Stamps1962 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 My father was a Baptist minister. He had lots of irrational beliefs, including that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the dinosouars were all killed by Noah's flood. There are fundies who believe in the 'apparent age' idea; the earth was created 6000 years ago but with signs of being much older- God is testing our faith and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't really know the solution here. I respect that people are going through those stages and that anger is a normal part and some may reject ALL spirituality, not just Christianity. At the same time... not every Ex-C feels the need to go to strict materialism. It doesn't seem productive for people to start moving into another form of dogmatism though. Rejecting all spirituality is different from saying all spiritual people are stupid or irrational and somehow 'lesser' than nonspiritual people. I get it's a necessary phase for a lot of people, but it still feels toxic to the Ex-C's here who aren't Ex-All-Spirituality. But I *am* sorry that you don't feel you can openly express your views without someone who still has spirituality feeling "oppressed or attacked". That's not right, either. You should feel free here. I don't "reject" spirituality because I'm angry. I reject spirituality because I have seen zero evidence for it. Stop attributing my (or anyone else's) lack of belief in anything outside the natural world to either closed-mindedness or anger. It is neither. Show me evidence of the supernatural or the spiritual, and I'll believe it, too. Until such time as I am proven wrong, I will maintain that nothing spiritual exists. I didn't say that rejection of all spirituality is anger. Are you guys just completely skimming over it every time I tell you my husband is a MATERIALISTIC ATHEIST. He rejects all spirituality and he is not angry. I am not saying ANY of the things about you guys that you seem to THINK I'm saying. And it doesn't matter how much I try to explain it you refuse to see it. This makes me EXTREMELY frustrated. You will continue to caricature my position and say I'm saying things that I'm not. First of all I have never made any claims about "you personally". I have no idea what's inside your mind. Nor do I pretend to. However... I have OBSERVED plenty of angry atheists. That doesn't mean "you" are angry. It doesn't mean people reject all spirituality just due to anger or due to anger at all. But when you arrive at your position during a state of anger then anger has something to do with it. You cannot separate yourself from your emotion and pretend you are Spock. But you *personally* may not have been angry at all while arriving at your position. But some people are. We are ALL emotional beings. All human beings have emotions and emotion plus reason informs most of our choices. I will not deny there is an emotional component to my worldview. Of course there is. But I also don't hold to something I find irrational. Being rational and having emotions are not contradictions. But we each are operating withing our own perception. What I find interesting is that you would deny emotions could play any role in your choices. If you are a materialist, by definition you must be deterministic... which means free will is an illusion and emotions, just as much as any other chemical state would define your reality all without your free will input. In a system where it's all just chemicals reacting... why does it even matter if you made a choice from "rationality" or "emotion" or a combination of both? Without free will "rationality" is an illusion all it's own. It's something we made up... but didn't apparently have the choice to make up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 And I know you don't know how someone could make such a claim. It's like we're from different planets. Well, except for the few actual fundy Christians on this site, I'm not sure you'll find a lot of spiritual believership on this website. Seems a lot of people here have not only shed just the Christian experience, but were so fed up that they shed everything that has to do with spiritualism. Atheism is big here. Though there are a variety of others who still have spiritual beliefs. To each his own. I also hang out on a couple pagan sites .... if I didn't, the people here might convert me to atheism..haha. There actually is decent chunk of a sub-population here who hasn't shed all spirituality. That's why there is an Ex-Christian Spirituality forum. But they mainly keep their mouths shut everywhere but the one little forum where they feel safe to share thoughts and ideas that don't support materialism as a given. And "were so fed up" is the point, here. I absolutely don't believe it was PURE logic and rationality and NO emotional component that led most of the people on this forum to accept no possibility of ANY spirituality. I'm not saying that makes them "wrong". I'm merely saying there is obviously an emotional component here. My husband is an atheist but he is not a dogmatist. He is an atheist in the sense that he lacks any belief in God and sees no personal need for a spirituality. He doesn't dwell on the issue. And I respect his viewpoint. He isn't obligated to see reality as anything more than the material or need or engage in a spirituality. re: convert you to atheism, I know you're joking, but if anything, some of the things I've witnessed only confirms my viewpoint. If you're saying there are haughty atheists that get bent out of shape when you say there might be something supernatural, yes I agree. There is most definitely an emotional component involved. Telling certain atheists that atheism (or science) is a religion is a great way to watch their blood boil because they have cast off that god stuff with extreme prejudice! :-) And their life is better because of that. Whether one wants to use the word religion to describe