Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum KNOCK Revs and Religion. Give it your best shot!!!

This is OUR opportunity to tell about our experiences with Revs and Religion--the good, the bad and whatever....
1. ask some serious questions;
2. bring to correction
3. offer some so bright ideas as to what can be done to make things better
4. invite clergy you know to get involved
5. any suggestions?

DAM comments:

1. You've never once discuss science at a science website.

What do you want to know?

2. You've never once posted a link to anything related to science.

Link? Check out http://www.brainmeta.com Way back, I was in on helping Dr.Shawn Mikula--an MD and PhD neurologist--launch the site. He quoted one of my sermons.

3. You've quoted books with no author that you have never actually read.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

4. You claim to be a reverend and do not have a Doctorate of Divinity

A DD is an honary degree. My degrees are from http://www.mta.ca (BA in psychology/philosophy) from the Atlantic School of Theology (M.Div), http://astheology.ns.ca/ and from Boston University (STM), http://www.bu.edu/sth/ where I did two years of postgraduate studies. (1954-1955)
Not an academic type, I served forty years in the pastorate--Labrador, New Brunswick, Montreal, Quebec., and Toronto, Ontario. Currently I am re-directed--don't like the word 'retired'--in Markham, just north of Toronto, and loving it. Getting ready for, the untimately earthly graduation, death. How about you? What is your excuse for living?

Interestingly, Martin Luther King graduated from BU, as a minister, the year, 1954, I arrived to do post grad studies.

5. You only survive on the charity of others
Don't we all?

6. You expect others to pay taxes to subsidize you

BUNK, like much of what you write about me.

Revlgking. Just to start the ball rolling I would like to point out that many Christian preachers, eg.televangelists, lead very expensive lifestyles. One can't help but be a little cynical, especially when one remebers that the prophet of their religion was executed for opposing the major world power at the time yet within three centuries was adopted by that power to centralize control of its citizens.

Hi Terry,

America seems to have the ability to breed a particular type of half Christian/half Capitalist. It goes against Christianity's fundamental teaching:

'Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor...'

Or,

'No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.'

These people have been amply warned, and their wilful ignorance brings Christianity into disrepute. I, for one, find their TV programs very uncomfortable to watch and unlike your cynicism I actually feel quite angry.

But there you see the dilemma:

I am warned not to judge others and yet I can't help judging these people. I am therefore a hypocrite in every sense of the word. Though I want to do the right thing, one way or another I don't manage it. I should be concerned with the planks in my own eye ? and I certainly have enough.

Saint Paul said, ?For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate?For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.?

So as hard as I want to be on Televangelists, I have to admit that they are subject to the same problems as I am, and many of them may actually think they are doing right.

I?m embarrassed that my church has a collection on a Sunday morning, even though they preface it by saying that if you are not a church member then you shouldn?t give.

I also don?t think we should retain any charitable status ? except where we are clearly servicing real charitable needs. Society?s taxes should not subsidize the church.

Having gone on a bit too long ranting against the church, I will redress the balance somewhat. It?s a general principle that the church?s failures are more apparent than its good works. I know very many Christians who sacrifice all they have to serve others. A small example of this kind of attitude to life ? a friend who turned down a promotion to Director because it would take too much time and energy away from volunteer work in his community. This was a clear rejection of success in the eyes of the world and a hefty salary increase, simply because he took Jesus? words at face value and his priority was other than material goods/gods.

Blacknad.

THANKS FOR THE BALANCED COMMENTS ABOVE, Blacknad.
It is 8:45 AM, here in Toronto, -15 C degrees below freezing. That is almost 0 degrees F. It is not as bright, yet, as was yesterday. North Ontario is much, much colder. No global warming, yet. However, we did have a mild December and a very nice January, just enough cold and snow for the skiiers.
BTW, is anyone affected by what they call SAD--depression caused by winter's lack of light?

Posters, I would be interested in hearing how it is in your area.

Shortly I will be off to attend the service at
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca It is a new and, as yet small, congregation in Markham, which is a growing and affluent area just north of metro Toronto.

PATHWAYS is part of the United Church of Canada--very open-minded and very concered with helping make the community a better place for all classes, races and creeds. The UCC emphasizes DEEDS not Creeds. Agnostic and atheists welcome.

The UCC, with other churches, was one of the first churches to push for our national Health Care System. In 1965, I took part in several peaceful demonstrations urging the government to get on with it.

I think, to summarize, ...

revlgking = hyp?crite
revlgking = sp?nger
revlgking = tr?ll

I can think of n? l?wer f?rm ?f life than that ?f a self-ann?inted preacher claiming m?ral superi?rity.

There, DAM! Feel better now that you've vented? Much better here--Don't you think?--than cluttering up information threads with too much bumf.

BTW, I wish I knew you as well as you think you know me. Maybe if we knew you better we could have a useful dialogue.

Anytime you want a useful dialogue do us the courtesy of discussing science like everyone else here does.

Having done a bit of research I actually know quite a bit about you. But my initial impression was formed by you, and you alone, posting vague valueless fluff. I'll give no quarter to the self-anointed, the hypocritical, or the troll.

If you were to cease being so enamored of yourself you might discover that this science forum existed before you got here and will exist long after you are gone.

Well, not too bad here in the centre of England. Just had the warmest January for 90 years. Very mild weather at the moment.

Starting to experience some of the benefits of Global Warming

Blacknad.

Blacknad, in 1972, the King family, including my wife, our teenage daughter and son, and Jean's mother did a six-week barter exchange with a minister in Ashford, Kent. It was a wonderful experience. We also got to visit mainland Europe and Scotland. Quite an adventure back to the land of our ancestors.

Revlgking wrote:

"Posters, I would be interested in hearing how it is in your area."

Of course our weather has been very mild. It's actually mid-summer.

Well now we are using the NOT-QUITE forum as it was intended.

To discuss local weather and vacations.

Gag me with a spoon.

Perhaps I should now use it to post pictures of my boat. Certainly as on-topic as the rest of this.

Offer your vitriolic brickbats here, DAM, if you wish. This is the place for them. Keep the other topics free from bile, please. It is not good for your health.


BRICKBATS AND BOUQUETS TO RELIGIONS, REVS, PHILOSOPHIES AND ARTS.
If I could change the title of this thread, this is the one I would use.
BTW, read the first post in this topic, please. It explains that is not just a place for knocking religion, it is also a place for health-giving pats on the back.

So go ahead! Practice your obvious talent--If you have other ones, I will be glad to hear what they are.

You mentioned Sailing. Being a Newfoundlander, I would love to see your boat. I was born on a island
http://www.bellisland.net in the island province, and was raised in a family of boat--and house--builders. We built our own house, and many boats. Being the youngest five brothers--there were also three sisters---did not exclude me from helping. It was fun.

revlgking wrote:
" It is not good for your health."

How I adore condescension.

revlgking wrote:
"Being a Newfoundlander, I would love to see your boat."

If you think this fluff and nonsense is what Kate meant in her post you have a very different understanding of the purpose fulfilled by a science website.

Are you pathologically incapable of posting anything that requires an IQ over room temperature?

Are you pathologically incapable of posting anything that requires respect, and thought, and is filled mostly with insults? Just curious!!!

A review of my posts to everyone other than you will answer that question just as a review of your posting history demonstrates that my question was just rhetorical.

Try hypnotizing yourself into believing that it is possible to be more than a troll posting the mental equivalent of creme of wheat.

As a matter of fact, I did review your posts; the ones to Tim and others. Have you ever wondered: Tim, why did you drop out? You originated this topic. What happened? Did we hurt your feelings. Or did you expect we would all automatically agree with you? Is it our fault? Or Yours? We would be interested in YOUR opinion.

BTW, that was before I registered. Check out EVIDENCE FOR GOD, January 17. Here is the evidence: #17711 - 01/17/07 04:02 PM

Many of your posts, even before I arrived, were filled with demeaning ridicule designed to hurt people. You even posed as a Rev. D.A. Morgan. Remember?
=================================================
BTW: You comment: Translation, please, I have no idea what you are trying to say. More invidious inventions?

By the way, This could turn out to be an interesting experiment in
PNEUMATOLOGY--which I like to call the science of understanding who we REALLY are, spiritually.

To put it in question form: Who ARE we human beings, REALLY?

revlgking wrote:
"PNEUMATOLOGY--which I like to call the science of understanding who we REALLY are, spiritually."

Or what those with degrees in science call flatulent hocus-pocus.

At last, there is a pneumatological improvement: You are attacking my IDEAS, not me.

You truly don't get it. I've never once attacked you. I have attacked the fact that you behave in a manner antithetical to science.

I don't want you to leave. I want you to behave like an adult. So far you've done neither.

You walked into a science forum and spouted vague nonsense and self-serving parasitic trolls. It is as rude as if I walked into a church, went up to the microphone, and started lecturing on overloaded PL/SQL packages. You are off-topic, intentionally off-topic, and that is rude and reprehensible conduct. A conduct I presume you could change at will had you the desire and the mental horsepower. Seemingly one or both are lacking.

MODERATORS, NB: READ MY FIRST POST IN THIS TOPIC: It is not just about knocking Revs and Religions; it is also about the other side of the coin--the looking for the good and positive values.
==================================
I understand that your first name is Dan. Unless you prefer otherwise, I will use it, okay? You can call me LGK or Lindsay, even Linds, for short.

Dan: Your last post is such a rant and filled with so many invidious, unfair argumentum ad hominems (AAH's) that I hardly know where to begin.

WHAT DID KATE SAY?
In view of this, I will simply ask: What was Kate's response to your ranting and railing--even before I got involved--and your demand that the thread be killed? (censored)

BTW 1, had she agreed with you, in your attempt to impose censorship here, you would have effectively gotten rid of me. Meanwhile, your personal attacks are preventing a lot of thin-skinned souls--unlike me--from getting involved.

For your information. over the years I took a lot of vitriolic crap from philistine-like, unscientific people, opposed to my critical, analytical and inclusive approach the study of the Bible and to ministry. None of their crap stuck.

At 77 I am still, in there, working on integrating, philosophy (including religious faith), the sciences and the arts.

It the light of your attempt to censor all threads having to do with the discussion of religion, it is obvious that your following statement: [quote"I don't want you to leave." is pure hypocrisy.

BTW 2, Religion and the Bible can be discussed, objectively--as Kate realises--without the need for evangelizing. Needless to say, I oppose dogma and evangelizing.

BTW 3, how come your name has 'moderator' written beneath it?

Dan, you do have a rather extreme hatred of religion. Did you have an unfortunate experience earlier in your life? I do have a problem with religion to the extent that they confused the f... out of me when I was a teenager. Always working on any fears they managed to manufacture, and I object to that approach. However that seems to have been a hundred years ago and I've got over it, but I presume they still pressure teenagers during that vulnerable and confused period.

Terry: Your question is a very important one. Thanks for asking it. I was fortunate in that I had a good experience. I was taught how to think--critically and analytically; not what to think.

Do you mind giving us a few details of your experience?

Just a reminder: Here is the place to park your personal attacks on revs and religions. I have a feeling that we are like anvils--that is anvils which have worn out many a hammer

Lindsay asked:

"Do you mind giving us a few details of your experience?"

It was a long time ago Rev. I vaguely remember feeling somehow guilty because I couldn't bring myself to believe Jesus had died for my sins, whatever that meant. The people trying to persuade me seemed so sure it was true. Why could I not stop myself from believing we had evolved from some sort of ape? Why could I not understand how God had controlled and guided this evolution right up until that time? Why could I not accept that this evolution had suddenly come to a stop and God was going to appear in the next few days and destroy all nonbelievers? Why could I not ignore my doubts and simply join their group? Why hasn't anyone else had these problems? Why am I asking so many questions? Why can't I stop? Am I going mad? On reflection please don't answer that.

You are madly curious!!! And that's okay by me.

From Terry Terry, I am sure you realize that this and the other questions which follow are what is commonly called "rhetorical questions". I assume that you already have an idea of what the answeris; you just haven't found the words to articulate it, yet.

BTW, as I understand the theory of evolution, it says that we evolved along with apes, not FROM them. If we evolved from them, there would be no apes today, right?

Interestingly, Charles Darwin's basic degree from Cambridge was not in botany; it was in theology.

Rev wrote:

"If we evolved from them, there would be no apes today, right?"

Wrong. The African and Asian apes (gibbon and orangutan) separated as much as ten million years ago, perhaps more, and we would have no trouble calling this creature an ape. Gorillas separated from the ancestor that gave rise to us and chimpanzees possibly seven million years ago. We would certainly regard this common ancestor as an ape. I'm sure that if you could see the animal we and chimpanzees separated from you would have to call it an ape. In other words we are apes. To alter your statement a little, "We evoved along with (chimpanzees) from an ape species of some kind."

You also wrote:

"I assume that you already have an idea of what the answeris; you just haven't found the words to articulate it, yet."


I now realise what the problem was. Humans go through this stage in adolescence where they need to belong to a group. The need developed because it has been evolutionarily an advantage. Unfortunately religions are organised to take in teenagers at this stage of their lives whereas atheists have not yet been organised enough to do so. Perhaps there are such organisations today?

"BTW, as I understand the theory of evolution, it says that we evolved along with apes, not FROM them."
That much is correct, although I think there is ongoing discussion - due in part, I suspect, to the rather arbitrary point where you actually draw the line. I've heard some people say that we ARE apes. Check out wikipedia at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

They write: "The great ape family was previously referred to as Pongidae, and humans (and fossil hominids) were omitted from it, but there is no biological case for doing this."


"If we evolved from them, there would be no apes today, right?"
That is not correct. That is an extremely common misconception about evolution.

Yes. Here's more of the same.

According to Wolfgang K?hler Primate Research Center,Leipzig Zoo,

?the members of the Pongidae (great apes) are:
Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
bonobo (Pan paniscus)
gorillas (Gorilla gorilla)
orang utans (Pongo pygmaeus)
humans (homo sapiens sapiens)?

Our superfamily divided from that of the old world monkeys 23 m yrs ago. Our split with the chimp and gorrilla branch of Hominoidea occurred only 6 m yrs ago.

We are apes.

TFF: WE ARE OFF TOPIC, OF COURSE, but I feel we are evolved enough to handle it, right?

I also hope I am evolved enough to handle being corrected. While I am interested is all science theories, including evolution, I readily admit there are many things about which I am ignorant and I gladly defer to the experts.

BLESSED ARE THE TEACHABLE
In addition, I HOPE I am also teachable--the basic meaning of the word "meek", as found in The Beattitude (positive and happy attitude), "Blessed are the meek (the humble, lovingly teachable) for they shall inherit the earth (meaning the physical universe, not just our planet earth)."

As you noted, I wrote: "If we evolved from them, there would be no apes today, right?"

TFF, you responded: "That is not correct. That is an extremely common misconception about evolution."

Please tell me: What is proper conception of evolution?

Your correction adds to my understanding of evolution, which I have no problem accepting. It fits in with my concept of what G?D is all about. Unlike the "perfect" God I was told about as a child, G?D, in my meek and humble opinion, is the supreme example of meekness and, therefore, G?D (the total cosmos) is capable of evolving, ad infinitum.

Does your correction mean that you believe--or perhaps you know?--that a perhaps a certain group of apes became meeker, more teachable than others? Is this what gave them the ability to dominate?

If so, we need to ask: In what way? And, to what extent? Currently, are there groups of human beings meeker than others? What is the nature and function of meekness.

Interestingly, humility, meekness, the ability to be teachable are the opposite of being arrogantly proud. Also interesting: Pride is always on the top of any listing of the deadly human sins.

I AM REMINDED OF THE NINTH VERSE OF GRAY'S ELEGY

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

FOR THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE CREATION MYTH AS A FACT
Consider the following quote from one of my friends, Rick, a brilliant scientist, in the brainmeta forum:

The case of apes and humans is just one example of a broader misunderstanding; namely that, "If Bs came from As, why are there still As?"

As many people before me have commented, this is analogous to arguing, "If I'm Irish American, how come there are still Irish around?"

There just isn't anything in evolution that says that these predecessors have to vanish. This is a completely contrived notion - a lie - perpetrated by creationists and based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. I cannot explain it to you in sound bites.

Darwin himself was aware of this when he wrote OOS:
"It need not be supposed that all varieties or incipient species
necessarily attain the rank of species. They may whilst in this
incipient state become extinct, or they may endure as varieties for very long periods, as has been shown to be the case by Mr. Wollaston with the varieties of certain fossil land-shells in Madeira. If a variety were to flourish so as to exceed in numbers the parent species, it would then rank as the species, and the species as the variety; or it might come to supplant and exterminate the parent species; or both might co-exist, and both rank as independent species."

Note the phrase "or both might co-exist."

When I was 15-16, I had an absolutely adorable English teacher who was a member of the British Humanist Association. She only mentioned it in passing once, but always wore the little badge on her lapel. I think she could easily have recruited a few hundred adolescents had she been inclined. Like other humanists, though, she evidently wasn't so inclined.

Redewenur. As a friend of mine used to say, "This anarchy could work. We just need to get organised".

My KNOCK against religion is that it has kept us from realizing our intellectual potential. For, what, 500 years, we were in "The Dark Ages". A great time for the Church. A horrible time for Ordinary People. If not for the Dark Ages, we would today be reaping the benefits of 500 additional years of Scientific Research. Who knows where we would be had we not lost those 500 years?

Wolfman, I have no problem with your comment. Have you read about the Protestant Reformation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
http://history.hanover.edu/early/prot.html
PRO--meaning for
testant--one who witnesses.
The 16th Century Protestants were Catholics who were for a new kind of faith--one which freed people to think for themselves. The Catholic monk, Copernicus, was helped by Protestaant Catholics to get his book, on the new astronomy, published.
Most modern liberal-thinking Roman Catholics appreciate that the Reformation took place.

And now, 5 centuries into the future, the nation epitomizing modern civilisation is plagued by an anti-science movement that once again has its roots in religion.

It is worse than that redewenur.

As though the other military campaigns in Alexandria Egypt were not sufficient ... as Christians gained dominance in the region, they felt uncomfortable with pagan temples full of pagan documents. In 391 AD, Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, urged a mob to destroy the temple at Serapis at the same time destroying whatever books were left in the greatest library on the planet. This was hailed as a great victory of the Christians over the pagans.

And it was if you are one who believes, as Christianity has over the centuries, that burning what you don't agree with is a good thing.

They've burned books, burned pagans, burned scientists, burned cities. 2000 years of burning intolerance. Ain't forgiveness a lovely thing.

In almost every major philosophical conflict I see in America it is the Christians versus the nation.

They support the war in Iraq against the heathens.
They want a war in Iran to kill a few more.
They want to control women's reproductive choices.
They want to control medical care and how it is delivered.
They want to control what I do in the bedroom.
They want to control when, where, and how I can die.

And why not ... they are smarter, wiser, righter and gooder than everybody else.

(and yes the grammar is intentional)

THE CHOICE IS: WE CAN WALLOW IN OUR PROBLEMS, OR WE CAN SEEK SOLUTIONS. THE CHOICE IS OURS.

Okay, it is obvious that we have problems, here, all calling for solutions, but the question is: What can we do, and what are we planning to DO about them?

BTW, I agree, all of the above generalizations need to be aired, acknowledged and brought out into the light of day. We need to know and discuss who we feel did what, to whom and why they did it.

The name, shame and blame game leads to more and more suffering, pain and death. This is not the game which I wish to play.

Let us take it from there. Okay?

Keep in mind: I take a rational and scientific approach to all matters, including matters of philosophy and FAITH.

I abhor all dogmatic doctrines, including religious and scientific ones. Keep in mind: Interestingly, I have found that some atheists and agnostics can, often, be just as dogmatic and just closed-minded as fanatic believers.

Sad!!!! isn't it?

BTW, Carl Sagan's famous quote, about the cosmos, comes to mind: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

If this is true, IMHO, G?D and the cosmos are one and the same.

they are smarter, wiser, righter and gooder than everybody else

Do 'they' think that precisely because they are 'Christians' (Capital letter intended)?
I think 'they' do.

By the way Rev, I'm not an atheist any more (because you insist it is a belief and I refuse to accept that it is)--- Now I am a secular humanist. No idea what it means--but don't it sound good!!

Ellis, moral and ethical Secular humanists who treat their fellow human with kindness and respect are okay in my books. When someone asks me: Are you a Christian? I say, ask my neighbour, including all I encounter.

IMHO, the secular universe is within G?D in the same way that fish are within the water, birds are within the air and galaxies are within space.
If there is anything beyond space, that is G?D.

As I have said elsewhere: IMHO, physically speaking G?D is like gravity; mentally speaking G?D is like knowledge, information, and spiritually speaking G?D is Spirit, Love, the power in each of us to will that all things work together for good.

I can't imagine why anyone, with any kind of desire for making the best of life, would be against this. It is like being against breathing, healthy drinking, and eating, living.

BTW, I am with secular humanists who resent having dogmas, creeds, rituals and institutional rules shoved in their faces by organized religions--many members of which are diabolic agents of evil. Fortunately, there are also some church members who are just as good as good secular humanists. This is what keeps me involved.

I think of a good church as being like a good hospital; it is a place where the sick can get the help they need and become productive members of society.

I don't expect every church member to be a saint. But I like them to be making a sincere attempt. I believe in deeds, not just creeds. Creeds, are like good prescriptions; they only have value if they help us be healthy and do the good we need to do.

I LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE FOLLOWING SITE:
http://www.goldenruleradical.org/

BTW, Ellis, and others, do you belong to any kind of fellowship, or group, which is involved in making the world a better place, for all of us?

Speaking f?r myself I bel?ng t? a gr?up that believes ?ne step t?ward curing many ?f humanity's pr?blems is shining a bright light ?n self-ann?inted, self-app?inted, emper?rs wearing n? cl?thes.

I can't wait to see the light!

I am reminded of the poetry of Genesis 1:3 : And God commanded, "Let there be light"--and light appeared. God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness.

As one who prefers the kind of light that is eternal, which rational faith in the Eternal provides, I like this last comment.

Better for whom, Rev? The Iraq war is being waged with one aim stated as making things better for the Iraqi people. And a very old saying has some truth in it--The way to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Of course, I agree: intentions are only of real value if they are good and followed up with good actions.

Understanding who we are spiritually??

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a spirit
We are merely the sum of all our physical constituents
Cousciousness is nothing more then the result of an elaborate biological computing process

Let me know when you have irrefutable proof that this isn't the case...

Let me know when you have irrefutable proof that it is the case.

And also let me know what you would consider irrefutable proof that we have a spirit.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"Let me know when you have irrefutable proof that it is the case."

Actually there is irrefutable proof if you are open to it. Lets review the evidence.

1. If I remove your source of oxygen you will lose consciousness and die in about 3 minutes.

2. If I remove your source of water you will lose consciousness and die in about 3 days.

3. If I remove your source of energy (food) you will lose consciousness and die in about 3 weeks.

All of these are explainable, and perfectly consistent, with known laws of chemistry and physics.

Assuming a spirit exists there is no known information, biblical or otherwise, that explains why depriving a spirit of oxygen, or water, or food, will cause it to depart in accordance with known laws of chemistry and physics.

Why should a spirit be affected by a fungal, bacterial, or viral infection? Why should a spirit respond, in a predictable manner, to chemical alteration of a protein or a nucleic acid? Again there is nothing in any holy book that supports what is easily explained by the known laws of chemistry and physics.

Want to dive deeper? I've got my scuba tank on. <g>

OK, DA, get your snorkel <g>.

As I mentioned elsewhere, while we know that activity in particular areas of the brain is associated with particular experiences of the mind, science has not yet answered the question: "What is consciousness?".

No one disputes that deprivation of oxygen/water/food causes malfunction, decay and death of the brain. We conclude that, when we can no longer detect evidence of consciousness, no consciousness exists.

I have an open mind on this. To me it seems that there are two possibilities:

(1) Consciousness emerges solely and entirely from the activity of the brain.

- i.e., where, and only where, there is brain there can be consciousness

(2) Consciousness, is not solely and entirely dependent upon activities of the brain, and may exist independently of it.

- i.e. where there is brain there can be consciousness, but where there is consciousness, there is not necessarily brain (find proof in the U.S administration <g>)

I suspect that a radical breakthrough in physics will one day lead to an understanding of the real nature of consciousness.

Am I off-topic again? Sorry about that.

This is SAGG. It is seemingly impossible to be off-topic. <g>

We can prove, magnetic imaging, etc. that consciousness emerges solely and entirely form the activity of the brain ... and even which specific areas and neurons are involved. That doesn't mean that we, as yet, understand it.

We understand how the heart works well enough to build them in the shop. But an individual heart cell will never understand how a heart functions. For us to understand what consciousness is may be one of the most formidable challenges there is.

Consider, if you will, the issue of free will. Is it possible to prove that it exists? My knee-jerk reaction is no.

Well you certainly couldn't have free-will without consciousness could you? And you can only have free-will if you acknowedge that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' answer for every action. And I personally don't think that is so. I think free-will is a concept of Christian (and maybe other) faith to get God out of a tight spot when things go wrong. The answer is that if one were to follow God's path for us things would be good, but we didn't- so it isn't. It doesn't quite cover babies dying of awful diseases- but can be used to get God off the hook for such things as war. Then it's explained as an outbreak of the ungodly following their own path. OK it's bit simplistic, but that's my take on free-will.

Building on what you said Ellis here is what I think is an objective statement of fact.

If free will does not exist then you course of action is predetermined and you, as an individual, bear no responsibility for ever making a bad decision. Truth is you never actually made a decision.

Why study for the math test, why be a good parent, why not just do whatever ... if it happens it was preordained. Islam has traditionally had a real problem with this one.

Now move 180 degrees in the other direction. You are personally responsible for everything you do. You make every decision and bear every consequence. This is the point-of-view of the atheist.

The Christian is trapped somewhere in-between. He cannot be responsible for everything because god, Jesus Christ, angles, the devil, and numerous Saints all can intercede whenever they choose and change things. And, to use blacknad's writing as a crutch here, perhaps capriciously responding to a prayer or not based on rules we do not or can not understand.

So if the asteroid hits ... I say ... it hit due to the laws of physics in our universe and we are morons for not getting our act together and detecting and deflecting it and are responsible for the consequences of our lack of action.

The person who believes there is no free will says ... it was destined to happen and there was nothing we could have done about it ... or we would have.

I presume the true believer says ... well I prayed, I tried, I really did. Better luck next time. But at least those killed all went to heaven so they are in a far far better place.

I'd say that it's the naturally intuitive view. As a very young kid, I had no ideas about religion, philosophy and causality. To me, if I tidied up my room it was because I chose to do so (or, more likely, my mum chose that I should do so!).

I get around the issue in a pragmatic way: it's expedient to make use of our apparent free will; it gives us a clear edge over anyone who would throw up their hands and not bother looking before they cross the road! At the same time, I have in the past taken the view that even my decision to adopt that approach is predetermined. Now that we know something about quantum events and the Uncertainty Principle, I'm not so...certain.

?To sum up, what I have been talking about, is whether the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or whether it is deterministic. The classical view, put forward by Laplace, was that the future motion of particles was completely determined, if one knew their positions and speeds at one time. This view had to be modified, when Heisenberg put forward his Uncertainty Principle, which said that one could not know both the position, and the speed, accurately. However, it was still possible to predict one combination of position and speed. But even this limited predictability disappeared, when the effects of black holes were taken into account. The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought.?

S.W. Hawking

DA wrote: "We can prove, magnetic imaging, etc. that consciousness emerges solely and entirely form the activity of the brain ... and even which specific areas and neurons are involved."

I'll edit that to fit the alternative view:

We can prove, magnetic imaging, etc. that (evidence of) consciousness emerges solely and entirely from the activity of the brain ... and even which specific areas and neurons are (associated) with that evidence."

DA wrote: "Consider, if you will, the issue of free will. Is it possible to prove that it exists? My knee-jerk reaction is no."

The prevailing theories of physics in any given era may or may not offer support for free will, but my hunch is that you're guess is right - that it's not provable. Even so, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if our descendents discovered otherwise, especially if they do manage to fathom consciousness.

I heard an interview on radio with someone on the subject. Unfortunately I missed his name. His idea was that the decisions we make at any moment are almost totally determined by our genes and our upbringing. He hinted that ultimately therefore we don't really have free will. Of course our ideas change (or should do) as we age but even these changes may be a product of our genes and upbringing and so on.

I'd hesitate to argue with someone who's probably a geneticist, but I would say 'influenced by' rather than 'determined by'. Education, day to day experiences, and environment must also be taken into account.

Be that as it may, I think that looking at the fundamentals of the question is less speculative, i.e. is free will possible or impossible, according to the known laws of physics? Stephen Hawking appears to suggest that it is. I'm sure, however, that I've read something somewhere to the effect that the basis of his contention has been superseded.

I'm width redewenur on this one. I think our genetic heritage predisposes us to specific starting blueprints.

But there seems little or on question that environment, parental, cultural, etc. builds upon that blueprint.

If we were just a product of a genetic inheritance we'd be sorely equipped to deal with reality in an uncertain world. Today's saber toothed kitty-cats come with smiles and a attache case.

Rede and DA. Note I said, "and our upbringing."

Within that I include "environment, parental, cultural, etc." and "Education, day to day experiences, and environment". Of course we are a product of these and our genetic makeup. But, to some extent, how they affect us is in turn determined by our genetic makeup. I'm not saying I agree with the guy who spoke on the radio (well, maybe I do) but he argued that the combination pretty much determines how we react to situations. Interesting topic for discussion.

OK, Terry, then we we're saying the same thing. What the idea amounts to then, is that even if the laws of physics allow free will, our thoughts and actions are to some extent 'programmed'. To what extent is another matter. It seems that the guy on the radio thought it close to 100%. Maybe he's right. I have a feeling that chaos theory would have something to say about it, but I'm shooting in the dark.

I'm not sure about chaos theory ... would need some time to think about it ... but I think we can definitely state, without fear of contradiction, that you can never swim in the same river twice.

Such is the nature of reality.

Yes, allegedly from Heraclitus, ?You can never step into the same river twice?, and a variant by one of his disciples: ?You cannot step into the same river even once" - but we may be getting into deep water <g>

While we're with philosphers:-

I wouldn't want to get into Erwin Schr?dinger's view of consciousness here, but some might be interested to google for info about it. Here's a snippet:

"...inconceiveable as it seems to ordinary reason, you ? and all other conscious beings as such ? are all in all. Hence, this life of yours... is, in a certain sense, the whole..."

Very interesting. Even if one disagrees, it's worth considering how a powerful mind, trained and proficient in modern age science, could arrive at such a viewpoint.

As I've implied elsewhere, I think he was on the right track. I await the science that either proves or disproves it.
_____

Re: Free wilI, I wrote: "I have a feeling that chaos theory would have something to say about it"

OK, try this:

http://mh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/28/2/78

(Scroll down to 'CHAOS THEORY AND FREE WILL')

'...Complexity theory does not therefore solve the problem of free will in a deterministic universe, unless what we are worried about is not that our decisions are caused, but that they are predictable.

The attempt to solve the free will problem through complexity theory has some parallels with earlier attempts to solve the problem through the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics and the randomness of some quantum events. If there is true randomness in quantum events, and if quantum events are effective parts of the causal chains leading to decisions, then these decisions are not causally determined and unpredictable. This does, however, not give us the kind of free will that we want. Instead of having our decisions determined by inflexible causal chains, we now have them determined by random quantum events. There is still no room for the uncaused, but clearly not random agency that we seem to experience when we make decisions with our free will.

In the same way free will is not saved by being the result of complex causal chains, instead of simple ones. There would still be nothing free about it.'

Thanks for the link.

The problem with free will is that it get remarkably close to theology and philosophy ... subjects related to faith not science.

It appears an unsolvable paradox in that if you ignore my post and don't read it ... was that a question of will or was it preordained? What if you read it and don't respond? Was it by choice? What if you respond ... what words will you use to respond?

It is very close to contemplating what would happen if you took a time machine back to before you were born and murdered your parents.

Seemingly so much valueless nonsense.

But yet, I will grant, enjoyable in a philosophical context.

I knew I was going to say that. ;-)

I don't see a paradox, DA. It's either free will or it's not. Either the 'choice' is real or it's illusory. Even if it is illusory, we still experience it as real. The point with chaos theory is that it deals only with the measure of unpredictability in mental/physiological processes, and has no bearing whatsoever on the free will debate.

Free will is, of course, more than simply a matter of interest to the religious. At the same time, the physics of our universe either allows it or it doesn't. To date, we don't know which. Maybe we'll never know - but for me, it's very much a matter for science.

redewenur wrote:
"Either the 'choice' is real or it's illusory."

But how can you tell because as you say:

"Even if it is illusory, we still experience it as real."

One of the biggest criticisms of Chaos Theory has been whether it is science. In other words can it meet the test of predictability and repeatability. I think it can but there are a lot of very intelligent people who are not as convinced.

If Chaos Theory is still, somewhat, controversial then free-will must be even more so. Because, at least with our current level of sophistication, we have no means of measuring anything objective about it.

I knew I was going to say that too. ;-)

DA wrote:

But how can you tell because as you say: "Even if it is illusory, we still experience it as real."

- subjective experience is not the required proof; what is required is objective proof, just as you would require objective proof for the existence of God. That's as far as the similarity goes, though. Whereas 'God' is a metaphysical concept/being (depending on your view), free will is a different kind of case. As I see it, it's purely a question of physics, and case for or against can, in principal, be argued on the basis observations of the physical universe. Presently, of course, the case cannot be proven either way, but I think it's only a mattter of time - a long time maybe, but as I said, in principal, not impossible.
_____

The point about chaotic systems is that, although they are unpredictable, they are still causal. So Chaos Theory has nothing new to say about free will. It turns out to be irrelevant. So, the controversy over Chaos Theory is equally irrelevant.

I knew you was going to say that too ;-)

The one huge advantage "free will" has over god is that the concept transcends a single theological point of view.

When Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindu, and Animist discuss it ... they at least agree on what it is. Not whether it exists, mind you, but on what it is.

That is more than we can say for their mindless discussions of dog.

DA wrote:
"When Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindu, and Animist discuss it ... they at least agree on what it is. Not whether it exists, mind you, but on what it is."

Yes, that's the religious thorn in the side of science, isn't it. It's not character of the individual Christian (for example). That's very often impeccable. It's the subversion of their reason to dogma of the institution, and the dependence on an inflexible model of the universe as part of that dogma - the rest is history.

Whilst I agree that freewill and predestination are absolutely opposites, I feel that both concepts are human constructs or perhaps rules, to explain the behaviour of their gods. Christians are able to explain the "bad" things by saying we have freewill so it's our fault not God's. A religion that preaches predestination says virtually the the opposite with the same fervour. The bad things happen because in a previous life, or in this one, you did something so dreadful that now you are to be punished. This is a particularly nasty point of view because, where christianity has great trouble explaining things like childhood cancer or horrible fates suffered by babies too young to punished for any sin, the answer can be that the dreadful diseaseas is because of earlier behaviour, either in an earlier life (as in reincarnation) or in this one- pure revenge by fierce god.

I find both views quite abhorrent, as do many other people, so the christian faith at least, has been keen recently to emphasise the God of Love, and to back off on the consequence of stressing the existence of freewill. Doctrinal teaching explains that we must pray to God as he knows what is best for us and we should do his will, not our own. This is still a prayer today, though the consequences of backsliding are not as literally damning as before (after all no one any longer believes in Hell do they?)

Hi, Ellis. A few remarks on that:

"Whilst I agree that freewill and predestination are absolutely opposites, I feel that both concepts are human constructs or perhaps rules"

- If both were nothing but human inventions, what alternative would remain for reality? Can it be anything but a case of one or the other?

"Christians are able to explain the "bad" things by saying we have freewill so it's our fault not God's"

- If by 'bad things' you mean any volitional action that can be considered morally/ethically negative, then it's a view shared by atheists.

"A religion that preaches predestination says virtually the the opposite with the same fervour. The bad things happen because in a previous life, or in this one, you did something so dreadful that now you are to be punished"

- I take it that you're referring to the eastern religions that support the notion of 'karma'. This is a special case of 'cause and effect' which is exclusively related to morality, and I agree, it can propagate the most horrendous ideas in the minds of its adherents. As an example, I once overheard the remark of a nurse working on a psycho-geriatric ward, in which many of the poor patients were enduring a living nightmare. She said that they deserved it, as they wouldn't be suffering if they hadn't been wicked in a previous life. The belief in karma also encourages an apathetic disposition; in this case, one doesn't hear, "It's God's will", but instead, "It's karma".

The scientific debate concerning determinism does not deal with such metaphysics as karma (moral cause and effect). It concerns only the mechanics of the physical universe.

redewenur wrote:
"- If both were nothing but human inventions, what alternative would remain for reality? Can it be anything but a case of one or the other?"

I'm with Ellis on this and I think he is correct. I think there very clearly is an alternative and that alternative is to stay away from absolutes.

We have the ability to make, within the context of what we know, decisions. I can choose to type UPPER CASE or not. There is no more evidence that would support the belief that my doing so was predetermined or the work of an invisible purple rhinoceros than there is proof that an invisible purple rhinoceros exists. Call that free will if you wish.

But it is not absolutist free will. I can not live to be 250 years old. No matter how much I may wish it.

DA wrote:

"I think there very clearly is an alternative and that alternative is to stay away from absolutes"

When there are only two logical possibilities, I don't accept 'stay away from absolutes' as a third, simply because at this moment in history the answer is unavailable. You may do so, that's your prerogative.

"There is no more evidence that would support the belief that my doing so was predetermined or the work of an invisible purple rhinoceros than there is proof that an invisible purple rhinoceros exists"

- Correct, there is no conclusive evidence either way for determinism/indeterminism; but in this case, your invisible purple rhinoceros is irrelevant - determinism does not require a creator (or an ipr)

"But it is not absolutist free will. I can not live to be 250 years old. No matter how much I may wish it"

- Indeed. No one suggested otherwise.

Does "karma" not have a whiff of divinity about it, or at least the supernatural. After all the "punishment" comes as a result of the behaviour, so it must have a causative agent surely. Whether this is a god or an irresistible force of Nature would be open to debate.

I also think I muddled up predestination and reincarnation a bit. Reincarnation has to ackowledge predestination, but predestination would be "God's plan for us"-- a concept alive and well to many christians.

I do not believe in freewill or predestination as a concept because to me they appear to be part of the relgious construct that permeates every level of our lives without our recognising it is so. I think that it is possible to have reality without needing either--because to have either it is necessary to acknowledge the 'administrator' of such planning (ie what are we rebelling against?) I don't believe that such an entity exists. No god, no karma and no pesky rhinocerous!! Just Earth and its inhabitants making the best of it as they can, as part of the larger cosmos. I think such concepts as freewill or predestination help some of us to deal with reality- as we negotiate chaos.

Redewenur:
I wasn't trying trying to dodge the issue. Let me state my
position more clearly.

1. Predetermination ... the outcome is predetermined by
a deity or a deterministic universe (we aren't in one).

2. Free will ... we have full and complete freedom to do
as we wish (of course so does the saber toothed cat
around the bend).

3. The alternative ... we have the ability to make limited
decisions within a predetermined framework. I can UPPER
cAsE aLL i WANT!

Limited decisions is not what most mean when invoking the
concept of free will.

===========================================================

Ellis:
Karma is just a way for those that should, metaphorically
speaking, pick up an AK47. It is used by people who perceive
injustice and prefer to not confront it but rather comfort
themselves in the assumed evening of the scales at some point
in the future.

I prefer the likes of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and
Lech Walesa. As Edmund Burke said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

And appeals to karma are "doing nothing."

Ellis.
"I think that it is possible to have reality without needing either--because to have either it is necessary to acknowledge the 'administrator' of such planning"

- I reject the idea that, in either case, it's necessary to have an 'administrator', or a 'planner', for the same reason that I reject the idea that the existence of the universe implies a creator.

"Does "karma" not have a whiff of divinity about it, or at least the supernatural"

It originated, as far as I know (which, isn't a lot) in the philosophy expounded in the Vedas of ancient India, possibly as long as 4500yrs ago. It has no apparent connection with divinities, but it's distinctly supernatural.

Just for the record, I agree that karma is ipr material.

DA.

"1. Predetermination ... the outcome is predetermined by
a deity or a deterministic universe (we aren't in one)."

Disagree. Predetermination has no necessary connection with the existence of a deity. (And we may be in one).

"2. Free will ... we have full and complete freedom to do
as we wish (of course so does the saber toothed cat
around the bend)."

Disagree. We would still be bound by the laws of physics (so there would be no sabre toothed cat around the bend).

"3. The alternative ... we have the ability to make limited
decisions within a predetermined framework. I can UPPER
cAsE aLL i WANT!"

By 'predetermined framework', I take it that you mean a framework consisting of factors including genes and environment influences and so on, as discussed previously.

True, if the universe is indeterminate.
False, if the universe is determinate.

Re: karma - I agree <g>

redewenur ...

1. I wrote "or a deterministic universe." And clearly we are not in one.

2. Being bound by the laws of physics of course. Flapping your arms while falling off a cliff will not make you a bird. But assuming that you have free-will to make all decisions is also unrealistic.
Do you believe that when a pebble flies toward your face you have free will to NOT blink? Do you believe that when you have a kidney stone you have free will to ignore the pain?

I think free will has limits. Possibly severe ones.

The universe is provably indeterminate. Drop eggs off the counter onto the floor in exactly the same way over and over until you come to believe it too.

The concept of free will is a life-form construct. I think we can safely assume the moon does not conceive of itself as having free will. So lets start with the ameoba and work our way up. Does an amoeba consciously make decisions as to the path it chooses when searching for food? Or is it a captive reacting to chemical queues and programming that says "first left then right?" I've no doubt the worm, if it can, thinks it is making decisions. I'm not sure too many two-legged sentients would agree. And in the same way I am not so convinced that my fellow inhabitants of this planet are for the most part conscious. Though I've no doubt they think they are.

For me, the question is, what is unique about mind that it can break free from determinism?

Up until the first sentient creature made a decision, the universe had run along determined lines of 'first-cause'-reaction-reaction etc.

What allowed thought to impose itself onto the natural order of the universe?

And neither free will nor determination are necessarily connected to deity.

Blacknad.

Credit where it's due, DA, you're not short of colourful analogies. <g>

You wrote:

"1. I wrote "or a deterministic universe." And clearly we are not in one."

- because, you say:

"The universe is provably indeterminate. Drop eggs off the counter onto the floor in exactly the same way over and over until you come to believe it too.

- I find this an incongruous argument. If determinacy is a fact, then it is so through cause and effect at the level of the most fundamental particle/energy level. That doesn't imply predictability - it largely precludes it. So, if you were to suggest that quantum uncertainty is proof of indeterminacy, then your argument could be more persuasive.

You wrote:

"But assuming that you have free-will to make all decisions is also unrealistic. Do you believe that when a pebble flies toward your face you have free will to NOT blink? Do you believe that when you have a kidney stone you have free will to ignore the pain?"

From the previous post:

"3. The alternative ... we have the ability to make limited
decisions within a predetermined framework. I can UPPER
cAsE aLL i WANT!"

By 'predetermined framework', I take it that you mean a framework consisting of factors including genes and environment influences and so on, as discussed previously.

True, if the universe is indeterminate.

OK DA, what we have then (it would probably have taken less than a minute over beer!) is that:

(1) a determinate universe is impossible - for you because of your eggs <g> and for me because of quantum uncertainty
(2) we therefore have an indeterminate universe in which our free will is limited by factors such as genes, instincts, reflexes, environment etc.

Tell me you agree, for once, then at least we can change the subject <g>

blacknad wrote:
"For me, the question is, what is unique about mind that it can break free from determinism?"

Philosophically it is an important question. But I am not sure there is a lot of evidence supporting that it is possible or that the universe is deterministic: In fact just the opposite.

There is an asteroid that "might" hit earth in 2039. Consider all of the reasons that we just don't know for sure.

blacknad wrote:
"Up until the first sentient creature made a decision, the universe had run along determined lines of 'first-cause'-reaction-reaction etc."

I can't think of a single physicist that would agree with this. There is every reason to believe that quantum fluctuations led to all that we observe.

Though imposes itself on the natural order of the universe in the sense that some guy "decides" to go out searching for diamonds in Siberia and the result is a big hole in the ground. But sooner or later that Kimberlite would have been discovered and the hole would have been dug. Is that any different than what a mouse does when it runs around in the yard searching for a place to dig a hole for itself? I don't think so except that the mouse isn't fool enough to voluntarily move to Siberia.

You are correct that the concepts of free will and determination do not necessarily connect to a deity. On the other hand the historical and philosophical connection is rather strong.

Dan,

From your last post, I can see why you have little time or regard for philosophy. It's obviously not your strongest discipline.

Was your sentence above really meant to be serious?

Blacknad.