Debate on Philosophy and Religion

[dogman6126]

An interesting article on the current paradigm of science’s answer to the free will question - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/proceed-your-own-risk/201311/do-we-have-free-will

That isn’t what I feel to be right though.
I think we do have free will and can explain further if you like.

I love the free will debate.
From your article:

The free will issue is especially thorny because it represents a collision between two opposing, yet equally valid, perspectives. From a purely metaphysical perspective, if we don't have free will, why are we here? What is the point of life if we cannot choose our own paths? Yet from a purely scientific perspective, how is it possible that anything can occur without having been caused by something else? If we really can choose, then these choices must be uncaused - something that cannot be explained within the model of science that many of us rely on.

The part I bolded I disagree with. That isn't what free will says. That is one possible conception of free will, but the conception of causal free will is far more common. The part I italicized I also disagree with. That isn't what choice means.

A simple definition of choice from google;
"an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."
The only part that has any resemblance of metaphysical effect is the idea of "two or more possibilities". But we can hash out two or more possibilities in the realm of counterfactuals. And I argue that is what we do naturally when talking about choice. Consider my choice between an apple and a cake slice. Say I have a general tendency to desire the apple for its healthy value, and the cake for its delicious value. Suppose in case one I go with the apple because I am more concerned with the marathon I am doing tomorrow. Well, in describing the choice here, we basically say something to the effect, "had I thought differently, I could have taken the cake". And really this is exactly true. Had I been more vulnerable to the deliciousness of the cake, then I would have gone with the cake. But that vulnerableness is a reference to a psychological phenomenon, and is a part of the self. Had myself been slightly different, I would have wanted (and taken) the cake. This can be seen where if I encounter another scenario with the same option, then it is very possible for me to choose the cake. Yes this is to say a different situation entirely, but if we allow for continuity of personal identity then we realize the difference between the two cases is within the self. Which is completely fine.

Okay…I will rephrase my response to be more specific - extreme conservative religious ideology (and I’m not just picking on the Christians, ISIS is terrible).
I think everyone should be able to believe and practice whatever religious/spiritual beliefs they hold true so long as it doesn’t impact someone else unwillingly in negative ways. i.e. - Regardless of your religious stance on Gay rights, your religious beliefs cannot and should not dictate or influence the law of the land unless it is an overall general societal moral viewpoint of that time.
(and even then, those sometimes need to be challenged)
And yes…there is the opposite extreme to this as well.
I just find it funny that people in this country who consider themselves Christian feel persecuted.
Really? Who is stopping anyone from doing anything? OMG, you have to bake a cake for a gay couple….God will surely send you to Hell for that one.
What would happen if a Muslim bakery in the US refused to serve Christians? Hahahaha….they would probably be murdered and the business burned to the ground.
No Christian in the US is persecuted.
They don’t know what persecuted is then.

I do agree with this. Those Christian groups who claim they are being persecuted are being far to dramatic. In a society of free religion, you can't expect your religion to dictate the government. It gets sketchy because morality is tied up with the religious ideology, what God says, so to not follow the religious practice is against morality. And I think it's perfectly fine to shape a government on the basis of morality. So we have conflicting responses.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

Free will is more than choices. It is also about imagination. We can conceive of new things and make fictional choices. We can choose to invent things that don't exist yet. We can attempt things that we aren't sure will work. We can choose to explore complete unknowns, being entirely unsure of any possible benefit and even having no reason to do so. We can choose between purple tentacles and blue tentacles. And I can kick a funky rhyme as an added bonus 'cause being funky fine is my operatus modus.

 

[sprinkles]

And seriously, what kind of universe conspires to make a lego toilet paper tachometer seem like an appealing option?

[video=youtube;Vcbz1nOZubQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcbz1nOZubQ[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

I love the free will debate.
From your article:


The part I bolded I disagree with. That isn't what free will says. That is one possible conception of free will, but the conception of causal free will is far more common. The part I italicized I also disagree with. That isn't what choice means.

