Personal experience as a basis for god belief

[Myles]

.

I shall try and sum up as best I can:

I am quite happy that others should live their lives as they see fit, subject to the constraints of society.
I have no particular quarrel with theists. I don't share their beliefs but it is not for me to tell them what to believe. I do have a quarrel/urge to argue with those, of whatever persuasion, who proselytize ads I feel they need to be answered.

I have argued that the universe is either determined or it is not. If you are not disposed to accept either view, then it is surely up to you to suggest what other possibilities there might be. You are entitled to say you accept neither view but you cannot expect to be taken seriously unless you can say why.

At the risk of repeating myself can I say that a comonsense view suggestes determinism. To deny this is fine, but if such a denial is to have any creditability evidence must be adduced to show that there are events which have no antecedent causes. I know of none so ,within the limits of my experience, the universe seems to me to be determined. I would like to believe that I had freedom of choice ( I cannot imagine anyone choosing to be a robot)

I have said that I have no way of knowing. When I act I feel my actions are free but that is no guarantee that they are so. I have no way of knowing. Free or determined I will feel free when I act, insofar as I happen to think about it.

And now I come to the crux of the matter. I live my life without regard to whether I am free or determined, as I imagine most people do. I would never get out of bed in the morning if I lay there trying to decide whether the act of getting up was free or determined. I have no choice but to act.

Finally. I may be wrong. But so may those who disagree with me. I can say no more than that.

 

[Myles]

I
To Grantywanty



I don't see why you had to make a value judgement - have I got that right? - that Greenberg believes in God, for example.

[/QUOTE]

If you read post 197 on this thread you will find the answer.

Greenberg says: " That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's "

I may be mistaken but, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

 

[Myles]

I knew you were a closet pantheist

What grounds have you for making such a statement ? The word god is being used metaphorically. See the reference to Burroughs.

As I read it , that message could have been posted by a deist or an atheist.

And why mention "closet" which suggests a degree of insincerity ?

 

[Grantywanty]

What grounds have you for making such a statement ? The word god is being used metaphorically. See the reference to Burroughs.

As I read it , that message could have been posted by a deist or an atheist.

And why mention "closet" which suggests a degree of insincerity ?

I meant it as a joke. I make no claims to the quality of that joke. There is very little I have seen her post that would lead me to believe she is actually a pantheist so in that context I did not think she would take it seriously. If she does I will certainly clarify and apolagize if I upset her.

 

[Grantywanty]

I shall try and sum up as best I can:

I have no particular quarrel with theists. I don't share their beliefs but it is not for me to tell them what to believe. I do have a quarrel/urge to argue with those, of whatever persuasion, who proselytize ads I feel they need to be answered.

I'm not quite sure about the 'proselytize ads' part. Maybe a typo. If I seem not to respond correctly to what you are saying here it may be because I don't understand that point.

I have noticed only a couple of people who seem to come from a real proselytizing position here at science forums. The majority of those seem to be more Buddhist/Hindu in outlook. There was one Christian guy but I don't see him around much.

If we look at the title of this thread it goes well beyond concerns about proselyzing. Personal experience is a poor basis for belief, seemed to be the main point of the title and OP. Not simply: your personal experiences mean very little to me and you should know that I will not be convinced by them. But rather: you are making a poor choice to base your beliefs on experience, yourself, even if you never try to convince anyone of your beliefs.

I do think the whole discussion has merit. But sometimes I see you saying things rather condescendingly to people who aren't particularly proselytizing but rather are expressing their own beliefs - and yes, I have noticed how you graciously responded to a couple of people who expressed their beliefs in a way you found appropriate.

Just because someone sounds illogical to you or bases their beliefs in ways you consider epistomologically unsound does not mean that they are trying to get you to be a ______________.

I have argued that the universe is either determined or it is not. If you are not disposed to accept either view, then it is surely up to you to suggest what other possibilities there might be. You are entitled to say you accept neither view but you cannot expect to be taken seriously unless you can say why.

You have already told me you DO take the third possiblity seriously. I don't know why you can't see that. You prefer to see and live you life as if you have free will.

You have stated that you do not know if you are free or not.
You have stated that freedom is incompatible with both determinism and randomness.
Is it so wrong for me to conclude that you do not assume there is no third alternative?
Otherwise, wouldn't you know that you are not free?

Perhaps I am unfairly boiling this down. I hope at the very least you can see it as not frivolous.

You believe:
1) If determinism, no free will.
2) If randomness, no free will.
3) You are not sure there is no free will.

Am I really being unreasonable to deduce that you are not sure there cannot be a third thing.

And now finally I feel like I am done.
I do feel I learned from you and our interchanges. Perhaps they will start up in some other context but I am done with this particular discussion. It was good I got embarrassed around the QM. And having to work toward what I felt like was implicit in some of your positions was also good for me, even if you do not think these things are implicit in your positions.
Good luck to you.

 

[Grantywanty]

But don't waste your time or mine asking what I think he thinks, or even what I think you think I think he thinks.

I haven't and I won't. I wouldn't even have considered it.

 

[Myles]

Grantywanty

I have given you no grounds to believe there is a third possibility as far as determinism and freedom are concerned. Give me a little credit. How many times do I have to repeat that the universe is either random or determined. that is is subject to cause and effect or it is not.

If you disagree, tell me what your take on the issue is. You may, however care to join me in saying there are ONLY 2 possibilities but WE DO NOT KNOW which is true. I certainly do not claim to know. If I were forced to make a choice I would GUESS the answer was DETERMINISM because I have no knowledge of an effect without a cause. If you know otherwise, tell me.

You have noticed that I responded favourably. to some rather than others. Well, there's a surprise. Don't we all respond favourably to those who appear to share our views.

As to the existence of god, transcendental wisdom . etc. , It comes down to personal opinion which I may or may not share. We can believe anything we like but others may disagree. There are no adjudicators who can decide who is right in matters of this kind, as you very well know.

 

[Myles]

[QUOTE

Perhaps I am unfairly boiling this down. I hope at the very least you can see it as not frivolous.

You believe:
1) If determinism, no free will.
2) If randomness, no free will.
3) You are not sure there is no free will.

Am I really being unreasonable to deduce that you are not sure there cannot be a third thing
Good luck to you.

I see how the confusion arose, so I shall tyr and clarify my views based on the points you have enumerated above. Here goes

1 Yes, determinism and free will are diametrically opposed o each other

2. No. Random behaviour would suport free will because it would be unpredictable which, by definition . means it is not determined. At the risk of muddying the water can I add that there are systems which are not predictable but which may still be determined.

The weather provides an example. You must have heard the one about the butterfly flapping it wings and, in so doing, affecting the weather. In theory the weather is predictable but,

a) there are too many variables. We can build better and better computer models but still be unable to predict more than a day or so ahead/

b) The initial conditions are not known to us or we cannot measure them with sufficient accuracy. This is often illustrated by a pendulum swinging between two magnets. It will end up on one side or another but we cannot say which. If we try to repeat an experiment we cannot arrange the initial conditios with sufficient accuracy to predict the outcome. So, the outcome is determined byt unpredictable. If this is of interest to you, you may care to consult " Chaos", by Gleich. There are other books but, to the best of my knowledge. Gleich is as good as it gets

3. Yes,. I do not know the answer. My day-to-day experience suggests determinism because, as I have previously said, I know of no effect without an antecedent cause. I may be wrong.

Llife can get difficut when we are asked to accept counter-intuitive ideas. That's why some physicists are workin on QM to find, they hope, an underlying determinism. Others are not interested in the philosophical implications; they are content to apply QM to practical problems.


I don't regard you as unreasonable, far from it. We have one thing in common, tenacity, but I regard that as a virtue. We are not asking to be spoonfed by others.

All the best,

Myles

Ps My index finger is worn to the bone with all this typing, so makes allowances for spelling errors.

 

[greenberg]

So may I repeat my question: Do you believe it possible to teach children to think for themselves ? I am nor asking for a correspondence course . A simple yes ,no or don't know will suffice. I have expressed an opinion. What is yours ?

No, I do not think it is possible to teach children to "think for themselves". That would be a contradiction in terms. It is only possible to teach them use certain reasoning paradigms for themselves.

And what is more, as our correspondence exemplifies really well, is that what "thinking for oneself" is, depends on who's assessing the thinking.
One person's thinking for himself is another one's indoctrination..

 

[greenberg]

I
If you read post 197 on this thread you will find the answer.

Greenberg says: " That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's "

I may be mistaken but, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

I stated in post nr. 88 that I am not a theist. It seems you understood then, but forgot by now.

I believe it is possible to bring children up to think critically according to their ability at any given age.There are courses in critical thinking for 16-year olds, so I do not see why wecannot teach younger children according to a syllabus, as in any other subject. In my experience, youngsters are full of curiosity, so w would not have to try very hard to arouse their interest. A typical child'ds question could be thrown open for discussion in class, with a teacher acting as moderator. No definite conclusions need be reached but that is a reflection of what happens in the adult world. The children would develop the habit of questioning and thinking about things.

This sort of relativism is exactly what I've given you here - but you're displeased with my input.

You want people to think for themselves, but you want them to think for themselves according to your standards.

 

[peta9]

i find that a stretch considering it's theists who try to indoctrinate and not encourage freedom of thought in thier children. As a matter of fact, their is a distinct lack of respect for it and the other person's autonomy.

I was raised in a christian household and I never resonated with this religion no matter how much it was around me. It just didn't appeal to me or was untrue.

I found it quite distasteful, sometimes downright bizarre or elicited indifference in me.

Even when i have children, i want them to be aware of all religions, philosophies as well as have the benefit of critical unbiased reasoning.

In the end, i want it to be a personal informed choice or even thier choice not to choose anything but come to thier own conclusions.

 

[Myles]

I stated in post nr. 88 that I am not a theist. It seems you understood then, but forgot by now.




This sort of relativism is exactly what I've given you here - but you're displeased with my input.

You want people to think for themselves, but you want them to think for themselves according to your standards.

I don't think I misunderstood You were not a theist then but in a later post you appear to have changed your mind. Believe what you want because it's of no real consequence to anyone except you. That goes for all of us.

I asked you a simple question but you refuse to answer. You talk about relativism instead.

So , for the last time I pose the question yet again:

Do you believe children can be taught to think for themselves ?
Yes, no, not sure or whatever. What is your problem in giving a straight answer ? I am asking your opinion. I will settle for "no comment" but at least answer the question.

If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of relativism I will discuss that issue with you. So it's up to you. What is your response ?

 

[greenberg]

I don't think I misunderstood You were not a theist then but in a later post you appear to have changed your mind. Believe what you want because it's of no real consequence to anyone except you. That goes for all of us.

I asked you a simple question but you refuse to answer. You talk about relativism instead.

So , for the last time I pose the question yet again:

Do you believe children can be taught to think for themselves ?
Yes, no, not sure or whatever. What is your problem in giving a straight answer ? I am asking your opinion. I will settle for "no comment" but at least answer the question.

If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of relativism I will discuss that issue with you. So it's up to you. What is your response ?

Read again - post no. 209.

 

[Myles]

i find that a stretch considering it's theists who try to indoctrinate and not encourage freedom of thought in thier children. As a matter of fact, their is a distinct lack of respect for it and the other person's autonomy.

I was raised in a christian household and I never resonated with this religion no matter how much it was around me. It just didn't appeal to me or was untrue.

I found it quite distasteful, sometimes downright bizarre or elicited indifference in me.

Even when i have children, i want them to be aware of all religions, philosophies as well as have the benefit of critical unbiased reasoning.

In the end, i want it to be a personal informed choice or even thier choice not to choose anything but come to thier own conclusions.

You have just defined education in the best possible sense from my point of view. So there you have it.It's a pity Greenberg, whose posts you may have read cannot or will not give a straight answer. As you go through life you will find that most rhings are a matter of opinion. Facts are a bit hard to come by. The plain fact of the matter is that we are all trying to make some sense of existence and we do it in our individual way.

I would argue that you should beware of anyone who offers you "certainty" based on their understanding. You know the type; Iy says in the Bible , etc. Ask them why you should believe in the Bible and you'll get some interesting answers. The same goes for the Book of Mormon, the Koran and any other texts ofthe kind. All you can do is look at them objectively and draw your own conclusions. The so-callled experts are doing just that but many would deny you the right to think for yourself.

It takes courage but you must find your own answers if you want to be free.

 

[Myles]

You want people to think for themselves, but you want them to think for themselves according to your standards[/I

.

Your hubris astounds me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no need to justify myself to you but I will answer your criticism as it may make others aware .
I won't bother with all the detail, as it is a matter of indifference to me whether you believe what I say.

My wife and I are atheists but we did not impose our views on our three children. When asked about god, for example, my response was that I did not believe in god. But then I went on to say that a lot of people would say I was wrong. I told them that , when they were older they would be able to decide for themselves.
Furthewr, I signed a document giving my consent to their receiving religious education. Though mainly in the Christian tradition, they were exposed to other, conflicting ideas. For example, the school celebrated Devali on behalf of the Hindu children but everyone else joined in. The same held true for Christian festivals.

And the end products. One of my sons is an atheist, my other son is a practising Buddhist in the Cha'n tradition, When not earning a living he spends what time he can in a monastery where he attends retreats and teaches meditation. He has been doing so for the past eight years. My daughter, who read philosophy at uni. is not quite certain but it looks af if she will follow a Buddhist path, just like her brother.

Now, if you know a better way to raise children, do let us know .

 

[greenberg]

Myles,

You have apparently mastered the 38 stratagems Schopenhauer proposed for winning a debate.
I give up.

 

[Myles]

No, I do not think it is possible to teach children to "think for themselves". That would be a contradiction in terms. It is only possible to teach them use certain reasoning paradigms for themselves.

And what is more, as our correspondence exemplifies really well, is that what "thinking for oneself" is, depends on who's assessing the thinking.
One person's thinking for himself is another one's indoctrination.

.

I'm sorry I missed this post. Thanks for your answer. Read what I have to say and maybe think again or not as the case may be.

You totally misunderstand my position. I did not claim that I alone could teach children to think for themselves. That would be tantamount to indoctrination, something I abhor. You may have fotgotten that I mentioned a syllabus. Your common sense should have told you that a one-man syllabus would be ludicrous. Now consider what I have said about my children's schooling. They were exposed to Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and to a lesser extent Islaam under the heading " Religious Education" The degree of exposure to each creed was a reflection of the make-up of the local community.

 

[Myles]

Myles,

You have apparently mastered the 38 stratagems Schopenhauer proposed for winning a debate.
I give up.[

/QUOTE]

I'm sorry you cannot bring yourself to believe what I told you. Do you think I would lie about my children , just to win an argument? If anyone needed to do such a thing I would hold him in utter contempt.

As for Schopenhauer , I have only read his " Aphorismen zur Lebensweissheit " in the original German. Das wirst du mir wohl auch nicht glauben, aber die ganze Geschichte ist mir vollkommen Wurst.

I think you are searching but unwilling to commit yourself. which is fine. But remember the Buddha's injunction:

If you walk, walk. If you sit. sit. But don't wobble !

What a poor view you have of humankind to assume I would try and win an argument by lying about my children .I feel you owe me an apology. What do you think ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

peta9,

No different than creating santa claus, putting him in a red suit, assigning him elves, reindeer, sled and a certain mission you believe he should accomplish

There is a vast difference, if you are serious, then you are lazy. However, even though this seems to be a convenient tactic to kill a discussion about God, I doubt very much that you are. Or maybe I am wrong.

i see nothing incorrect with someone believing or speculating in the possibility of a creator/s, ghosts, ad nauseum.

What?

But anything beyond that such as finite character assignations or specific powers or rituals assigned which in turn and in essence the one who is believing is actually "creating" or "making" up their god. It goes beyond speculation or honest openness about a possible creator's true nature or purpose etc.

So what are scriptures, and what are they for?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Briefly, what is the biggest benefit you feel you have derived from reading about evolutionary theory.

I don't think I could be brief about it.

What books have you read ?

I keep up with it on the internet, through all the usual sources.

And would you like to discuss with me the merits/ demerits of the theory ?

Say what you have to say and we'll take it from there.

Ps. Don't forget you still have not told me what your understanding of Judges is.

I've told you twice.
Are you blind?

There are question I put foreward which you have no answered, if it is no trouble, could you answer them please. Thank you in advance.

Jan.