their passion for something or the comfortable warm fuzzy feeling they get reading a treatise on science, I really don't think the word is important.But some people take exception to being told science is a religion and will logically describe to you why. Words is words. They can be sorta true for someone and sorta not for someone else. In the case of beliefs or non-beliefs, there are buttons that will set off everyone. Well, not me , of course..hahaha. Have you noticed that Buddhists don't really care if someone doesn't like their religion? And the Christians I worked with while I considered myself Buddhist didn't care that much that I was Buddhist. Now if I had told one of those catholics I was an atheist...holy shit...watch out. Maybe it was just those particular people. I dont know. And no way I was going to tell them anything about my pagan interests. Pagan means Satan in their book. Now if science is a religion which holy book do they use? And who is god? Einstein? Hawking? Sagan? Or should we go ancient to make it more authentic. Like Aristotle? Someone who is dead is always better. I'm pretty sure I didn't personally say science was a religion. I was merely defending someone who claimed some people are "worshipful toward science". I understood what she was trying to express... that a lot of people who are materialists seem to make a lot of non-empirical statements that sound very much like faith statements... then somehow we devolved into this where I have an 'agenda' trying to understand why some people can't accept that maybe not them personally... but demonstrably observed materialistic human beings have sometimes proven to be irrational and dogmatic. The only thing I can conclude from this discussion is that materialists are somehow "superhuman" and all rules of how human nature works don't apply to them. They're "above it all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 To me, evolution looks like the creative PROCESS. i am a creative person for a living. I know how the creative process works. It doesn't pop out pristine and perfect. It's a messy process. And the end result is never perfect. There are always ways it can be improved upon. Supernatural Gods of monotheism, are, indeed irrational because they are internally inconsistent and contradictory. i.e. you can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and everywhere at the same time and have THIS world. But assuming evolution is a mechanistic/materialistic process IMO shows a lack of understanding of the creative process. The creative process is messy and imperfect but it does still require a consciousness to accomplish it. This isn't to say there MUST be a consciousness driving our reality... but... I don't think it's irrational to think it's a possibility. I think you're a bit closed minded on the issue of evolution and how the process works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 If you're saying there are haughty atheists that get bent out of shape when you say there might be something supernatural, yes I agree. There is most definitely an emotional component involved. Telling certain atheists that atheism (or science) is a religion is a great way to watch their blood boil because they have cast off that god stuff with extreme prejudice! :-) And their life is better because of that. Whether one wants to use the word religion to describe their passion for something or the comfortable warm fuzzy feeling they get reading a treatise on science, I really don't think the word is important.But some people take exception to being told science is a religion and will logically describe to you why. Words is words. They can be sorta true for someone and sorta not for someone else. In the case of beliefs or non-beliefs, there are buttons that will set off everyone. Well, not me , of course..hahaha. ... I'm one of those atheists who couldn't care less what other people believe as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on anyone else (and as long as they leave me, the public schools, and the government the hell alone!), but I do take great offense at those "spiritual" types who imply that we more "materialistic" folks are just too blind (i.e. that we're close-minded dumb fucks) to see the truth in whatever Truth™ they're professing. That's the same approach that fundigelicals often take when trying to recruit us back into christianity, and it's insulting and abusive. This is why I avoid the Spirituality Forum like the plague. If it makes you feel better. I don't think you're blind. I think you've got a different perception that me. That's it. I think science is incredibly valuable and has brought us a lot of really practical knowledge. I don't dismiss science or those who are materialists as "lesser than me". I just think they perceive differently. And that's fine. I don't really believe any of us has or can have the whole truth. And I don't believe one piece is empirically "superior" to another. I just wish we could all acknowledge we are human beings not driven primarily by "logic and rationality". We all make mistakes and we are all wrong about some things. I've yet to meet a single infallible human. Nor would I know where to start in figuring out how to ascertain that they were infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 To me, evolution looks like the creative PROCESS. i am a creative person for a living. I know how the creative process works. It doesn't pop out pristine and perfect. It's a messy process. And the end result is never perfect. There are always ways it can be improved upon. Supernatural Gods of monotheism, are, indeed irrational because they are internally inconsistent and contradictory. i.e. you can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and everywhere at the same time and have THIS world. But assuming evolution is a mechanistic/materialistic process IMO shows a lack of understanding of the creative process. The creative