A simple definition of choice from google;
"an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."
The only part that has any resemblance of metaphysical effect is the idea of "two or more possibilities". But we can hash out two or more possibilities in the realm of counterfactuals. And I argue that is what we do naturally when talking about choice. Consider my choice between an apple and a cake slice. Say I have a general tendency to desire the apple for its healthy value, and the cake for its delicious value. Suppose in case one I go with the apple because I am more concerned with the marathon I am doing tomorrow. Well, in describing the choice here, we basically say something to the effect, "had I thought differently, I could have taken the cake". And really this is exactly true. Had I been more vulnerable to the deliciousness of the cake, then I would have gone with the cake. But that vulnerableness is a reference to a psychological phenomenon, and is a part of the self. Had myself been slightly different, I would have wanted (and taken) the cake. This can be seen where if I encounter another scenario with the same option, then it is very possible for me to choose the cake. Yes this is to say a different situation entirely, but if we allow for continuity of personal identity then we realize the difference between the two cases is within the self. Which is completely fine.



I do agree with this. Those Christian groups who claim they are being persecuted are being far to dramatic. In a society of free religion, you can't expect your religion to dictate the government. It gets sketchy because morality is tied up with the religious ideology, what God says, so to not follow the religious practice is against morality. And I think it's perfectly fine to shape a government on the basis of morality. So we have conflicting responses.

This is what I said -

your religious beliefs cannot and should not dictate or influence the law of the land unless it is an overall general societal moral viewpoint of that time.

(and even then, those sometimes need to be challenged)

I don’t see that conflicting with your viewpoint. I’m not advocating for a country or society to NOT have or be based upon the morals of the time.
The morals of our founding Fathers’, are actually quite different than our current general moral mean that society follows.
It’s an ever-changing thing, but I cannot see how any law based on religious law that also isn’t a “common sense” type thing (like not killing each other), can exist without it being oppressive to those who do not adhere to those religious teachings and standards, and if this disagrees with current societal moral standards then it is destroyed.
Like the current gay marriage rights that the SCOTUS sided with.
Ten years ago…our morals in society were not the same.

There just is not a way to impose a religious law in the United States without ignoring everyone else’s right to freedom of religion and from religion should they so choose.
That was my main point.

Oh man…free will, it all really boils down to your own faith in what you believe to be true or bits you believe have truth to them.
What are your own specific beliefs regarding free will?
Do we have it? Is it regulated? If god intervenes in ANY affair of mankind wouldn’t that negate free will by not allowing the natural progression of your choice to unfold?

I happen to personally think that our mind and consciousness are (or can be) separate from what we would call the physical brain.
That still doesn’t mean that free will exists.
Time has to exist for free will to exist, for us to function and move forward through…but many physicists agree that time is very subjective, that everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, are all happening simultaneously. Can free will exist in such an environment?
From a religious perspective what is the purpose of free will if the ultimate goal is to give yourself over to the God you worship in every aspect including your own will?
Why would such an omnipotent being require your praise? Not just praise…but blind praise and faith, because some “veil” covers our full realization of God.
Why?

 

[dogman6126]

Sorry for not responding sooner! School is busy :/

This is what I said -
I don’t see that conflicting with your viewpoint. I’m not advocating for a country or society to NOT have or be based upon the morals of the time.

It's not meant to conflict with my viewpoint. I was thinking as I typed. My comment there was a change in perspective that I didn't point out, so sorry for that
By "we have conflicting responses" I was meaning from the viewpoint of a person deriving morality from their religious text while existing in a free religious society. Laws should definitely take into account morality, but by being a free religious society, one should not base laws on religion. Therefore, conflicting responses for such a person.

The morals of our founding Fathers’, are actually quite different than our current general moral mean that society follows.
It’s an ever-changing thing, but I cannot see how any law based on religious law that also isn’t a “common sense” type thing (like not killing each other), can exist without it being oppressive to those who do not adhere to those religious teachings and standards, and if this disagrees with current societal moral standards then it is destroyed.
Like the current gay marriage rights that the SCOTUS sided with.
Ten years ago…our morals in society were not the same.

There just is not a way to impose a religious law in the United States without ignoring everyone else’s right to freedom of religion and from religion should they so choose.
That was my main point.

Oh man…free will, it all really boils down to your own faith in what you believe to be true or bits you believe have truth to them.
What are your own specific beliefs regarding free will?
Do we have it? Is it regulated? If god intervenes in ANY affair of mankind wouldn’t that negate free will by not allowing the natural progression of your choice to unfold?

