea that free will is an illusion is certainly coming from science.

And you are completely wrong about John Dylan Haynes, from Nova:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insiden...t-have-it.html

"Decisions are caused by unconscious brain processes, then consciousness kicks in later." In Haynes' view, our conscious decisions are predetermined by brain activity even if we cannot yet completely decode that activity. "It is subjective experience that you think that you have free will. It's something that is implausible, its incompatible with the scientific deterministic universe anyway."

Nonsense, they DO NOT hold your view of determinism. Determinism in science does not result in Newtonian Mechanistic view of the human mind.

BS Shuny, according to the above Nova quote. And you are just playing word games again. If free will is an illusion, then determinism is all that is left - if you have another option then please present it.

[whag]

JohnnyP, apologies if it sounds like I'm making sharp cracks. I might be. I'm going through an ordeal with a family member who is Christian whose teleology has affected part of the family, and it affected the tone of my previous post. Again, apologies.

[whag]

There are concepts especially in Judaism that for some things on Earth like the Mishkan/Tabernacle/Temple, there is a Heavenly counterpart. And also, that Heaven isn't somewhere in the clouds, but right here with us. Something like dimensions existing together in the same "space" only we are generally unable to perceive it from our Earth dimension.

Ascending into Heaven and descending into Hell, as Jesus is described as doing, is hardly the way to convey those realms occupy the same space.

The following image is an example of the Heavenly Garden existing in the same location on Earth as east of Eden, only in another dimension that we can't perceive. If you can imagine the "Heavenly Dimension" being like an "overlay" to the "Earth Dimension" not up in the clouds but existing along with it. In other words, explorers aren't going to find the Garden of Eden, Tree of Life, or anything like that here on Earth, it's in a Heavenly dimension. Note that I'm not saying this is where the Garden actually is, this is only an example to illustrate the general idea (click to make larger):

Or it could be that your Christian teleology has adapted to what we know about the sky and beyond.

Where creatures of Genesis 2 have similar qualities to cherubim of Ezekiel (though perhaps not exactly the same), and Satan is a cherub and a beast of the field intended to be a helper to Adam:



Since the Serpent was focused on the Tree of Knowledge, it is only my speculation that his job was to help Adam and Eve stay away from it, but did the opposite. In general I view cherubim as tasked to help humans with various spiritual matters and in worshiping God. Conversely, Satan and his angels (demons) are focused on foiling humans spiritually.

How have angels helped you and demons tried to foil you? Maybe our experiences are similar.

I don't believe Jesus was omniscient until after the incarnation so in that sense he didn't program all things to happen, but until then was given some foreknowledge by the Father so I think he knew in a general way life would suffer sometimes, much the way us parents know that children we bring into the world may suffer sometimes.

IOW, the Father knew that he was creating a food chain with disease and calamity built into the system.

Knowing this, many of us still choose to bring children into the world with hopes that the experience of living and the good times will ultimately make all the suffering worth it.

Which is interesting in the context of demons tasked with foiling humans. I sometimes wonder if some Christians truly understand the implications of this behind-the-scenes war for souls.

[shunyadragon]

seer

An interesting article from Scientific American gives different views of 'Free Will' in science and philosophy It does include reference to the view that some consider the evidence points to no or very little free will, but it also makes this statement. Underline mine

Contrast this strong notion of freedom with a more pragmatic conception called compatibilism, the dominant view in biological, psychological, legal and medical circles. You are free if you can follow your own desires and preferences. A long-term smoker who wants to quit but who lights up again and again is not free. His desire is thwarted by his addiction. Under this definition, few of us are completely free.

The bottom line is the issue is not resolved in science.

[shunyadragon]

But your own quote links Patrick Haggard who agrees with Harris, "We feel we choose, but we don't," says Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London. And it was the whole point of the John-Dylan Haynes study.

This was also linked to your article:

Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion. Philosophers are urging them to think again.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108...l/477023a.html

So don't tell me Shuny, that Harris is alone in this - he isn't!

I did not say Sam Harris was alone. Read again here . . .







Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Some thinkers like neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain are involved before decision making. In contrast, Haggard believes that "We feel we choose, but we don't".[8] Researcher John-Dylan Haynes adds "How can I call a will 'mine' if I don't even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?".[8] Philosophers Walter Glannon and Alfred Mele think some scientists are getting the science right, but misrepresenting modern philosophers. This is mainly because "free will" can mean many things: It is unclear what someone means when they say "free will does not exist". Mele and Glannon say that the available research is more evidence against any dualistic notions of free will - but that is an "easy target for neuroscientists to knock down".[8] Mele says that most discussions of free will are now had in materialistic terms. In these cases, "free will" means something more like "not coerced" or that "the person could have done otherwise at the last moment". The existence of these types of free will is debatable. Mele agrees, however, that science will continue to reveal critical details about what goes on in the brain during decision making.[8]


The reference refers to BOTH Neuroscientist and philosophers. Researchers and Neuroscientists Aina Roskies (also a philosopher) and John-Dylan Haynes both oppose Sam Harris. Please do not selectively cite references to support your agenda.

Nonsense, there certainly are scientists who hold to a deterministic view of human behavior.

Nonsense, they DO NOT hold your view of determinism. Determinism in science does not result in Newtonian Mechanistic view of the human mind.

[seer]

Nothing silly here at all. Dawkins is expressing an opinion outside his field of academics. Lets stick to what is the evidence and academic views within the field that applies to 'Free Will' Sam Harris is in his field, but I have clearly demonstrated that the view that 'Humans do not have free will?' is not the conclusive view of science. There are a number of respected Neuroscientists that do not agree with Sam Harris. Actually Sam Harris is considered controversial in many ways, and many neuroscientists distance themselves from his conclusions. Just google 'Sam Harris controversy.'

But your own quote links Patrick Haggard who agrees with Harris, "We feel we choose, but we don't," says Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London. And it was the whole point of the John-Dylan Haynes study.

This was also linked to your article:

Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion. Philosophers are urging them to think again.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108...l/477023a.html

So don't tell me Shuny, that Harris is alone in this - he isn't!

Your stoic black and white view without choices does not reflect the reality of the scientific view of human, and higher mammal, behavior and will. The scientific fact that yes humans and higher mammals 'make choices' and "flexibility of choices' is in fact a reality that is on the table. The potential conclusions is not absolutely between 'Libertarian Free Will' and an illusionary 'Absolute Determinism with no Free Will.'

Nonsense, there certainly are scientists who hold to a deterministic view of human behavior.

[shunyadragon]

That is just silly Shuny. Some scientists like Dawkins and Harris do certainly consider our thought process to be determined. If free will is an illusion, as many argue, then determinism is all that is left.

Nothing silly here at all. Dawkins is expressing an opinion outside his field of academics. Lets stick to what is the evidence and academic views within the field that applies to 'Free Will' Sam Harris is in his field, but I have clearly demonstrated that the view that 'Humans do not have free will?' is not the conclusive view of science. There are a number of respected Neuroscientists that do not agree with Sam Harris. Actually Sam Harris is considered controversial in many ways, and many neuroscientists distance themselves from his conclusions. Just google 'Sam Harris controversy.'

Careful with using 'many argue' in a discussion without references. You have cited ONE,, the controversial Sam Harris, and he obviously does not conclusively reflect the whole view of neuroscience. It is true 'some argue' that humans do not have 'Free Will,' but I have cited several respected neuroscientists who do not reach this conclusion. I can cite more.

Of course we have a will, but if it is not free in any significant sense, then it is determined. Determined by biology. There is no "flexibility in choices" as you suggest, nor can there be. The idea of "choosing otherwise" in any given situation is off the table.

Your stoic black and white view without choices does not reflect the reality of the scientific view of human, and higher mammal, behavior and will. The scientific fact that yes humans and higher mammals 'make choices' and "flexibility of choices' is in fact a reality that is on the table. The potential conclusions is not absolutely between 'Libertarian Free Will' and an illusionary 'Absolute Determinism with no Free Will.'

You are misusing the concept of 'Biological Determinism,' which does not translate to a simplistic mechanistic view of 'will and behavior' in nature.

[seer]

Correct, I disagree with your descriptions, as not reflecting science. Science does not describe human or for that matter all forms of life as mechanistic machines.

That is just silly Shuny. Some scientists like Dawkins and Harris do certainly consider our thought process to be determined. If free will is an illusion, as many argue, then determinism is all that is left.

This why I describe it as, "We have a 'Will,' but it is not necessarily Free."

Of course we have a will, but if it is not free in any significant sense, then it is determined. Determined by biology. There is no "flexibility in choices" as you suggest, nor can there be. The idea of "choosing otherwise" in any given situation is off the table.