What would you choose, if a choice you had?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
Mikwut,
It's an interesting question, but it's also problematic. If I were to have answered at about the time I was leaving the church, I would have said something similar in grain of physical continuance that the church teaches but with a lot of differences too. Now, I'd hope I'd be able to opt out of the question, else, might as well choose a harem and all kinds of crazy stuff but would probably chose something that would imply I'd become non-existent. So one problem is that what we want changes according to what we believe and how our expectations are shaped.
A couple other problems surrounding incomplete information. It might seem better to us as individuals or our society to just put a permanent hold on what we know and enjoy by contuning as we are now "in a more perfect state", but would that fix variables deep in reality in ways that complete screw up what otherwise would be far more impressive? I mean, at the fiat of some folks, and the universe is now 100 meters in diameter, everyone they don't like is in hell being punished for eternity and they are in heaven eating prime rib and singing 24/7. Sure, an argument could be made for picking that, but looking from the outside, there goes a whole slew of things that are superficially far more interesting not to mention what might be Branes clashing together or alternate realities and possibly endless other sentient beings and/or things we'll never have the chance to contemplate snuffed out so Billy Bob Jacobs can have one God ruling a universe he understands and just has the basic stuff for family pie parties and so on.
Being self-sacraficing and wanting the greater good, I could spend the rest of my life thinking about it, give my answer, then if things really were that way there'd be all kinds of stuff I hadn't planned on and couldn't be changed and here's this totally suck universe going on forever that I had conjured up. The same problem exists for the selfish universe to, no matter what I imagine, I can't possibly predict what is going to be best for me 239,000,000,000 million years from now, so either go with the harem or check out during this life would be what I'd have to opt for in the end. unless you could give a silly non-answer like, I'd want a universe with a God just like Mormonism belives in that will provide all the best wonders and fulfillment for me without me needing to stipulate what all that is in advance.
It's an interesting question, but it's also problematic. If I were to have answered at about the time I was leaving the church, I would have said something similar in grain of physical continuance that the church teaches but with a lot of differences too. Now, I'd hope I'd be able to opt out of the question, else, might as well choose a harem and all kinds of crazy stuff but would probably chose something that would imply I'd become non-existent. So one problem is that what we want changes according to what we believe and how our expectations are shaped.
A couple other problems surrounding incomplete information. It might seem better to us as individuals or our society to just put a permanent hold on what we know and enjoy by contuning as we are now "in a more perfect state", but would that fix variables deep in reality in ways that complete screw up what otherwise would be far more impressive? I mean, at the fiat of some folks, and the universe is now 100 meters in diameter, everyone they don't like is in hell being punished for eternity and they are in heaven eating prime rib and singing 24/7. Sure, an argument could be made for picking that, but looking from the outside, there goes a whole slew of things that are superficially far more interesting not to mention what might be Branes clashing together or alternate realities and possibly endless other sentient beings and/or things we'll never have the chance to contemplate snuffed out so Billy Bob Jacobs can have one God ruling a universe he understands and just has the basic stuff for family pie parties and so on.
Being self-sacraficing and wanting the greater good, I could spend the rest of my life thinking about it, give my answer, then if things really were that way there'd be all kinds of stuff I hadn't planned on and couldn't be changed and here's this totally suck universe going on forever that I had conjured up. The same problem exists for the selfish universe to, no matter what I imagine, I can't possibly predict what is going to be best for me 239,000,000,000 million years from now, so either go with the harem or check out during this life would be what I'd have to opt for in the end. unless you could give a silly non-answer like, I'd want a universe with a God just like Mormonism belives in that will provide all the best wonders and fulfillment for me without me needing to stipulate what all that is in advance.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
I don't buy into doxastic volunteerism. I think our faculties just impress upon us to think what we think outside of the scope of what we call our will. I think we can make choices that impact how our faculties will operate - for instance intentionally avoiding certain information - but that's a different matter. That said, if I could choose to believe what I wanted, I still would choose to believe what I consider most reasonable, as I'd consider that an ethical obligation.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
I know Juliann of MAD seems to (or least used to) believe that many scholars in the social sciences accept rational choice theory and as a result accept voluntary belief. Now rational choice theory in a field like economics just states that people make choices according to some ultimately coherent, stable set of rules, however complex it may be. However, in her total misunderstanding of the matter, she seems to think it means doxastic volunteerism is true. That's a complicated philosophical thesis that beliefs are volitional. It isn't even the domain of social science. As a result of this confusion, she tends to argue that anyone who doesn't think beliefs are choosen is opposing the scholarly concensus. She's pretty condescending about it. This despite the fact that involunteerism, if not a dominant view, is extremely well-represented in the field.
It's pitiful and insane at the same time. Without reading the MAD discussion, I'm putting two to one odds that she's doing this right now.
(On an aside, she also thinks that rational choice theory as applied to sociology of religion means that all religious choices are rationally made, therefore it is always wrong to say a religious view is irrational. Yep.)
It's pitiful and insane at the same time. Without reading the MAD discussion, I'm putting two to one odds that she's doing this right now.
(On an aside, she also thinks that rational choice theory as applied to sociology of religion means that all religious choices are rationally made, therefore it is always wrong to say a religious view is irrational. Yep.)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
I think your disclaimers and explanations, mikwut & TD, help to make more sense of the orgininal assertion which was:
The idea of having "no meaningful choice" is what brought up the red flags for me.
mikwut responded with something that sounds very Dawkinsesque to me:
To my ears, this rings of determinism, which I reject and I thought most LDS do too because it is the polar opposite of agency.
This is a little different:
This is where we part company. I think it is indeed possible to delude oneself into believing just about anything one wants to believe. It all depends on how desirable the belief is. I will grant that it can take time and effort, but I think there are poeple who have indeed chosen to believe certain things because they want to. Hence, in my estimation, they indeed have a meaningful choice in terms of what they choose to accept as support for their desired belief and what they choose to reject. To argue against that ability to autonomously choose, is to agree with Dawkins that everything is cosmologically pre-determined by previous causes.... hence the next time my wife complains that I am spending too much time posting, I can merely point out that I am not responsible because I had no choice in the matter.
I am perhaps too much of a believer in free-will... but then... I think that's my choice.
We are in agreement that people have no meaningful choice regarding their beliefs.
The idea of having "no meaningful choice" is what brought up the red flags for me.
mikwut responded with something that sounds very Dawkinsesque to me:
The basic thought is that most of our beliefs aren't volitional, they are dispositional - we can't help them they simply obtain as responses to states of affairs in the world.
To my ears, this rings of determinism, which I reject and I thought most LDS do too because it is the polar opposite of agency.
This is a little different:
Faith is not simply reducible to belief and my understanding of it scripturally is that belief is the rather mundane ("even the demons believe") part of the synergistic composition of faith. We know our beliefs aren't (at least totally) voluntary, they happen to us and we experience that. I simply cannot believe the moon is made of cheese no matter my desire or choice in the matter.
This is where we part company. I think it is indeed possible to delude oneself into believing just about anything one wants to believe. It all depends on how desirable the belief is. I will grant that it can take time and effort, but I think there are poeple who have indeed chosen to believe certain things because they want to. Hence, in my estimation, they indeed have a meaningful choice in terms of what they choose to accept as support for their desired belief and what they choose to reject. To argue against that ability to autonomously choose, is to agree with Dawkins that everything is cosmologically pre-determined by previous causes.... hence the next time my wife complains that I am spending too much time posting, I can merely point out that I am not responsible because I had no choice in the matter.
I am perhaps too much of a believer in free-will... but then... I think that's my choice.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
Roger wrote: is to agree with Dawkins that everything is cosmologically pre-determined by previous causes
I doubt very much this is Dawkins position, can you support it?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
marg:
Guilty.
Let me rephrase....
....from what little I have read of Dawkins and according to my understanding of the type of thinking Dawkins is famous for.....
...does that cover my bases, yet?
Actually, though, since Dawkins is not here to defend himself, I'm more interested in your take on things....
Simply put, to me there is a fundamental contradiction between the idea of free-agency and naturalism/determinism (which is usually the wv most atheists adopt). Do you agree?
I doubt very much this is Dawkins position, can you support it?
Guilty.
Let me rephrase....
....from what little I have read of Dawkins and according to my understanding of the type of thinking Dawkins is famous for.....
...does that cover my bases, yet?
Actually, though, since Dawkins is not here to defend himself, I'm more interested in your take on things....
Simply put, to me there is a fundamental contradiction between the idea of free-agency and naturalism/determinism (which is usually the wv most atheists adopt). Do you agree?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
I'd be shocked if Dawkins wasn't a determinist. I can only wonder why someone would doubt very much that is his position.
However it doesn't follow from determinism in of itself that beliefs are involuntary. One could be a compatibilist with respect to this.
However it doesn't follow from determinism in of itself that beliefs are involuntary. One could be a compatibilist with respect to this.
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
Roger wrote: Simply put, to me there is a fundamental contradiction between the idea of free-agency and naturalism/determinism (which is usually the wv most atheists adopt). Do you agree?
I don't generally like philosophy, it reminds me too much of religion.
As far as what do I think. I think in science it is recognized that phenomena can be predicted and natural physical laws derived because of that. But I don't think science assumes at every level of phenemena there is predictability, in particular at the quantum level.
So science and understanding the universe is still an evolving process and I don't think it can be assumed that everything in the universe is entirely predictable.
As far as individuals and choices they make, I think most are responsible. It serves no benefit to take the responsibility off of an individual and blame something else, even though of course environment plays a factor in the choices one makes.
I don't know if that addresses your question or not.
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
truth dancer wrote:
When I look at the brilliant night sky, I find it impossible to believe that LDS doctrine can possibly be the fullness of truth, that God cares about special handshakes or clothing, that there is any need for authority, keys, or some special power given to a few men. I can't believe we are all being tested, that God is punishing or rewarding behavior, that our actions will result in some sort of eternal consequence (as described in LDS teachings), that families will be separated if some can't believe in Joseph Smith, or that God is as cruel, dishonest, confusing, and messy as I find the LDS god to be. I can't force myself to believe the God of Mormonism is at the helm of creation. I just can't.
Hi TD,
I notice in your post that you prefer to default to Joseph Smith rather than JC. Would the substance of your remarks reflect differently if Joseph Smith was replaced with JC? I say this because I think that if you default/reflect your issues to the imperfectness of Joseph Smith there is the danger of leaving JC out in the cold with no voice, so to speak.
Regards,
MG
Re: What would you choose, if a choice you had?
Gadianton wrote:I can't possibly predict what is going to be best for me 239,000,000,000 million years from now, so...I'd have to opt for... a silly non-answer like, I'd want a universe with a God just like Mormonism belives in that will provide all the best wonders and fulfillment for me without me needing to stipulate what all that is in advance.
Is that so silly? Especially with as little as we actually know about anything substantial?
Regards,
MG