process is messy and imperfect but it does still require a consciousness to accomplish it. This isn't to say there MUST be a consciousness driving our reality... but... I don't think it's irrational to think it's a possibility. I think you're a bit closed minded on the issue of evolution and how the process works. You're free to think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 ...You are close-minded on this issue... You shouldn't label people. I don't think stating my opinion that someone is close-minded on a single issue is "labeling them". I didn't say he was close-minded PERIOD, just on this singular issue. Either way he is free to reject my label as it is only my opinion/judgment and not some empirical reality he must carry with him throughout all time. So you would be okay if someone told you that you were close-minded on a particular issue? Yes. And you did a little farther down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not saying ANY of the things about you guys that you seem to THINK I'm saying. And it doesn't matter how much I try to explain it you refuse to see it. This makes me EXTREMELY frustrated. You will continue to caricature my position and say I'm saying things that I'm not. Just a bit of constructive (hopefully) criticism then. Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate your responses. It's clear you are passionate about this subject and that comes across in your long responses but if you feel you are not being understood, it's likely due to the fact that your posts are very long and attempt to make too many points. Less is often more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 However... I have OBSERVED plenty of angry atheists. Perhaps you angered them by calling them materialists and closed-minded? Just sayin' 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yes. And you did a little farther down. I did it to see how you would react. If you can take it just as much as you dish it, then I'm okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not saying ANY of the things about you guys that you seem to THINK I'm saying. And it doesn't matter how much I try to explain it you refuse to see it. This makes me EXTREMELY frustrated. You will continue to caricature my position and say I'm saying things that I'm not. Just a bit of constructive (hopefully) criticism then. Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate your responses. It's clear you are passionate about this subject and that comes across in your long responses but if you feel you are not being understood, it's likely due to the fact that your posts are very long and attempt to make too many points. Less is often more. I think you're right about that. Part of the issue is that it's a very complicated thing. It's not like I can just explain my position in sound bytes. But it's human nature to pull out the one thing that I didn't express in the best way while ignoring/disregarding everything else. I understand people have more to do with their time than sit and tease apart all my verbosity. I just don't think it's possible to discuss something with depth from a shallow place. This is why I'm writing a book, LOL. I need to learn that when I perceive dogmatism in a person, that's just where they are at and I have my own blind spots to work on as well. And also that I cannot really get into what I think and exactly why without writing a book about it. And I can't "consolidate it" in a post. Which might make it more wise for me to not try to have these discussions at all. I always walk away, though frustrated, with more nuance... but I think ultimately it just serves to allow others to see me in ways which aren't true because perception clouds everything we do, say, and experience. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not saying ANY of the things about you guys that you seem to THINK I'm saying. And it doesn't matter how much I try to explain it you refuse to see it. This makes me EXTREMELY frustrated. You will continue to caricature my position and say I'm saying things that I'm not. Just a bit of constructive (hopefully) criticism then. Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate your responses. It's clear you are passionate about this subject and that comes across in your long responses but if you feel you are not being understood, it's likely due to the fact that your posts are very long and attempt to make too many points. Less is often more. Correct. I tend to skim over or even skip long posts. Most of the time I just take one piece of it and respond to. A few years ago, when I first got here, I wrote multi-page essays each time. But my responses have been shrinking ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yes. And you did a little farther down. I did it to see how you would react. If you can take it just as much as you dish it, then I'm okay. LOL I can. But I am trying to learn how not to dish it. It's been really productive (in some ways) for me to have these ranty conversations. (In other ways it's unproductive if it causes another person to misunderstand me and get upset about it.) Mainly because it's allowing me to start to figure out why "I think" there are these communication breakdowns between different philosophies and also... why it was bugging me so much. I'm still a work in progress, but this is a secondary anger I'm dealing with and working through. I'm not sure if this is a phenomenon that other Ex-C's who remain in a spirituality but still interact with those who feel contempt for spirituality... go through as well. But I suspect it might not just be me working through these feelings and issues. I'm trying to find a productive way to interface, but in trying to find that, there is conflict, which I really don't like even though I run headlong into it. (Another psychological quirk of mine I'm trying to figure out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not saying ANY of the things about you guys that you seem to THINK I'm saying. And it doesn't matter how much I try to explain it you refuse to see it. This makes me EXTREMELY frustrated. You will continue to caricature my position and say I'm saying things that I'm not. Just a bit of constructive (hopefully) criticism then. Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate your responses. It's clear you are passionate about this subject and that comes across in your long responses but if you feel you are not being understood, it's likely due to the fact that your posts are very long and attempt to make too many points. Less is often more. Correct. I tend to skim over or even skip long posts. Most of the time I just take one piece of it and respond to. A few years ago, when I first got here, I wrote multi-page essays each time. But my responses have been shrinking ever since. Yes, I want to get better at that. I think once I get my book done I'll have a lot of this out of my system and sort of "compiled in one place" so I hopefully won't feel the need to write War and Peace each time I post a comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 This brings up another point. IF materialism is true and there is "nothing" but this life... materialists tell us we have to "make our own meaning". So then... are atheists allowed to freely make their own meaning, but spiritual people are not? There is a huge difference between coercive religion and totally individualized spirituality that doesn't seek to harm or coerce others. If we all "make our own meaning" than a spiritual person's meaning should be just as valid as an atheist's since there would be no "empirical meaning". Further, if materialism is true, then so is determinism... which would mean that it is really an illusion that anybody makes their own anything... meaning... or anything else. i.e. no free will. So isn't it pointless then for materialists to get upset with non-materialists just over being non-materialists or to act as if they can somehow see their perceived rationality as an accomplishment? This would somewhat mirror my own view (I think). To some extent I think interpreting, "Nature" in a naturalistic sense, or interpreting more spiritually as a kind of "Gaia" is a matter of interpretation, and philosophy, although expecting it to give a shit about specific rituals you perform may be a stretch. With a deterministic worldview can one be proud they broke free of Christianity as if they somehow accomplished it with a free will and free thinking mind? 1. I'm not certain that all atheists believe in determinism. 2. Yes, Whether or not the world is deterministic or not that which make me, me is still me. I don't view determinism as being an impediment to free will. I view outside agents being able to do diddle with my decision making process to be that, whether deterministically or nondeterministically. Incidentally this is PART of what is irrational (to ME personally) about materialism. It is either irrational in it's set-up or in it's lack of application in the real world. i.e. nobody really behaves as if they don't have free will. And even atheists think they can "make their own meaning." However... if life is really random and meaningless, then even if you "could" make your own meaning... it would be a delusion, not much different than the "delusion of spirituality". So then... materialists are allowed to be deluded and make things up but non-materialists aren't? Which assumes of course the free will or free thought to make anything in the first place. Again, It's you who is saying that materialism leads to no free will. I so far haven't seen any real argument that this is the case. To me, evolution looks like the creative PROCESS. i am a creative person for a living. I know how the creative process works. It doesn't pop out pristine and perfect. It's a messy process. And the end result is never perfect. There are always ways it can be improved upon. Supernatural Gods of monotheism, are, indeed irrational because they are internally inconsistent and contradictory. i.e. you can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and everywhere at the same time and have THIS world. But assuming evolution is a mechanistic/materialistic process IMO shows a lack of understanding of the creative process. The creative process is messy and imperfect but it does still require a consciousness to accomplish it. This isn't to say there MUST be a consciousness driving our reality... but... I don't think it's irrational to think it's a possibility. Again I can see this as being a matter of interpretation. What is intelligence, does it have to look like our own intelligence. Personally I don't see as much of a stretch to think of the evolutionary process as alien decision making process alien to our own, dependent on what extra baggage you then decide to take along with that. Something which you might find interesting a long this line is the fact that currently some attempts at developing artificial intelligence, use evolutionary algorithms to do the "thinking". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think you're right about that. Part of the issue is that it's a very complicated thing. It's not like I can just explain my position in sound bytes. Again, just more, hopefully helpful critiques. There is nothing wrong with longer posts if it takes a longer post to respond. But TBH, I always find myself skimming your posts as opposed to reading every word because oftentimes they ramble and repeat. Personally I think there is a lot of room for consolidation in many of your posts I've read. I'm not saying any of this to be mean. I have a long background as a professional writer so I'm just trying to offer some suggestions that may help you be better understood and as such, hopefully less frustrated with the rest of us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 @Dagnarus, yes, I highly doubt what I consider the "Universal Consciousness" cares what anyone believes. Nor do I think there are rewards for being "more factually right" or punishments for not. It's my opinion that consciousness split off to experience itself in different ways. I think sometimes it goes to a bad place (i.e. torture, war, starvation, etc), but I think a totally materialistic experience is just as valid for Consciousness as a spiritual experience. i.e. I don't think perceiving the world with a spiritual layer makes me "more evolved". By the same token, though... if the material is all that exists and we "make our own meaning" then a spiritual meaning should be just as valid since none of it "empirically" means anything according to that view. re: atheists and determinism I agree, but I think that hardline materialism would pretty much "have" to be deterministic by definition. If I'm wrong about that I'm happy for someone to show me how. I think it all comes down to how one defines atheism, which is why I've "tried" to stick with the word materialist but may have strayed from that some. re: determinism and free will, I agree they don't "have to be" mutually exclusive concepts... i.e. compatibalism is an option along that continuum. But I don't see a way in which any kind of free will can exist beyond "illusion that we really have free thoughts and actions" inside a totally materialistic worldview. I would be interested in a materialist who believes everything is mechanistic explaining how free will could or might exist. I'm just not seeing it with the parameters they've set for their position. re: interpretation... I agree. But then I think everything in life is all about the interpretation. I don't think human beings an get "received wisdom" whether it's in the form of a "book from god" or a scientific study without interpreting it and determining what it "means to them". I think reality is highly subjective in that way. There may be a "thing in itself" but I don't think we ever directly interface with it. It's the whole Plato's cave thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think you're right about that. Part of the issue is that it's a very complicated thing. It's not like I can just explain my position in sound bytes. Again, just more, hopefully helpful critiques. There is nothing wrong with longer posts if it takes a longer post to respond. But TBH, I always find myself skimming your posts as opposed to reading every word because oftentimes they ramble and repeat. Personally I think there is a lot of room for consolidation in many of your posts I've read. I'm not saying any of this to be mean. I have a long background as a professional writer so I'm just trying to offer some suggestions that may help you be better understood and as such, hopefully less frustrated with the rest of us. I ramble and repeat because I'm trying to figure out better ways to say it. But I understand that that may be impeding people's ability/willingness to get through it. It's something I need to work on. I'm also a professional writer (both fiction and nonfiction) so I'm no stranger to the editorial process. I just have a harder time applying it to forums because I always feel pressure to "respond within some time frame". Which is silly. I think another part is... I'm in 'book mode', so I'm thinking in a "longer form". In books there is room to expound on an idea for pages without thinking the reader is going to lose interest or drop off. Forums aren't constructed that way. You have to be "really compelling" to keep people's attention through large blocks of text on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I would be interested in a materialist who believes everything is mechanistic explaining how free will could or might exist. I'm just not seeing it with the parameters they've set for their position. Let us consider a situation, Let's say my little sister is crying because her cat has been run over. What does it mean for me to have free will in this situation? Would it mean that I could do absolutely anything I wanted, what if I wanted to resurrect the cat? Clearly if free will requires that I be capable of possibly resurrecting the cat, free will is highly unlikely. Still we can restrict our requirements to just entail things which are theoretically physically possible, this is of course a long list, I could comfort my little sister and bury the cat, I could just ignore the situation, or I could do something darker, I could decide snap my little sisters neck to shut her up, or I could do something completely random like get on all fours and howl at the moon, or any number of things. Clearly the idea of me being able to do anyone of the things on this list would be troubling, How could I be me and be me and capable of snapping my little sisters neck just to stop her crying. To suggest that I could do absolutely anything in this situation is to ignore the fact that I have a concrete identity, that guides or "determines" what I will do in any situation. So taking this into account let's say that I'm a nice person, and that if we were to run this situation 100 times, each of those 100 times I comfort my little sister, I essentially have to help my sister because of the situation and because of who "I" am. Would that make me an automaton? I would say again, this comes down to interpretation, In the one sense I can say because it's "deterministic" it not free will, Or I can say that because my actions are an extension of who I am that is in essence free will, it is the expression of what is me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 @Dagnarus I agree that people don't act against their own nature. But that basically comes down to... people won't do what they won't do. You don't want to snap your sister's neck. Who you are as a person will never want to. But of course that doesn't make you an automaton. I'm willing to see shades of gray in the determinism/free will argument. (In fact I can accept