Myles,
You are so fixated on being condescending that you repeat things I obviously understood.
I think it would make things clearer if you stated whether randomness and free will are the same for you. Earlier you said there were two possibilities: determinism or randomness. I don't think either of these fits the experience of free will. (And please, I am not making a case for free will here. The purpose of these last posts is to understand what you, Myles, consider your own beliefs and knowledge to be, given the context in the thread where you are taking theists to task for basing their beliefs on experience. I think it is only fair to see what is different about what you do.)
I read this:
Concerning debates in a determined universe. We believe we have free willand so we behave as if it were true. It may be an illusion but we have no wa of knowing. See " How Free Are you" ( Ted Honderich ) forwhat is probably the most accessible intriduction the this topic
'We believe in free will...' I assumed thiat you included yourself in this 'we'. I also assumed that this free will 'we' believe in is not randomness. However much it may seem like we have free will, it does not seem like a random universe. Yes?
Do you believe this...
...we have no way of knowing whether we have free will or whether we are determined .
or this....
My belief, for what it is worth is that
neuroscience will come up with some sort of answer long before philosophical discussion will.
Having said that , I would prefer to be free and I feel as if I am. Don't expect any clever answers on this site.
I am not seeking an answer to the question of free will versus determinism. I really don't know what made you think I was. I was dealing with the topic of the thread. You are critical of theists because they base their belief in God on experience. You have admitted that you believe in free will- or at least put forward H's assertion that 'we' believe - and behave accordingly. So you prefer to live your life based on a belief based on experience that much evidence indicates is not the case. And since you say
If you can think of an effect that has no cause, you are a better man than I am.
you have seen no evidence for a non-deterministic universe.
My understanding was that your concern when it came to theists was that they based a belief on experience, a belief with no evidence to back it up.
Yet here you are living your life on the basis of a belief that you have no evidence for.
In distinction from the theists you acknowledge that much knowledge - as opposed to belief based merely on experience - points to determinism and none points toward free will.
1) I think that this sets up an interesting compartmentalized psychology in you, which you are not alone in having, of course. And that it is a phenomenon worth pointing out. I realize that H points out this phenomenon also and I have heard it raised and raised it myself in other contexts. I had not thought of it in a discussion in relation to the criticisms athiests make of theists, however.
2) It raises issues, which I clearly pointed out in my previous post, about the categorical complaint you aim at theists, who live and behave according to a belief based on experience AS YOU DO. That you are uncertain, or recognize knowledge contradicting this belief, seems IN PRACTICAL TERMS similar to the role doubt and faith play in the lives of theists. You have a different relationship with this belief in that you, perhaps, see it as a kind of necessay evil or kind of like a soothing habit, wheras the theist might have more respect for their belief. But nevertheless in terms of living in the world the belief rules. I certainly see it at work here in the thread.
I am aware that the content of your beliefs are different from theists. I am aware of the negative effects of some theists' beliefs. But it seemed like your intention was epistomological and in that kind of discussion content is not the issue.
The mention of mystics brings us back to where we came in: belief versus knowledge Most of us have had some some sort of mystical experience, epiphany, call it what you will, but we should not believe that we are adding to the sum total of human KNOWLEDGE.
That was not my point with that section. You are not reading carefully. I was talking about the consequences of actually believing you are not free. I was not making a case for the validity of some belief based on the experiences of mystics. Clean the lenses through which you read everything I write.
You have basically stated that this is the situation: one must live in uncertainty. I was pointing out that actually some people seem to have moved away from that uncertainty in a direction you seem unaware of: towards accepting determnism as a belief - not the way scientists do, but in everyday life and consistantly. Some clinically depressed people, but also mystics, who, for whatever reasons do not seem bothered by having everything worked out in advance and simply unfolding before them. (of course I cannot prove they have this belief, but some have claimed very strongly that they did have this belief, the problem of other minds. And, Myles, read this carefully. I am
not making the case for mystics beliefs of the world or that their beliefs are convincing. The irony in this instance is that their belief in some cases HAS FIT with evidence that determinism is correct. I am contrasting this with what your posts imply: that one cannot do anything but compartmentalize the evidence that we live in a determined universe.
Why not enrol in a few courses, if you have not do so already. You will be in a structered environment so that questions you ask and your understanding of the answers will be on a safer footing.
Stop it, Myles.
Talking in broad terms of QM, consciousness, mysticism, herbal remedies and so on will get you nowhere, if you really wish to be exposed to knowledge as opposed to beliefs you acquire bt reading here, there and everywhere. Engage with others in a more direct way
Blah, blah. Grow up. What are you here for Myles? The one thing I appreciate about your posts after I made a fool of myself with QM is that refer to posts of mine from before that and show the real condescension you have felt all along. Your posts feel more honest now.
What is your purpose here? Did you come to edify those you look down on?
Are you capable of introspection, Myles? What is the real motive you had for starting this thread. If the best you can come up with is that you are concerned about theists' false beliefs and their poor epistemology, my suggestion would be to look a bit deeper. You could even keep in mind the structure of your own psyche that I went into above. You prefer the belief in free will and live your life as if that was true, but recognize the knowledge that indicates you probably don't have this. A kind of split. What role are other people, especially theists, supposed to play for you here?
Hamlet:
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and
pressure.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 17–24
Who am I directing this quote at, Myles? I'll give you a hint: not at you.