This gets interesting....I would say yes and no to that. For example, it seems possible for some to, by free will, ask a God to do X, and in so doing such a person is implying "it is my will that you can do X if you think you should". Subtly implied is to allow an override in an instance of free will. Further, we can talk about non-directed causes. Interference in such causes would not violate free will because no one has the will to do them. Then we can talk about all kinds of things that classify as non-directed causes. Further, a strict negation of free will does not rule out manipulation of free will. If free will is choice made given certain situations, one can manipulate a situation without interfering with free will. This would not be a "natural progression of choice" as you put it, but it would not "negate" or violate free will unless you hold onto the strict do-anything free will that I do not ascribe to.

I happen to personally think that our mind and consciousness are (or can be) separate from what we would call the physical brain.
That still doesn’t mean that free will exists.

True. On its own, that belief doesn't contradict most views. Even several views of materialism survive that perspective, but become more complicated. Also, as I'm sure you know, that view doesn't mean free will doesn't exist

Time has to exist for free will to exist, for us to function and move forward through…but many physicists agree that time is very subjective, that everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, are all happening simultaneously. Can free will exist in such an environment?

I would hesitate to apply any sort of qualification to the commonality of that view....but sure, we will go with that. And if that is the view we will assume, then that doesn't negate the possibility of free will. But before answering free will with that view, you must answer much harder questions about personal identity and perspectives (being the two things that pop in my head. I'm sure there are more)

From a religious perspective what is the purpose of free will if the ultimate goal is to give yourself over to the God you worship in every aspect including your own will?

To give a value to the giving oneself over. To choose to do so can apply greater importance than to incidentally do so.

Why would such an omnipotent being require your praise? Not just praise…but blind praise and faith, because some “veil” covers our full realization of God.
Why?

The answer to that question will probably vary between religions. Even to the point that some would deny blind praise of their deity. The effectiveness of a response each religion could return would also be variable.

 

[Lerxst]

It's time!

What do you believe in? Why?

Does your faith inform your every day life? Can you imagine life without it?

Is there such a thing as "free will"? What makes you believe what you believe?

Francis Fukuyama wrote a book that proclaimed the fall of the Berlin wall as the "end of history", since there is now little-to-no alternatives to capitalism and the free market. Is he right? Is there an alternative to the free market?

Has the world become a better place in the last 20 years?

What major changes to society do you expect to happen during your life-time? Positive and negative!

What are the biggest threats facing our world and society today?

Is the world getting better or worse at the moment?

I'm a Buddhist... just not a very good one (yet), since I have a strong sense of right and wrong and a stronger desire to fix what's wrong. I consider myself a student of Thich Nhat Han who was also an anti-war, peace activist Vietnam Monk, in Vietnam during the war. I'm just not even a fraction of the way to his level though!

I chose my faith. I retain freewill and the ability to chose how I follow it; such is the way of Buddhism where you're allowed and even advised to question is teachings. I can easily imagine life without it since I have lived without it for most of my life, but since I voluntarily chose it, I'd rather not live my life without it.

I believe what I believe because it's the one religion that practices what it preaches and has been put to the test over and over again and come out in better shape then most others. Few, if any wars have been declared in the name of Buddha, vs. how many Holy wars have Christians and Muslims declared? The religion embraces change and supports logic and reason, often existing in the same logical plane as science does - Science says something exists, Buddhists say, "I know". They don't have to denounce science in order to follow their philosophies.

The free market is fine and good as long as it isn't "free". Again, I'm not a very good Buddhist since I don't believe people are capable of establishing a Utopian society that treats everyone fairly. I've worked in industries that would happily work people 50 hours a week and pay them for 40, deny sick leave, fire people who miss work due to serious medical illness or injury, or terminate dozens of employees at a time simply because "they can" - a thinly veiled excuse because a higher up got pissed once too often. The Libertarian ideal of a free market creates a society based around fear of pain, suffering and torture for the average person. It can be argued that it drives people to be rich, but wealth is relative and even a rich person who's poorer than everyone else will still be poor.

The world has gone to Hell in a hand basket over the past 20 years. We've created entire generations of people who don't know any better and think violence and force is "the only way" since they were raised in and around that violence. We've created entire generations of terrorists due to that. We've also created entire generations of stupidly blind, flag waving "patriots" that worship the military and have a similar mindset as their enemies.

I'd like America to wake up and smell the Socialism for once. We've had Conservative Presidents who could easily be labeled Progressives due to their policies, such as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower. We were on our way to the goal when the industrial-military complex Eisenhower warned about, dragged us into a never ending slump of constant warfare and fear-mongering. Our social policies have stagnated, most notably, our education system. Now we have, again, several generations of un-educated people that would shoot themselves in the foot by voting for more policies that hinder and hurt them, than help them.

The human race is going to self-destruct. We cannot live without air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat. We're doing more and more to destroy those things, which can only lead us down one path. The Earth may survive, but our race more than likely won't.

 

[j654dgj7]

I believe in balance and the circle of life. I belive in the 4 Aspects of Being (my fanzy term)...emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual. Spiritual does not mean religion, it involves all those choices we make and the expressions that flow from them. Choosing to be helpful, courteous and the like are imo spiritual expressions...everything falls into one, often multiple Aspects, all our choices and the life experience we garner. Our goal is to find a way to balance these Aspects, to grow in our understanding of how we govern our life with our choices. Seek balance.

Where Something meets Nothing is where life exists. Draw a circle. What is contained inside the circle is defined, it is something...what IS Known is under the providence of the Mother. What is outside the circle is undefined, it is nothing....what IS Unknown is under the providence of the Father. Balance exists...that thin line, the circle is where life is able to exist between the two opposing forces and also thusly explains why we are all interconnected.

Additionally we each have our own circles of suasion. At our most basic we are the center of our universe, as we grow we begin to see our connection to family (the familiar Other) and next friends (the unfamiliar Other)...most stop here. But further along you can learn to understand and include tribal (if you have such cultural influence), city, state, nation, world, universe as you travel the Path.

In Native Tradition, you do not give Knowledge unless someone asks. You Seek many things, be sure you are ready to Listen because the Journey can be rough.

This is extremely fascinating to me. Have you read the Sri Isopanisad? It compliments your belief-system very well.

Listening is extremely important. Great insights!

I believe in a Christian God who loves and guides. In my view he is benevolent, omnipotent, omnisentient, and the epitome of morality and other "good".

How did you come to believe in the first place?

Completely unrelated: What's your relationship with Jewish beliefs? I'm very fascinated with the relationship between different kinds of Christianity and Judaism, especially since the official term for the West is "Judeo-Christian".

not an a day to day basis, but in times when my anxiety is high, or I am worried about something I can't help for whatever reasons, it is a true blessing. I could imagine life within my belief, but I feel that I would be a lot less hopeful.

I love the healing aspects of religion. I'm glad that it brings value to your life!

I argue yes, and also agree with determinism. I have written papers on this, and I do think they are compatible ideologies.

I would love to hear more about your take on determinism! How are they compatible?

I don't have major interests in politics and economics, but yes there are alternatives. Practical? some. Effective? some. Better? well, that's up for serious debate.....

It's a tough discussion. Has history let us down? I think that globalization and the end of the cold war has lead us to a homogenized world culture, where the free market and liberal theories are the only way of doing things. It used to be pro-west or pro-east. There was a "simple" choice of beliefs, and they fought for the minds and bodies of the world. Now it's all fluid. Rebelling against the status quo is suddenly a very intangible thing. I think that the homogenization pushes a lot of people to extremism, be it religious, political or economical. I fear that it will only get worse.

 

[j654dgj7]

I don’t really have a set of “beliefs” that I would say I adhere to. I rather like the line of questioning that The Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science asks - http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science
I think to discount ideas of theism and there being such a thing as a “soul” is short-sighted at best, at worst it is purposefully chosen ignorance to fit their already fully-formed belief system - which is just as bad as being overly theistic IMO.
I have my subjective experiences that have lead me to make certain conclusions that our reality is far more bizarre than we know.

A lot of interesting ideas here! Do you think that a post-materialistic world is possible? I can't imagine one on a global scale.
Do you believe in life after death?

Faith would be defined by people in different ways….to me, faith is the amount of spiritual control you have over your environment…yourself included.
It is part of life so to separate it would drastically change life as well. We all have faith that when we shut our eyes everything is still where we thought it was a moment ago, we have faith that today our heart will not stop, we have faith that someday something important to you will improve or come true, we have to have a certain amount of faith in ourselves to function as adult human beings. Faith can mean many things like I said.
So I can imagine life without it, and it would be robotic, but perhaps that is only my inability to grasp such an intangible question.
“Everything you have seen, every flower, every bird, every rock, will disappear and will become dust, but the fact that you have seen them cannot disappear”. Zen philosophy - That is faith.

Very well thought-out answer, thank you!
Do you define yourself as a religious person? Do you loosely affiliate yourself with a specific religion?

I think so, because I also think that our brains and minds are separate from one another, or at least have that ability. The current paradigm of science says that our brains are incapable of actual “free will”, that we are running a series of biological programs in our head that have already predetermined how we will react to this or that or what choices we will make - we only have the illusion of free will through the deception of the brain itself, that consciousness (in the definition of being able to self-reflect), is just the nature of the complexity built into the system and is a fluke in some circles of thought.
Once again, certain subjective experiences have shaped my view on this issue that would difficult to explain to someone without that background.

I think that habits are more powerful than we believe.

The free market will eat itself alive unregulated.
This is what is happening in the US right now. Capitalism eventually replaces Kings and Queens with the insanely rich and powerful. Nothing changes.
T. Pickety predicts, along with even some of the very rich, that if the issue of income inequality is not seriously addressed then there will be guillotines in the streets again. I happen to agree with him.

How would you regulate the free market? You don't have to be too detailed, just the broad strokes

I expect climate change and global warming to be addressed seriously by those with the power to make significant changes.
I expect serious times ahead for the US in the next decade.

I think the same will probably happen. The US is treading dangerous waters, I fear for its future. There's such a divide between the rich and poor, the intelligent and the willfully ignorant, the healthy and unhealthy. It's almost like the Weimar Republic!

War. Warmongers. War-profitters. Banks. Uneducated people. Conservative Religious Ideology. The United States in general.

What would you say to those that say that if the West doesn't engage in wars, the world will fall apart?

I will have to go with worse currently.

Let me rephrase the question; Do you think that technology has improved our lives, and the lives of those around the world?

 

[j654dgj7]

Was sent a few questions to answer multiple choice by a Congressman regarding the running of our country lately. I left all the answers blank and asked him if he really thought answering his questions would help when everything changes every day.

How would you react if you were in his/hers place? What would you do differently?

I want to believe in justice and mercy and that people change for the better. And when I'm at work I try to let that guide me you giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. But really that is very rare. People mostly stay the same.Living life makes me believe this. The law of the jungle is anarchy and capitalism. Civilization is working together. In the future I hope to see office fashion take a turn to be more comfortable. I hope to see ascots make a comeback. I hope that solar energy takes off. More trees everywhere. I hope we don't kill the rest of the animals because that will suck. The biggest threat to the world is that it doesn't need us and we are going to take it out with us.

All of the above sounds very reasonable and concrete to me! Cool. Do you think that those beliefs stem from your religious/spiritual experiences, or a more logical place?

 

[BrokenDaniel]

What do you believe in? Why?

I think i base my life on faith. Trying not to overstretch and delude myself on it though, i'm fairly succesful at it. As for belief systems, and religious institutions nothing fixed, nor commited. I have my reservations towards most of them.

Does your faith inform your every day life? Can you imagine life without it?

I base myself on it so yeah. I've always liked that quote that says that religion is the way you actually live.

Is there such a thing as "free will"? What makes you believe what you believe

?

I don't know. Experiece.

Francis Fukuyama wrote a book that proclaimed the fall of the Berlin wall as the "end of history", since there is now little-to-no alternatives to capitalism and the free market. Is he right? Is there an alternative to the free market?

When you see things at a broad perspective it could be. But there are always details that may be missing somewhere and misinterpretations. Overall i perceive a decadence in the western world, comfort and the quality of life took over our characters, capitalism may be a factor, but idk if he's right. I think there's something more intrincate. If there's an alternative to free market, there may be many if you take it out of context, but what i'm saying is that it's already deeply rooted on people, so i don't see the use on that. The other end of the spectrum being comunism leads nowhere.

Has the world become a better place in the last 20 years?

A more comfortable place for many of us i believe. Better, i guess not.

What major changes to society do you expect to happen during your life-time? Positive and negative!

I don't know.

What are the biggest threats facing our world and society today?

Depending which perspectives you take. I heard once the over population thing, and i thought it was idiotic to even worry about that. I mean, so many people consume much more than they produce.

Is the world getting better or worse at the moment?

I don't know.

 

[just me]

How would you react if you were in his/hers place? What would you do differently?

I reckon I respond enough already. Some people have the ability to add and subtract answers; some people might learn more sitting down with certain people for discussions. Explanations and reasons hold far more weight when trying to justify momentum in politics. My "YES" would be with an explanation that might possibly answer other questions before we got to them.

A simple yes and no does not help in most cases with the way the world is.

 

[dogman6126]

How did you come to believe in the first place?

Completely unrelated: What's your relationship with Jewish beliefs? I'm very fascinated with the relationship between different kinds of Christianity and Judaism, especially since the official term for the West is "Judeo-Christian".

I came to believe as a matter of choice. I realized that the arguments for and against religion both have merit. To the point that the minor advantage of science is trivial. Further, I like believing in God. There have been a few instances in my life where my believing in God was a very nice view.

To be honest, I'm very unfamiliar with Judaism. All I know comes from a world religions class I took freshman year in college.

I love the healing aspects of religion. I'm glad that it brings value to your life!




I would love to hear more about your take on determinism! How are they compatible?

The problem is because some people who argue against free will do not give it its due. There is more than one conception of free will. Some people take free will as needing to be completely unrestricted. I find this ridiculous because that is not what we mean when we say free will. What we really mean is that thing that we have in making a choice of our own accord that drives us through our life. It is used to derive morality and can help define us as individuals. Consider my previous paragraph. I said that I chose to believe in God, and I would say I did so of my own free will. A common argument against that statement is look, you didn't really choose anything. All that really happened is some set of neurochemicals in your brain respond well to some brain state (belief) which caused you to reinforce that belief. No choice was involved. I argue that such a stance ignores what the self is. If the self includes those neurochemicals creating a positive "liking" of some belief, then notice what they are saying. Basically, that argument is saying that I didn't make a choice because I am such that I like believing in God. Well this is ridiculous. It seems to me that my being the cause of my own belief, and being such that had I wanted differently I could have done differently, then I have free will. Notice that had I enjoyed not believing in God more, then I very well could have chosen not to believe in God. This is to cache our free will in terms of counterfactuals. Had I desired differently (been different), I could have done different. Obviously there is no free will in terms of neurochemicals because free will is intrinsic to the self. So we must talk about the self. Whether or not the self is deterministic doesn't matter. In fact, some argue a deterministic self is necessary for free will, but I don't know what I think about that.

 

[jimtaylor]

To answer each of your questions would require a novel at least and there is no easy answer to any of them. Often times, the best and most simple answer is, “it depends”. I will attempt to answer them as concisely as possible.
1) I am not a man of faith or religion. Nor do I consider myself necessarily an academic or a man of reason. I know what I know and that is very little and what I don’t know I question to such a degree that it is impossible to get a solid answer out of me. So what do I believe? I have no idea and for the time being I am at peace with that. I don’t know if there is an afterlife, god, past lives, a black abyss or hell. There a lot of things I do not know and of course, I would love to know them all but I am also at terms with not knowing. Sometimes it scares me thinking about death but even that is natural because certainty to me comes from experience. I control and plan for what I am able to control and plan for. Knowing if there is a god or gods or whatever would not likely change my perspective or way in life. The reason being is I can tell you that I would not follow the bible or other “holy” books written by humanity as the sole way to life ones life properly. Even if god or gods and an afterlife were proven to exist, until that deity presented before us and commanded exactly what they want, I would continue to live life how I see and feel it should be lived.

2) My lack of faith does inform my everyday life. I could see myself without it. I could see myself being extremely involved in a religion that I identified with but I wouldn’t be involved out of faith. I would be involved for the social aspect. I would do so for the sense of belonging and safety that being involved in such organizations brings. I would be involved for the comradery and the community. Essentially I would acknowledge and appreciate religion for the social construct, not the institution of faith.


3) Yes and No. In a sense everything in the universe is cause and effect. Did any of us influence the creation of all the matter in the universe? No. Did we take part in the creation of our own solar system? No. Are we a result of these things? Yes. We had no control over such actions happening and as a result, we exist. The universe is ever expanding, stars are birthed and die before their light even reaches us and life on other planets continues on without us even knowing it exists. A shift of a few small piles of dirt can cause an avalanche. We are the result of that and we are the cause of that. We have choice and our choices have consequences, the magnitude of which we have no clue. So do we have free will? Depends on which perspective you view it from. I had no choice in my birth, in coming into this world of the living but I do have the choice to make of it what I will.

4) Maybe. In this moment he is correct but if history has proven one thing, things come and go. When Rome was a republic and thriving I am sure they thought the republic would never fail. Then again when it controlled almost the entirety of Europe and it was said, “all roads lead to Rome”, I am sure they were certain history was over. Rome would rule the world for all time. History is never so simple or clean. An economic concept or political ideal will replace it at some point. For better or for worse, capitalism and the free market will fall. It is not infinitely sustainable. The more important question, how will it fall?

5) Medicine, education, technology, social media. There are so many ways the world has gotten better in the last 20 years but like always most of those things have a double edge.

6) In no particular order.

a. Simple alien life will be confirmed and then intelligent alien life will be discovered… and here is the kicker… It won’t change jack shit. The world will be shocked, the world will be awed but it won’t suddenly make Catholics become atheists, it won’t suddenly make Muslims stop praying, it won’t make Buddhists stop wearing their robes. It will be the greatest discovery of mankind and will quickly will become another reality of life. We will look back at ancestors who scoffed at ET as fictional stories and laugh at their stupidity.
b. World orders will be established. Just as I said capitalism and the free market will not continue on forever, humanity being run as hundreds of separate nations will continue to disappear. We have already seen this in the economic realm and a bit in the political realm. This will grow stronger and stronger until it either destroys us or unites us. The world is getting smaller and smaller.
c. We will run out of fossil fuels and we will cause irreparable damage to the Earth that requires us to either come up with technology to sustain life on Earth or face widespread panic as our lovely planets ability to sustain our population is stretched further and further, resulting in said world orders either fighting or unifying to save the elite. (Not all this will happen in my lifetime but the beginning will)
d. We will begin exploiting/settling Mars, the moon and other moons in our solar system.
e. AI will become a day-to-day aspect of our lives and will become as needed as Facebook is today
f. We will start replacing aspects of our bodies with technology to live longer and have those parts be more efficient
g. Computers will start to outsmart humans (Not terminator style)
h. In the United States and other nations, race will become less and less of an issue as more people marry outside of their own skin color

7) The ones we don’t acknowledge or see as immediate threats. Some of the aforementioned ones about world orders, globalization, climate. We don’t care because we aren’t drowning yet, dying of hunger, unable to drink clean water, feed our children, breath without getting sick, etc… It is fixable but it requires a concerted effort which is where the world orders and globalization come in. They can be a good thing or a bad thing. It all depends.

In some regards better, in others worse. The is the most peaceful humanity as ever been though it might not seem like it when you watch the media. That counts for something but we also destroying the world and unprecedented rate. The Earth is not limitless but try and tell someone to live in moderation and they will look at you like you are insane.

 

[Matt3737]

I am a believer in the compatibility of free will and determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

I hold panentheistic beliefs. I wish to amend the following quote that the distinction between divine and non-divine isn't quite accurate for me. All (everything and nothing) is divine to me though they be different manifestations:

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God"), also known as Monistic Monotheism, is a belief system which posits that the divine – whether as a single God, number of gods, or other form of "cosmic animating force" – interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical, panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.

In pantheism, the universe and everything included in it is equal to the Divine, but in panentheism, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, in everything and everyone, at all times. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God, like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism. Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to paradoxical transcendent Divine Panentheism, through intellectual articulation of inner dimensions of Kabbalah, with the populist emphasis on the panentheistic Divine immanence in everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

I believe every being to be an incarnation of God. Likewise, I believe in a version of universal reconciliation in that no soul has ever been separate from God in the first place. I find the idea that temporal sin should be met with eternal damnation to be an error of judgment. I do believe in good and evil (temporal concepts), but not sin or righteousness (eternal concepts) except as being synonymous with the preceding concepts. I believe God in the transcendent sense to be beyond the duality that our incarnate forms are manifestly concerned with.

In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God. The doctrine has generally been rejected by Christian religion, which holds to the doctrine of special salvation that only some members of humanity will eventually enter heaven, but it has received support from many prestigious Christian thinkers as well as many groups of Christians. The Bible itself has a variety of verses that, on surface seem to support a plurality of views.

Universal salvation may be related to the perception of a problem of Hell, standing opposed to ideas such as endless conscious torment in Hell, but may also include a period of finite punishment similar to a state of purgatory. Believers in universal reconciliation may support the view that while there may be a real "Hell" of some kind, it is neither a place of endless suffering nor a place where the spirits of human beings are ultimately 'annihilated' after enduring the just amount of divine retribution.

The concept of reconciliation is related to the concept of salvation—i.e., salvation from spiritual and eventually physical death—such that the term "universal salvation" is functionally equivalent. Universalists espouse various theological beliefs concerning the process or state of salvation, but all adhere to the view that salvation history concludes with the reconciliation of the entire human race to God. Many adherents assert that the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ constitute the mechanism that provides redemption for all humanity and atonement for all sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

I hold an eternalist view of time although with a compatibilist interpretation.

Eternalism has implications for the concept of free will, in that it proposes that future events are as immutably fixed and impossible to change as past events (see determinism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Free will and indeterminism need not exist as physical manifestations rather than human ideals for them to be said to still exist. We still make an existential claim to something when we say something doesn't exist (such as residing in the mind). I find either claim that 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' to be equally equivalent claims.

I am a logical trivialist or, more specifically, a dialetheist. I hold logical paradoxes to be an inherent, innate, and an unavoidable consequence of the mind's functioning.

Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms.

Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes false if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivialist when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Kurt Gödel demonstrated the incompleteness of formal mathematics with a paradox and I believe it to hold true for human reasoning (our incompleteness, inconsistency, as well as the paradoxes that arise) also:

In hindsight, the basic idea at the heart of the incompleteness theorem is rather simple. Gödel essentially constructed a formula that claims that it is unprovable in a given formal system. If it were provable, it would be false, which contradicts the idea that in a consistent system, provable statements are always true. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement. That is, for any computably enumerable set of axioms for arithmetic (that is, a set that can in principle be printed out by an idealized computer with unlimited resources), there is a formula that is true of arithmetic, but which is not provable in that system. To make this precise, however, Gödel needed to produce a method to encode (as natural numbers) statements, proofs, and the concept of provability; he did this using a process known as Gödel numbering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel

That's everything I can think of at the moment.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What do you believe in? Why?
Catholic.
At some point you probably have to choose believe something - when it comes to matters beyond the four dimensions we operate in. (Even atheism is a belief, founded neither on positive proof, nor absolute negative proof). I choose to believe the Christian claim of truth.

Does your faith inform your every day life? Can you imagine life without it?
Yes. It adds a positive significance to surroundings/things/people/actions.
Yes I can imagine life without it, but I think it would diminish a sense of value, and hence care/affection/significance for the little details of life; and especially for the whole-life bigger picture.

Is there such a thing as "free will"? What makes you believe what you believe?
Yes, the Catholic faith holds both that there is an absolute determinism (insofar as the whole universe is caused to exist through all time by God, who outside of time sees it all, and thus knows infallibly what has, is and will ever occur; and that we have a free will to choose and own our own actions/thoughts/decisions because we have knowledge/understanding of our choices and can freely choose. The two are not contradictory, but rather one is subsumed to the other.

Francis Fukuyama wrote a book that proclaimed the fall of the Berlin wall as the "end of history", since there is now little-to-no alternatives to capitalism and the free market. Is he right? Is there an alternative to the free market?
Globally, probably not. However, smaller subsidiary communities often practice a less-than-free market situation. Think of transactions within a family. (You are limited to a closed market, which neither has alternative sources of supply, nor alternative consumers). Similarly, social and occasionally external obligations limit our local/personal market situation.
By definition a global market (assuming there are different communities) must be free, and particular markets are either less, or completely restricted.

Has the world become a better place in the last 20 years?
To me it seems that some good aspects are in decline (such as social cohesion, even at the personal level in respect of one's literal neighbours); but others goods are more available. I can't judge whether it's better or worse.

What major changes to society do you expect to happen during your life-time? Positive and negative!
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a pendulum-like swing against social liberalism and multiculturalism. (Or just about any -ism). The reason I think this is likely is twofold: history seems to indicate such swings occur between decadent and austere mores. Secondly, social liberality seems to promote individualism on many levels, whereas social conservativism seems to promote group cohesion. At some point such cohesion is missed and becomes a need; while at other times such cohesion becomes an oppressive burden to escape.

What are the biggest threats facing our world and society today?
Not global warming. The geological history of our planet is a record of massive climate change, accompanied by mass evolution and extinction. I think pessimism and lack of adaptivity are big problems.

Is the world getting better or worse at the moment?
Neither. It is changing.

 

[just me]

Flavus, it is so true the world is changing. The world is accomplished for us. It is made for us. How someone cannot see this is beyond my understanding. 200 MPH sustained winds in a mega-storm is nothing but awesome power. Storms bring out the best in mankind, and the worst. My ship is so small...I pray for those in its path.

copied from CNN News: