[Cold Iron]

Ok so nobody is going to take issue with this clearly inflammatory statement:

Cold Iron, on Dec 31 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

However, both atheists and fundamentalists generally see free will more as the former. They wish to view their decisions as entirely or at least partially within their rational control. As I have said, this view is unsupported by science.

[Gem Windcaster]

@Camel: I am aware that every choice is not black or white, but you don't seem to understand what I was saying. Let me explain. From my viewpoint, free will and real choice start once you become free from the slavery of sin, and give your life over to Christ. On a second level, I do believe that people can actually make choices in life - people can't choose everything that happens to them, but they choose how they handle the situation. That people are weak and, in their humanity, can't always act as they really want, is another story. A choice is still a choice. But back to the free will thing. We can't control the life we were born into, nor can we control what other people do to us, or what life does to us. But God gave us the means to actually choose - that's what the Christian Gospel is all about - that we are not doomed to be just one thing, but that we can go beyond that, and choose our original purpose, if we want to. That's why people all over the world, in the poorest, most horrible life situations, are choosing God. Because it works. That's not being naive, that's realizing what the world is, and taking a chance for a meaningful life.

As a side note: choosing something that don't necessarily fit into the world you were born in, is the very essence of free will, and millions of people are doing it on a daily basis. That some people are not, is also a choice.

"The problem is choice."

[Shinrei]

Part of the human condition contains the necessity to rise above what is easy or 'feels good', in order to do what's right. This is the same whether you are religious or not. If you were abused as a kid and are a little "fuked in the head" as it were, even if you have the strong desire to do so yourself - that is where the struggle to overcome this base drive needs to take place.

In a way, I think the same idea goes for children raised in religious families. At some point that child needs to take it upon themselves to truly understand what they've been raised in all of their life and not just follow blindly without actually giving it an original thought. If they do not, then it is as camel says, it's not really a choice. Education and life experience often will lead to this inner questioning, but it's up to the individual whether to take the opportunity or not.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Cold Iron, on Dec 31 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

Ok so nobody is going to take issue with this clearly inflammatory statement:

Cold Iron, on Dec 31 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

However, both atheists and fundamentalists generally see free will more as the former. They wish to view their decisions as entirely or at least partially within their rational control. As I have said, this view is unsupported by science.

I take issue. I just didn't read it, lol. The nature vs. nurture thing is a different discussion entirely, but I am an identical twin, so I feel I have a bit more ammo on the "programmed from birth" thing than most.

To which I say: bollocks. I am the living embodiment of the freedom of the individual, over their genes, upbringing, and social inheritance.
And if you insist: I'LL BLEEDING KILL YOU CI!!!!

But as to the sign on the bus: stumping for your cause is fine in the public arena, so long as it doesn't start bordering on libel / slander against another group. Thus far, this seems to be the standard, and it seems fair. (not that I agree that ANYBODY should be able to use that space, as publicly funded religious advertisements which is MAJOR US CONSTITUTIONAL NONO).

Heck, I think it's fair to a fault. In San Francisco the buses are bloody plastered with Scientology pamphlets/stickers, and they get converts all the time. Are they nice and unobtrusive? Yes. Are they real people who deserve the respect and treatment that the rest of us do? No. But those are my prejudices talking.

[Terez]

Stormy said:

But as to the sign on the bus: stumping for your cause is fine in the public arena, so long as it doesn't start bordering on libel / slander against another group. Thus far, this seems to be the standard, and it seems fair. (not that I agree that ANYBODY should be able to use that space, as publicly funded religious advertisements which is MAJOR US CONSTITUTIONAL NONO).

Did I miss something? Were these advertisements paid for by tax money? It's in the UK, so it's not subject to our constitution, but is there any case in the US where ads such as this for religion are paid for by tax dollars? I can't think of any.

[Cold Iron]

Adjutant Stormy, on Jan 1 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

I take issue. I just didn't read it, lol. The nature vs. nurture thing is a different discussion entirely, but I am an identical twin, so I feel I have a bit more ammo on the "programmed from birth" thing than most.

To which I say: bollocks. I am the living embodiment of the freedom of the individual, over their genes, upbringing, and social inheritance.
And if you insist: I'LL BLEEDING KILL YOU CI!!!!

Thanks for reading the post, stormy. But could you go to a bit more effort that claiming bollocks? I made a pretty substantial post, with lots of big words, and if you're going to refute, I'm going to at least need you to explain how your choice was made.

[Shinrei]

CI, what happens if the decision made goes directly against what feels right emotionally? Sometimes the rational behind the decision outweighs what "feels good" or "feels right" and the individual makes the choice against what their gut is telling them. Isn't the ability to properly weigh all factors

I don't think I misunderstood what you wrote, but I'll admit I haven't yet considered the implications.

[Camel]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 31 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

@Camel: I am aware that every choice is not black or white, but you don't seem to understand what I was saying. Let me explain. From my viewpoint, free will and real choice start once you become free from the slavery of sin, and give your life over to Christ. On a second level, I do believe that people can actually make choices in life - people can't choose everything that happens to them, but they choose how they handle the situation. That people are weak and, in their humanity, can't always act as they really want, is another story. A choice is still a choice. But back to the free will thing. We can't control the life we were born into, nor can we control what other people do to us, or what life does to us. But God gave us the means to actually choose - that's what the Christian Gospel is all about - that we are not doomed to be just one thing, but that we can go beyond that, and choose our original purpose, if we want to. That's why people all over the world, in the poorest, most horrible life situations, are choosing God. Because it works. That's not being naive, that's realizing what the world is, and taking a chance for a meaningful life.

As a side note: choosing something that don't necessarily fit into the world you were born in, is the very essence of free will, and millions of people are doing it on a daily basis. That some people are not, is also a choice.

"The problem is choice."

I stand by my original point. Had you been born in the Middle East instead of.. where are you from, Sweden?... then you'd more-than-likely be Muslim. Had you been born in India instead of Sweden, you'd be Hindu. Where's the choice here?

But, you know what? You're right. I don't understand. How do I become free from the slavery of sin and give my life over to Christ if I don't have free will until after I'm free from sin and give my life over to Christ?

I have a rather comprehensive theory about religion that I wrote on another message board. I may post it here at some future time, provided I can find my original post.

[Gem Windcaster]

Camel, on Jan 2 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

But, you know what? You're right. I don't understand. How do I become free from the slavery of sin and give my life over to Christ if I don't have free will until after I'm free from sin and give my life over to Christ?

It's a mystery to me too, but it happens. It's why we Christians call it a miracle when someone is 'saved'.

[HoosierDaddy]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 2 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

Camel, on Jan 2 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

But, you know what? You're right. I don't understand. How do I become free from the slavery of sin and give my life over to Christ if I don't have free will until after I'm free from sin and give my life over to Christ?

It's a mystery to me too, but it happens. It's why we Christians call it a miracle when someone is 'saved'.

We non-christians would call that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Gem Windcaster]

HoosierDaddy, on Jan 2 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

We non-christians would call that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is? I don't understand?

[Camel]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 2 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on Jan 2 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

We non-christians would call that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is? I don't understand?

I wouldn't say it's a self-fulfilling prophecy so much as a contradiction. If I don't have free will until I make a choice, then I'll never have free will, because without free will, I can't make that choice.

My point isn't so much that free will is an illusion or that you can't make choices, but that your options are limited based on real-life factors such as geography and culture. A man born in America can certainly choose to be Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or Jewish, but a man in Iran might never have the opportunity to learn of those choices.

I think the crux of the problem is one of education. To me, a choice isn't a choice unless you know what you're choosing and why, and most people "choose" their religion without knowing what and why they're choosing. A woman in Iran would never be allowed to study religion the way most of us can in the West. Her choice to be Muslim is influenced by what she can understand, and you can't understand what you can't read about or talk about or hear about. Is she really choosing to be Muslim, or is she being forced to be Muslim by society, by her country?

You say that you chose to be Christian. Congratulations. But many people out there don't have that choice. They've never read the Bible, because they've never been ALLOWED to read the Bible. They've never even heard of the Bible. How can you choose between something you know and something you don't? It's not a choice for them. What happens to them? Are they going to Hell?

[Gem Windcaster]

Well, I guess it sounds crazy and totally retarded - but the truth is people have a choice and they don't (seeing it from your point of view) both. Both are correct imo. But there are lots and lots of people that 'never had a choice' that in the end could choose anyway. I don't know why that is, I just see it happening, over and over. People that hated Christians suddenly change. Someone in a society suddenly gets hold of a bible and starts their own church, not even knowing there are other Christians, basically. Sounds completely amazing doesn't it? It sounds like fairy tales. People won't believe them until...they do. I can't explain it, and I doubt I ever will, in a satisfactory manner.

[Camel]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 2 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Well, I guess it sounds crazy and totally retarded - but the truth is people have a choice and they don't (seeing it from your point of view) both. Both are correct imo. But there are lots and lots of people that 'never had a choice' that in the end could choose anyway. I don't know why that is, I just see it happening, over and over. People that hated Christians suddenly change. Someone in a society suddenly gets hold of a bible and starts their own church, not even knowing there are other Christians, basically. Sounds completely amazing doesn't it? It sounds like fairy tales. People won't believe them until...they do. I can't explain it, and I doubt I ever will, in a satisfactory manner.

You're right. That COULD happen. And it does happen a lot. But at the same time, it DOESN'T happen a lot. The people that it DOESN'T happen to don't have that choice.. or rather, they don't have that choice presented to them or they're restricted by society from making choices that go against society's will or any number of variations on that statement.

So then, what happens to those who don't have that opportunity? What happens to Aladdin in Iran who has never seen a Bible, who has been taught his whole life that Christians are infidels and are going to hell, that Islam is correct and Christianity is wrong, who was never given and will never get the opportunity to study Christianity to determine that choice for himself? What happens to him? Condemned to Hell because he didn't know any better?

I don't know. And I have a hard time believing a benevolent God would condemn someone in that circumstance.

[Cold Iron]

The 20th, on Jan 2 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

CI, what happens if the decision made goes directly against what feels right emotionally? Sometimes the rational behind the decision outweighs what "feels good" or "feels right" and the individual makes the choice against what their gut is telling them. Isn't the ability to properly weigh all factors

I don't think I misunderstood what you wrote, but I'll admit I haven't yet considered the implications.

I'm not convinced this can actually happen. People can make choices that go against something they rationally know will feel good at some time in the future, but the decision will always be made as a response to what feels good now. The brain's reward system is what causes you to go out in the snow and hunt for food even when you're not hungry. When you think about making this decision, your brain has strong neural pathways associated to food and so the choice to go out in the cold will feel better than the choice to stay inside where it's warm, even though you rationally know that it will feel better inside.

I'm not saying that the emotional response is the only thing involved when we make decisions, obviously when you decide between two different products you rationally calculate their comparative value, but once you have done this, it is your emotional response to the better value product that ultimately drives your decision. The emotional response is the only mechanism that is consistently there for all decisions, and while it may be possible to think we are going against it, I'm not convinced that in reality we can.


@Camel, can you look up some facts about Iran please, because you sound like someone who watches too much fox news.

[Shinrei]

CI, how would you qualify the decision I just made in terms of my future (from april) employment? I turned down a job offer from a place that I thought was fantastic. I liked the facilities, the people who interviewed me and I felt like I would have a great time working there. They even offered me a little bit more money than the place I chose.

However, I agonized over the decision and in the end chose what was initially my second choice. Why? Because any way I looked at it, the 2nd choice would be better for my career down the road. I know my decision is going to make my life just a little bit tougher, at least in the short term. In the end, a rational decision found me calling my original #1 and saying, "I regret that I cannot accept your kind offer at this time...."

[Cold Iron]

I would say you've rationally evaluated both the short and long term gains of each option, and then used your amygdala, your emotions, your gut to decide which of the respective gains is more important to you. There's really no telling if the job you took actually will cause you to be better off in the long term, the element of uncertainty prevents you from making a genuinely rational decision.

To say it simply, you used reason to evaluate the choices and emotion to decide. Would you agree?

[Shinrei]

If I've weighed the factors involved and make a decision based on that, where does that cross the line into emotion? I'm not sure I grasp the idea that the choice becomes emotional at some point. Where is the line drawn?

[Cold Iron]

The 20th, on Jan 5 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

If I've weighed the factors involved and make a decision based on that, where does that cross the line into emotion? I'm not sure I grasp the idea that the choice becomes emotional at some point. Where is the line drawn?

I think it's the point where you begin to evaluate the inherant uncertainty. The point where you actually move from the rational evaluation process to the decision process. When you search your unconscious memory for something that will cause you to lean one direction or the other... I'm sure there's better ways to phrase this, but I'm not sure if I can do much better without more reading.

[Camel]

Don't actually watch Fox News. I try to be diverse in what I read in terms of news outlets and such. I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable of the Middle East, just trying to make a point. Sorry if I offended.