Gazelam wrote:People are who they are. They were intelligences that wanted to be improved upon. God organized their intelligence and seeks to exalt them/us. People are exalted or remain damned depending on their strength of will that is inherent in them. This strength of will can be improved upon, but only through our own efforts. For God to force change upon these intelligences would be against the plan of salvation and would actually work counter to the plan. He is only as involed in our life as we ask him to be.
So God didn't creat us differently. The differences are inherent, correct?
I'm all with you that it can be improved upon with our effort (and God's help too but He offers it equally to all). Where we part understanding is in asking why some would focus their efforts to improve upon their strength of will while others do not. For those who do not, why can they be held accountable for that difference when that choice was not predicated upon themselves, but rather something innate that they did not chose?
That God isn't responsible for us choosing to be evil I agree. I just wonder whether our end state isn't more of a consequence of an innate nature by which we make choices and which we did not choose (otherwise everyone would would make the same choice to be righteous).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Remember that the same sociality that exists among us here will exist among us there.(D&C 130:2)
Why do some choose in this life to remain uneducated and not seek after knowledge? Why are their men who choose not to seek good employment and provide for their families? The list could go on. People are who they are. What God is looking for are those who will live a Celestial life by their own choice, so he knows who he can entrust with all that he has. Should someone inherit all that God has that must be constantly goaded into being good, or someone who is inantely good by their own choosing? That is the true test in this life. The path of Christ enhances and further instructs one in Godly attributes, service and overcoming the world and its deathly habits.
Those who do not desire these attributes will not take part in that culture after this ife, they will go where they are satisfied and happy, but they will not be part of any further creation. They have shown by their nature that they are not responsible over creation, and can therefore not be entrusted with any further progression.
A good series of verses on this topic are found in D&C 88:11-41
Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
I was an atheist before my son became seriously ill with bipolar disorder, but had I not already been an atheist, I have no doubt that experience would have made me one. Our behaviors, our choices, our thoughts, that are attributed to "moral choices" by religionists and even many nonbelievers, are really the result of chemical ebbs and flow within the organic material of our brains. If these chemicals ebb or flow in the "wrong" direction, the individual will engage in immoral behavior due to impulses created by that chemical soup. Give that same person Medicine X and suddenly they become "moral" again.
Are you positing that every person who ever makes an immoral choice did so due to chemical imbalances? Certianly in some cases, like your son's, that is true. But I do not buy that most people who chose to do XYZ had not input or choice over the matter. Instead of being puppets on God's strings you are sayng that we are all puppets to random electrical and chemical reactions and that we have nothign to do about it.
Indeed if this is the case then nobody whovever does something bad can change. No need for prisons or reform porgrams anymore. Let's just eleminate the defective machine.
beastie wrote:Our behaviors, our choices, our thoughts, that are attributed to "moral choices" by religionists and even many nonbelievers, are really the result of chemical ebbs and flow within the organic material of our brains. If these chemicals ebb or flow in the "wrong" direction, the individual will engage in immoral behavior due to impulses created by that chemical soup. Give that same person Medicine X and suddenly they become "moral" again.
I don't actually believe that even the most hardened materialist would posit this. It appears to remove all capacity for conscious decision making. I agree that chemical imbalances have an effect on behaviour, but I see them as creating instability and causing unpredictable lapses in conscious decision making, rather than removing the capacity for free will. I don't believe that it's right to talk about chemical imbalances causing immoral behaviour.
I also believe that a lot of people who are labeled 'insane' due to gross immoral behaviour are perfectly sane, and are exercising their conscious decision making process in a direction which most the community find objectionable. We label them 'insane' partly as a societal control mechanism (reinforcing the discouragement of the behaviour through stigmatism), and partly as a panacea to ourselves, so we can keep pretending that a sane and rationally thinking human being would never commit such acts.
The unfortunate fact is that sane and rationally thinking human beings are the most dangerous, and are perfectly capable of and willing to commit the most heinous crimes.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
I believe that abnormalities are instructive in that they have the potential to increase our understanding of "normal" behavior. So while most people cannot claim that they were "insane" or that they were suffering chemical imbalances that rendered them incapacitated, I believe that abnormal events like bipolar teach us something about how the brain works. If our moral behaviors and choices are unrelated to the chemical levels in our brains, then why, when the levels change to an "abnormal" extent in some individuals, is the direct result behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality? There is obviously a connection between the chemical and hormonal make up of our physical brains, and people accept that for the "abnormal" cases, but seem to resist it for behavior within "normal" range.
I think that human beings evolved the way we did because our physical construction, so to speak, resulted in behaviors and tendencies that enabled the human beings to survive and reproduce at a more successful rate than others who perhaps had a different make-up. Most people, at least those who accept evolution, wouldn't argue this point when it comes to our physical characteristics. But many people have difficulty accepting this proposition when it is also applied to our brains and its construction, including the chemical and hormonal balances.
It doesn't make sense to me to accept that yes, in "abnormal" cases, behavior and thoughts that are thought to be in the realm of moral choices, are the result of chemical imbalances, but then to argue that in "normal" cases behavior and thought are not related any more to those same chemical and hormonal issues. I know no one has explicitly made that argument, but it seems to be the inevitable logical end of arguing that our behaviors and thoughts are independent, in "normal" people, of the chemical and hormonal soup that so clearly is involved in "abnormal" cases.
Robert Wright explained it in this manner, more or less (too tired right now to look up the exact quote, I'm in bed with a bad cold this weekend). Think of dials on a radio. The dials on the radio can be adjusted within the set range of the dials. Our individual biological construction has set the range of the dials. The environment in which our brains were developing also interferes with the set. Our choices can adjust the exact set, but those choices are constrained by the predetermined range.
I actually think that changing people is extraordinarily difficult, and usually unsuccessful. Often, when analyzed more closely, the "change" is simply a slight reset in dials. I'll use an example I have some personal experience with, unfortunately. People who seem to be "set" to be abusive can sometimes change the exact setting, but they rarely seem to completely alter the behavior. People who were, in the past, physically abusive can sometimes be trained to stop the physical abuse, but usually they continue abuse and control verbally and emotionally. Another example with which I have no personal experience, thankfully. People who are sexually attracted to children can be trained to stop acting on that attraction, but they cannot be "reset" in that they are no longer sexually attracted to children. Pedophiles who have been "successfully" rehabilitated stress that the offender must accept this, and must be constantly vigilant.
I do not believe that this means that people cannot be held socially responsible for their actions. Society must be protected from individuals who, for whatever reason, behave in manners that are harmful to other individuals. But I do not believe in being "punitive" towards those people. I believe that imprisonment should be geared towards separating those people from the rest of society and controlling their behavior. Rehabilitation can more realistically focusing on readjusting the set dial enough to help the person function in society again, but I think the type of miraculous complete change that society seems to long for is unrealistic.
If I had more energy right now I would offer some instructive studies that seem to support this point. One odd one that comes to mind is that the size of male testicles in human beings has a correlation to whether or not that particular male tends be sexually monogamous. If I feel better later, I'll look up that one because it is so interesting.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:I believe that abnormalities are instructive in that they have the potential to increase our understanding of "normal" behavior. So while most people cannot claim that they were "insane" or that they were suffering chemical imbalances that rendered them incapacitated, I believe that abnormal events like bipolar teach us something about how the brain works.
Yes, I agree.
If our moral behaviors and choices are unrelated to the chemical levels in our brains...
They aren't unrelated, but they aren't caused by them either (unless you're a complete determinist).
...then why, when the levels change to an "abnormal" extent in some individuals, is the direct result behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality?
Because the decision making process is impaired. And the fact that that's only the direct result in some individuals, with some pathologies, proves that looking at chemical levels in people isn't a reliable way to predict immoral behaviour. Two people can both experience chemical imbalance, but the imbalance will not necessarily be the direct result of 'behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality' in both individuals.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Because the decision making process is impaired. And the fact that that's only the direct result in some individuals, with some pathologies, proves that looking at chemical levels in people isn't a reliable way to predict immoral behaviour. Two people can both experience chemical imbalance, but the imbalance will not necessarily be the direct result of 'behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality' in both individuals.
Tell me how you understand the decision making process is impaired. Also can you clarify what you mean by this statement?
Two people can both experience chemical imbalance, but the imbalance will not necessarily be the direct result of 'behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality' in both individuals.
I think you may have meant to say that the same imbalance will not result in the same behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality?
If that's what you meant to say, I don't know how you would ever provide adequate evidence of this assertion. We just do not have the level of ability to measure exactly what is going on in the brain to assert that people have the same imbalance, and if it's not the exact same imbalance, then you cannot logically make the assertion you have made.
Let's take bipolar for example, since I have quite a bit of background knowledge in that particular illness. Certain behaviors are predictably linked to bipolar disorder - a good example is sexually promiscuous or inappropriate behavior. This is a behavior that most human beings are comfortable labeling moral and reflective of moral character. There are a lot of limitations on what we can assert about a group of people with bipolar disorder in terms of what is exactly going on in their brains, but psychiatrists who are familiar with the symptoms expressed by the disorder are quite comfortable listing this as a primary symptom of mania. Why does this imbalance so predictably result in this particular behavior?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Let's take bipolar for example, since I have quite a bit of background knowledge in that particular illness. Certain behaviors are predictably linked to bipolar disorder - a good example is sexually promiscuous or inappropriate behavior. This is a behavior that most human beings are comfortable labeling moral and reflective of moral character. There are a lot of limitations on what we can assert about a group of people with bipolar disorder in terms of what is exactly going on in their brains, but psychiatrists who are familiar with the symptoms expressed by the disorder are quite comfortable listing this as a primary symptom of mania. Why does this imbalance so predictably result in this particular behavior?
Because the section of the brain that deals with sexuality is the section of the brain that the chemical imbalance is in?
Isn't morality a cultural construct dependent on the society, rather than a defined concept across all societies? In a homosexual culture, heterosexuality would likely be considered immoral, wouldn't it? And vice versa?
Because the decision making process is impaired. And the fact that that's only the direct result in some individuals, with some pathologies, proves that looking at chemical levels in people isn't a reliable way to predict immoral behaviour. Two people can both experience chemical imbalance, but the imbalance will not necessarily be the direct result of 'behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality' in both individuals.
Tell me how you understand the decision making process is impaired. Also can you clarify what you mean by this statement?
What I mean is that a pathology of chemical imbalance in the brain leads to an impairment of the decision making process, which becomes affected by distorted perception and emotional response as a result. People do not make good decisions when their perceptions of reality and their emotional responses to reality are distorted.
Two people can both experience chemical imbalance, but the imbalance will not necessarily be the direct result of 'behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality' in both individuals.
I think you may have meant to say that the same imbalance will not result in the same behavior and thoughts that society views as indicators of morality?
Yes that's what I'm saying.
If that's what you meant to say, I don't know how you would ever provide adequate evidence of this assertion. We just do not have the level of ability to measure exactly what is going on in the brain to assert that people have the same imbalance, and if it's not the exact same imbalance, then you cannot logically make the assertion you have made.
I'm talking about 'imbalance' in the general sense of having the same basic pathology, not the exact same quantities of chemicals. We can certainly identify two people as having the same basical pathological chemical imbalance - we might diagnose them both as having bipolar, or a cognitive disorder. But their behaviour will not necessarily be identical, though they will share some common behaviours.
Let's take bipolar for example, since I have quite a bit of background knowledge in that particular illness. Certain behaviors are predictably linked to bipolar disorder - a good example is sexually promiscuous or inappropriate behavior. This is a behavior that most human beings are comfortable labeling moral and reflective of moral character. There are a lot of limitations on what we can assert about a group of people with bipolar disorder in terms of what is exactly going on in their brains, but psychiatrists who are familiar with the symptoms expressed by the disorder are quite comfortable listing this as a primary symptom of mania. Why does this imbalance so predictably result in this particular behavior?
Because the manic phase of bipolar commonly creates the euphoric state in which sexual drive and feelings of invulnerability become dominant. Why do bipolars suicide when they're in their depressive phase, not the manic phase? Because it's in the depressive phase that their feelings of worthlessness and futility become dominant. But that doesn't mean all bipolars are going to be sexually promiscuous or inappropriate, and it doesn't mean that a bipolar can't commit suicide when euphoric. Pardon my oversimplification of the processes involved, but for the purpose of the argument this will do.
These states increase significantly the likelihood of certain behaviours in certain situations, but it doesn't mean that the individual's behaviour has suddenly become deterministically programmed. They haven't lost their decision making capacity, it has simply become impaired. Sometimes it may not even be impaired significantly. A bipolar who makes the decision to kill themselves while in a depressive phase may still be making an entirely rational, intelligent, sane, and responsible decision.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
This is turning into an interesting discussion about an entirely different topic than the subject line would indicate. I'm not ready to give my response yet as I want to add some material and references, and I may not be ready to do that until later today, given how I feel. But I think we should start a new thread about just this topic to continue and perhaps more people will contribute who aren't particularly interested in the original topic of this thread. I'll start a thread myself later if no one else has done so in the meantime while I'm getting my thoughts together.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.