both situations existing in different circumstances.) But that's an argument we can have with or without materialism. Materialism insists that everything is this naturalistic/mechanistic process. Basically we're left trying to understand how a universe came to be without consciousness... but then consciousness somehow "emerged" that could make actual "decisions" and somehow rose above materialism. If we reduce everything to materialism there can't be anything but strict determinism IMO. Strict determinism is irrational (again IMO). That doesn't mean strict determinism or materialism aren't true... just that they aren't rational positions for ME to hold based on my perception. It's the whole... I can't act against who I am. Basically what you've described to me is a legitimate philosophical position, but not one which I think makes sense within strict materialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 @Dagnarus I agree that people don't act against their own nature. But that basically comes down to... people won't do what they won't do. You don't want to snap your sister's neck. Who you are as a person will never want to. But of course that doesn't make you an automaton. I'm willing to see shades of gray in the determinism/free will argument. (In fact I can accept both situations existing in different circumstances.) But that's an argument we can have with or without materialism. Materialism insists that everything is this naturalistic/mechanistic process. Basically we're left trying to understand how a universe came to be without consciousness... but then consciousness somehow "emerged" that could make actual "decisions" and somehow rose above materialism. If we reduce everything to materialism there can't be anything but strict determinism IMO. Strict determinism is irrational (again IMO). That doesn't mean strict determinism or materialism aren't true... just that they aren't rational positions for ME to hold based on my perception. It's the whole... I can't act against who I am. Basically what you've described to me is a legitimate philosophical position, but not one which I think makes sense within strict materialism. From my point of view I don't really see what these things add. I.E. I don't see why my "Soul" for want of a better term would be any less special if a came up exclusively from naturalistic chemical reactions, and other physichal processes, than if had extra added "Spiritual" components. Also as at this point I can only see the two options of either determinism or nondeterminism, I don't see why I should really feel that my will becomes more precious, if suddenly there exists a random chance that I might bury the cat in the other side of the yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 For me the issue is that I don't really think a "soul" CAN come up through naturalistic, chemical reactions. My view is that matter comes from mind, not mind from matter. I just don't see any other way that is rational from my perspective. I understand others see differently. Spontaneous generation was discredited by Pasteur and others and yet... I'm told our entire universe with no conscious guidance or direction somehow came together as it did over a long long time where things randomly happened and then natural selection took it from there. I just don't find that logical, personally. But I admit that my way of seeing may be limited and unable to see what's there. But that could also be true of materialists... i.e. Near Death Experiences... maybe they just "fluff off" stuff that is there but they don't want to see it. This argument could be used for anything. I think most of the ultimate reality whether it is conscious or not is ultimately unknowable... at least as human beings. IF there is some type of afterlife then we may know in a broader way, then. I think the problem is that people assume a "god of the gaps" idea that some spiritual component has been "tacked on". I think consciousness is the ground of all being. It's the only thing I KNOW exists without doubt. It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.) To me that is far more solid either than the supernatural god assumption or the materialistic assumption. It doesn't make me right, it's just the only way I can logically see it. re: will... I think it's pointless to speak of an "unfree will". The word "will" in my opinion implies intention which implies some level of free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 One my professors once told me an anecdote about having a conversation with a guy from a different but very related field. It was only some time after this conversation that neither of them actually understood what the other party had said. The problem was the words and concept which each of them were using had subtly different meanings for each of them. I think this can explain a lot of the difficulty here. Ultimately concepts such as free will, spiritualism, materialism, naturalism are quite abstract concepts for which it is quite easy for two different people to have different meanings. For my part I have a difficult time truly understanding what I think free will is, let alone what you might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronxo Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You work at Fox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think the problem is that people assume a "god of the gaps" idea that some spiritual component has been "tacked on". I think consciousness is the ground of all being. It's the only thing I KNOW exists without doubt. It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.) To me that is far more solid either than the supernatural god assumption or the materialistic assumption. It doesn't make me right, it's just the only way I can logically see it. You should Google around to see if blind/deaf, from birth, people also dream like this... mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts