What would you choose, if a choice you had?

[_mentalgymnast]

I simply cannot believe the moon is made of cheese no matter my desire or choice in the matter.

Don't tell me it isn't so!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... ay_Out.png

Regards,
MG

[_Gadianton]

MG,

I could equally hope that the universe does not have a God, but just happens to be whatever it needs to be such that it's the best possible state of affairs, all things considered, for everyone.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

What I take from what Mikwut was asking is that if we were to create our own version of Sim City with a cosmological twist in that we could create a reality that makes sense...what would it look like?

You mention determinism as being a component of this cosmological view that we ought not to entertain. But I don't see how we can get around it. If we as sentient beings are capable of thought and understanding to any degree in regards to our surroundings and environment, we determine what our thoughts and understandings will be in regards to the perceptual input that we receive and process. We choose what to believe and what to be. Deterministic behavior. God and certain forms of religious dogma may only be deterministic in the sense that the creator may have a pretty good idea of what our determination will be (thoughts, actions, beliefs, etc.) and how determined (holding on to the rod, so to speak, of our beliefs) we will be over a span of time. Knowing the end from the beginning and all that.

I don't see a conflict with agency here anywhere.

In answer to Mikwut's question I would not hesitate to say that I would create a piece of cosmological software which would make allowance for a whole lot of variables and conditions in the human predicament. And that those allowances would allow for and then default to the potential of progressive happiness and growth in the long run...the eternities. Mormonism's kernel OS fundamentally provides for that.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

I could equally hope that the universe does not have a God, but just happens to be whatever it needs to be such that it's the best possible state of affairs, all things considered, for everyone.

You would with this hope be projecting an anthropic bias I suppose. This can bring a certain amount of satisfaction knowing that all is right with the universe when all is said and done. Mormonism wouldn't challenge that fundamental viewpoint.

Regards.
MG

[_marg]

With regards to Dawkin's being determinist philosophically..apparently he's not.

I thought this explanation was well written:

What philosophers think By Julian Baggini, Jeremy Stangroom

[_Roger]

marg:

First regarding Dawkins.... this kind of reading requires a lot of time to decypher. I skimmed the article (only because my time is severely limited), but here's what I suspect.... Dawkins may deny that he is a determinist using semantics to do so, but I suspect that were I to take the time to get into what he is actually postulating determinism is unavoidably in the mix. That is my opinion... I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Quite frankly I can't see where free agency comes from in a purely natural world.

Nevertheless, that's why it's much easier to simply talk to you because you are here to interact with and we don't have to play semantic games. So.... you state:

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.

Yes, actually, I agree. Actually I think the quantum theory stuff supports the concept of agency, due to it's unpredictability. But I'm by no means a scientist so this is all just speculation on my part.

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.

I agree, but I do not see how that meshes with a totally naturalistic world view of the universe. How could it not all be predictable? What element beyond the natural are you postuling and how would you define such an element? Where does the unpredictable "factor" of the universe come from? Is it something observable? Testable? Quantifiable? Or is the unpredictibility of the universe another way of saying "God"?

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.

Well we agree, but you've just made a huge leap.... we're talking about a natural universe and now you've brought up the concept of "an individual".... and invidual what? No doubt you mean a "human." But a human--according to science--is simply a highly evolved, complex combination of matter. I don't know if you would call an ant an "individual" or if you would have a sparrow making "moral choices" but you seem to take that for granted with humans. In other words, is there something transcendant about humans--that science cannot identify? Or are they simply the sum total of their biological parts?

How do you know such indivduals actually make choices? Isn't it also possible--indeed probable in a universe without a designer--that the concept of "choice" is really an illusion? When you consider the big picture, we are less than grains of sand on Maui. If there is no designer, then the materials that make up your body are simply a complex combination of molecules and the part of you that thinks is merely the chemical and electrical reactions and resulting sensations of the physical interaction of trillions of molecules in and around you. If we knew what was going on inside of each of your genes, we could predict your every move... no?

From what I do remember of Dawkins, everything boils down to your selfish genes desire to self replicate--whether you realize it or not. Therefore every alleged "choice" you make is ultimately determined by the self-interest of the genes that you are made of. What looks like free choice is really an illusion created by the fact that there are trillions of genes interacting with one another.

Now that's my simplified, layman's understanding of Dawkins point of view. If you think I'm misinterpreting him, please let me know how.

I don't know if that addresses your question or not.

Well obviously you addressed the question, I am just not convinced you've really taken the implications of a "no designer" philosophy to it's ultimate end. Let me ask you this.... since you postulate "no God" and since I think that is because you do not like religion, are you still open to something we won't refer to as "God" but that nevertheless is a higher power and is responsible for the "first cause" ? Or do you prefer the idea that only what we can actually observe in the natural world (universe) is real?

[_EAllusion]

With regards to Dawkin's being determinist philosophically..apparently he's not.

Uh, that just says Dawkins is not a genetic determinist. Genetic determinism refers to traits of an organism being solely determined by genetic states (as opposed to complex interactions between environment and genes, epigenetic factors, etc.) You know, gene X causes trait Y instead of gene X predisposes trait Y to extent Z. Determinism is the notion that current states are caused by prior states. Someone like Dawkins most likely thinks quantum indeterminacy is right or is at least plausible, but on the macro scale brain states are caused. He's a physicalist, so he thinks mental states obtain from those brain states. That would effectively make him a determinist in the sense relevant to this thread.

I guess it would help if you weren't so suspicious of philosophy. Then you would've been able to properly read that.

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG... nice to see you!

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

I used Joseph Smith because in the LDS church, if one doesn't believe in him and his story, they are flat out, out of luck. If people aren't sealed, they are separated. Period.

While of course I don't buy into the "good people go to heaven and bad people burn in hell for eternity," or people who believe in Jesus go to heaven and those who don't live with Satan forever," and could never believe in a God who created such a plan, still there is something a little different when all that is required to qualify as "good" (hence go to heaven), is a belief in God rather than the convoluted requirements of Joseph Smith, and belief in the man.

To be clear, if there was a personal man/God/being up in heaven who had a plan (not sure if mainstream Christians use this word), I truly can't imagine this God would be anything like the God of the Old Testament, the God of Mormonism, Allah, Zeus, Thor, or any other God invented by the men who created them.

I think people create the God that suits them; God is a reflection of the beliefs/desires held by the devotee.

Just how I see it...

~td~

[_marg]

I agree, but I do not see how that meshes with a totally naturalistic world view of the universe. How could it not all be predictable? What element beyond the natural are you postuling and how would you define such an element? Where does the unpredictable "factor" of the universe come from? Is it something observable? Testable? Quantifiable? Or is the unpredictibility of the universe another way of saying "God"?

Ok this stuff I've not given much thought to. And I'm not into philosophy and its jargon...so I'll just say what I think.

I think that when it comes to consciousness it is not deterministic. And I guess that means that in essence I'm saying there is something more than just the mechanistic operation of the brain. I think a person has control over their thoughts..makes random choices. I believe some people might refer to that as a soul, but I just think we don't understand consciousness and how it works.

Well we agree, but you've just made a huge leap.... we're talking about a natural universe and now you've brought up the concept of "an individual".... and invidual what? No doubt you mean a "human." But a human--according to science--is simply a highly evolved, complex combination of matter. I don't know if you would call an ant an "individual" or if you would have a sparrow making "moral choices" but you seem to take that for granted with humans. In other words, is there something transcendant about humans--that science cannot identify? Or are they simply the sum total of their biological parts?

I think there is something that science cannot identify. (thanks for helping me out there with words) There are organisms which make choices without a brain...there are insect eating plants..and jellyfish without brains..ok now i'm going the other way..because they act when acted upon..so I'm arguing against myself. But with animals and their brains..intuitively I think there is something in the way the brain functions which allows it to control itself..make random choice, not a function solely of cause and effect.

How do you know such indivduals actually make choices? Isn't it also possible--indeed probable in a universe without a designer--that the concept of "choice" is really an illusion?

That's possible, but intuitively I do feel I can make choices.

When you consider the big picture, we are less than grains of sand on Maui. If there is no designer, then the materials that make up your body are simply a complex combination of molecules and the part of you that thinks is merely the chemical and electrical reactions and resulting sensations of the physical interaction of trillions of molecules in and around you. If we knew what was going on inside of each of your genes, we could predict your every move... no?

I think even if we knew what was going on inside each gene, that a person via consciousness makes choices. However I don't feel the need to assign this to a God. Instead I think we don't understand how consciousness works.

From what I do remember of Dawkins, everything boils down to your selfish genes desire to self replicate--whether you realize it or not. Therefore every alleged "choice" you make is ultimately determined by the self-interest of the genes that you are made of. What looks like free choice is really an illusion created by the fact that there are trillions of genes interacting with one another.

I'm not sure that entails there can't also be random choices by the brain.

Now that's my simplified, layman's understanding of Dawkins point of view. If you think I'm misinterpreting him, please let me know how.

It sounds like you know what you are talking about with regards to his book, haven't read it but from what I've gathered you appear to be representing him correctly.

Well obviously you addressed the question, I am just not convinced you've really taken the implications of a "no designer" philosophy to it's ultimate end. Let me ask you this.... since you postulate "no God" and since I think that is because you do not like religion, are you still open to something we won't refer to as "God" but that nevertheless is a higher power and is responsible for the "first cause" ? Or do you prefer the idea that only what we can actually observe in the natural world (universe) is real?

I don't have the position that God/creator doesn't exist. However I don't have a belief that one does. I have a belief that any man created, interfering with mankind type Gods such as the biblical one does not exist.

I don't think I can accept conceptually a first cause by a conscious entity/God..because it wouldn't solve where they came from.

Ultimately I think it boils down to not understanding the universe. Perhaps understanding natural physical laws is simple, obvious and explains only a small portion of what there is to know. And we are limited in our perception by our sense apparatus and lack of tools.

by the way...I will be going away this weekend as of tomorrow and no internet access..so if there is something by the end of the day to respond to, it won't be until Monday.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think people create the God that suits them; God is a reflection of the beliefs/desires held by the devotee.

I agree. I also agree with your views regarding the God of Mormonism and/or the Bible. As you have caricatured him anyway. I'm hung up, however, as to whether your caricature is correct/complete. If it is, then I''m with you. But I'm not convinced that we are able to really come to grips as to who or what the god of Mormonism really is, or what he's really all about...completely.

After all, if Brigham Young had difficulty doing so then...

Regards,
MG