The Biggest Questions About Life Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Timeoutofmind

Timeoutofmind

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
Verified Member
10+ Year Member
Physician
Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
848
Reaction score
415
Long time lurker here. CA1. I have noticed a trend that threads addressing The Big Quesitions, get tons of comments/views. I love thinking about this stuff. Actually, between undergrad and medschool, I took a year off and studied philosophy and theology at Oxford University. Questions such as: What are the arguments for God's existence? Do all religions lead to the same truths? Why would a good God allow evil and suffering? I became a Christian as a young adult after sifting through the evidence and quite a bit of reading/thinking over the years. But I have always been a seeker type, so I thought I could contribute to the community here. So I wanted to throw this out for your consideration:

What is your view of the world? I find that among my peers, the following attitude is somewhat common: Science is the proper vehicle for understanding and discovering truth. It tells us things as they really are, and descibes all that is ultimately real...namely the physical universe. Religion, philosophy, the arts, etc are simply matters of one's opinion and do not consitute an objective way to seach for truth. Carl Sagan said "the cosms is all that is, or was, or will be." Richard Dawkins has sold millions of books claiming we "just dance to our DNA." I think a lot of sciency types are attracted to this type of rhetoric...without rigorously considering the foundations and consequences of such a view of the world.

Actually, the materialistic view of the universe is rife with contradictions and absurdities. For instance, on the materialistic view of the universe, eveything is just matter and energy. You are made out of the same stuff as rocks or slime or dogs. There is no such thing as inherit worth or dignity or personality. Persons do not exists. Only transient conglomerations and arangments of carbon atoms, electrons, etc...of which you happen to be one. And yet, we are not just this. For instance we are moral beings. Is anyone here going to honestly argue that rape, racisim, or cruel, gratuitous torture is not objectively wrong? Not just unpleasent but actually something that ought not be done? If so, I think it is a strong sign of intellectual dishonesty, as these people go through their days making all sorts of moral judgments (that resident getting three less calls then me is unfair, or that drunk guy I have to take care of who beat up his wife is a bad dude). Real moral judgments, both big and small. Ethics are just the result of evolution...an illusion you say...you say we are 99% genetically identical to the apes? Has anyone ever proposed throwing an ape in jail! Things that look like rape go on all the time in the animal kingdom, but no one objects, because our moral obligations are real, and because there is more to us then our physical aspect (which is 99% similar to the apes). The materialist can make no sense of morality.

It gets worse. On materialism, there is no free will. If you are only matter, energy, and physical forces are the only real forces...what part of you actually chooses anything? And if you cannot choose anything, this again, as mentioned above undermines morality. Better not ever express your desire that any criminal be convicted, no matter how egregious the crime...because they didnt choose to do it anyway!

Not only that, but materialims undermines rationality. If after all, what you call your thoughts is simply electrochemical activity controlled only by physical forces, acting on the matter which consitutites your brain...rationality is an illusion. You cannot even actually choose to accept or reject a simple logical premise, as you cannot choose anything. How can a theory of the universe be true, if the theory itself undermines rationality!

Materialism cannot account for those things which humanity across the ages has considered most profound and worthy of attention: art and beauty, love and relationships, meaning and purpose, God and the transcendent. It merely dismisses them as fantasies and lies, or at best...descibes them as entirely human creations, with no objective reality of their own.

I realize that this all simply leads us to a rejection of materialism. I would offer other arguments for theism, and for Christian theism, but I think this thread is an interesting starting point as I find it is where people are often at. Those are for another day.

What do you think?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Im about self awareness.

BTW life would be short, hard, and riddled with struggle for food, shelter, and health without technology. technology is based on science. its what allows us to have and enjoy time to ponder our existence as spiritual beings.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Curious what kind of responses this will elicit.
 
I also studied philosophy (my major in college), so I've thought about some of these questions before. Personally, I don't believe in true free will for the reasons you've explained. Who we are is a combination of nature and nurture, neither over which we have any say. That's not to say we're not responsible for the consequences for our actions (the criminal should be imprisoned because he's a danger to society, regardless of whether or not his crime resulted from true free will) or that we're not expected to improve on our weaknesses...mainly because we live under the assumption that we have free will, and we have to believe that, if we do our best, something good will happen. I think it was Dostoevsky's Underground Man who argued that the only time we know free will exists is when we desire to do one thing but intentionally do the opposite. But then, if you're making that decision just to make a point, is that really proving that free will exists?

And on that note, if God knows the future, from that perspective do we truly have free will? Is there a difference between God knowing what you're going to choose (but having the free will to make it) and not even having the possibility of choosing any other option because the future has already been written?

Okay, nerd time is over. Back to baseball.
 
The secular strawmen arguments you constructed throughout your post (APES! and RAPE!) do sound like they were fashioned by someone who "studied" philosophy... in so far as he read only the books which would confirm or elucidate his preexisting notions.
 
We need a study to see how many people have actually changed their beliefs as a result of the internets. I swear 85% of the internet is political/religious exposition--does anyone in the void out there care?
 
I also spend a lot of time thinking about these topics and have debated them with friends who disagree with me. First rule should be to separate ones emotions and biases from the argument, as difficult as it may be. Whenever I get into these debates, I am all too often arguing against the world view that someone wants to believe in, as opposed to the objective reality. Unfortunately, few people can do this, but I still enjoy the challenge anyways.

So in terms of free will versus determinism, two statements cane be made: 1) to be a determinist, you must reject the soul. Likewise, 2) to believe in free will, you must accept the soul. So really, to answer this debate, the right question would be: is there a soul? That question pretty much cuts to the chase if you accept that the two world views are mutually exclusive. Lets assume for simplicity that they are...

Before I go any further ill wait to hear from the OP if he accepts these statements. Or if you want to tinker with it.




Also check out this pretty cool experiment that came out a couple years ago that goes along with this debate:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision
 
GassmanMD said:
So in terms of free will versus determinism, two statements cane be made: 1) to be a determinist, you must reject the soul. Likewise, 2) to believe in free will, you must accept the soul. So really, to answer this debate, the right question would be: is there a soul? That question pretty much cuts to the chase if you accept that the two world views are mutually exclusive. Lets assume for simplicity that they are...
Click to expand...
I think you have to start with the definition of determinism. Are you talking about Calvinist predestination or just that God already knows what we're going to choose (see my questions above)? I would argue that the former may make the two mutually exclusive-- although the Calvinists wouldn't agree-- but I don't agree that the absence of true free will is indicative of the absence of the soul...especially if one believes all souls go to one afterlife rather than in a Heaven/Hell dichotomy.
 
Last edited:
A few interesting comments so far...

1. Infexious...if you are looking for a more serious and measured approach to apologetics, I would check out William Lane Craig. He has a lot of his resources/debates availble free at his website. I think he is the foremorst Christian apologist alive, and has debated many popular atheists, including Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, etc...with most people (including skeptial organizations) granting him the victory. He also has done a lot of technical and academic work, if you are interested in that as well.

www.reasonablefaith.org

2. The other comments all seem to be about free will
However, I dont think that people even seemed to grasp the basic argument I was presenting...or at least the chose not to engage with it. Again, rationality is undermined on a materialistic framework, and thus to assert materialism is to contradict oneself. Some of you seemed content to deny free will in your posts...without any appreciation for the fact that this makes your thought-procceses described in your posts merely a result of the chemical and physical elements and forces you are subject to! (And worse..."you" dont even exist!)

(This has been formerly worked up as the "evolutionary argument against naturalism" "EAAN" by Alvin Plantigna, probably the foremost Christian philospher of religion around today, if you want to check it out from a more technical perspetive.)

With all do respect, some of the comments seem incoherent to me. "I dont believe in true free will..That's not to say we're not responsible for the consequences for our actions." How can you be responsible for the consequences of your actions if they are not even your actions! And saying that "the criminal should be imprisoned because he's a danger to society, regardless of whether or not his crime resulted from true free will" is morally rephrensible (except that, again, morality does not exist in a world without free will)! Dont you think that the person should be, at most, excluded from larger society and given comfortable accomidations if he is a danger to society through no fault of his own...why would you specifically punish someone for something they did not do?

To respond to GassmanMD, that is a false dilema. I reject point 1 you have offered "to be a determinist, you must reject the soul. As stated by MrBurns 10, Calvanists and certain types of pantheists are examples to the contrary. I do accept ponint 2 you offered "to believe in free will, you must accept the soul". Although, very importantly that does not mean you have to accept that there is some invisible part of you that is non-physical and is independent with repesct to the physical part of you. Many theists have a more integrated and less dualistic view of body/soul relationships than Descartes did, and would describe a human being as "an embodied spiritual being." One nobel prize winning neurologist said "the brain is the instrument on which the mind plays its music." What happens to the body effectst he mind and vice-versa. (By the way I take the terms mind and soul to mean the same thing, with the word "mind" having more of a secular conotation).

Also, Mr Burns just because God knows the future does not mean he determines the future. That is a very counter-intuitive statement you made, and most philosopher theologians do not posit this. Why do you think this would be?

Finally, Gassman MD, the experiments you mention in no way disprove free-will, as stated by the authors of the papers themselves in their comments. Also, what is your take on the fact that the results were not correctly predicted 100% of the time, and thus a human may overide their natural inclination at the last moment in these instances? In any case, at most, we would have to acknowledge that humans at times make choices prior to realizing that they have. Although this would probably not hold true for more substanital and difficult decisions anyway..and even if it did, how could you test that in a lab? Even though people casually discuss these studies as if they should shake our views, I find they are actually not willing to go all the way and accept the grim implications of a world without free will, again, especially with respect to morality.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I really wish I could believe in religion and such. Heaven, souls, etc. That would be so awesome. I try! But I can't. It actually really irritates me listening to confidently religious people kinda like it irritates me when I hear a surgeon say something nonsensical with exceptional confidence.

Everything we do and feel CAN be explained logically by evolution. Conservation of offspring via protection of community for example. Empathy towards creatures other than our own species because of similarities in the appearance of suffering and common genetic roots. Numerous stories of animals exist where they demonstrate complex emotions and their own sense of "morality." We're a tiny speck in a gigantic universe. Why are humans special? It just doesn't make sense. I understand why religion exists - death and non-existence is scary. Unfathomable really. So I hope all you religious types are right. I just don't see it.
 
I will first define what I mean when I say determinism: everything is the result of cause and effect, nothing can be random, nothing can occur without a cause. That is the simple essence, it gets a lot more complicated when you think of the implications.



Timeoutofmind said:
2. The other comments all seem to be about free will
However, I dont think that people even seemed to grasp the basic argument I was presenting...or at least the chose not to engage with it. Again, rationality is undermined on a materialistic framework, and thus to assert materialism is to contradict oneself. Some of you seemed content to deny free will in your posts...without any appreciation for the fact that this makes your thought-procceses described in your posts merely a result of the chemical and physical elements and forces you are subject to! (And worse..."you" dont even exist!)

(This has been formerly worked up as the "evolutionary argument against naturalism" "EAAN" by Alvin Plantigna, probably the foremost Christian philospher of religion around today, if you want to check it out from a more technical perspetive.)
Click to expand...

The contradictions you refer to in your our argument isn't made clear, please elaborate. As for the next statement you make: yeah, "you" does not exist. It's sort of, for lack of a better word, an illusion. Again , like I said in my original post, my goal is to try to figure out what is really happening in our world/universe, regardless of the consequences to my self or the "you.". Don't wander down the rabbits hole if you are afraid.

To respond to GassmanMD, that is a false dilema. I reject point 1 you have offered "to be a determinist, you must reject the soul. As stated by MrBurns 10, Calvanists and certain types of pantheists are examples to the contrary. I do accept ponint 2 you offered "to believe in free will, you must accept the soul". Although, very importantly that does not mean you have to accept that there is some invisible part of you that is non-physical and is independent with repesct to the physical part of you. Many theists have a more integrated and less dualistic view of body/soul relationships than Descartes did, and would describe a human being as "an embodied spiritual being." One nobel prize winning neurologist said "the brain is the instrument on which the mind plays its music." What happens to the body effectst he mind and vice-versa. (By the way I take the terms mind and soul to mean the same thing, with the word "mind" having more of a secular conotation).

.
Click to expand...


So we agree on statement two, lets build on that. So it's pretty clear you believe in free will, and therefore you also believe in a soul. Now I imagine, based on your frequent use of the word "human," that you reserve the soul as part of the human being, and that animals are excluded. I think this is consistent with Christian teachings. If animals have no soul, what can be said of their actions? Would you say they operate deterministically?
 
"What is your view of the world?"

Christ died and was brought back to life. This is my big picture, world view.

The more I learn about science, the more rationally tenable this becomes for me.
 
Some people think god is awesome and beyond our understanding. I feel the same way about the human brain. We know so little about how it does what it does. I absolutely believe that everything I do and think is the result of chemical messengers and neural activity. I also know I'm capable of taking my thoughts and questions where I want them, and my imagination is limitless (for the most part). I would say that my genetics and experiences GREATLY effect my thoughts/beliefs. But somehow the complex interactions of the neural circuits in my brain allow me the freedom to constantly reevaluate my thoughts/beliefs, and I'm capable of influencing changes in my thoughts/beliefs, and therefore the physiology of my brain. fMRI studies on meditation have shown how much we're able to change our own brain's functioning.

So does the neural hardware I'm equipped with predict everything I do/think? My experience tells me that somehow the brain provides a certain degree of open-endedness that provides me freedom of thought. I do NOT think that a perfect computer program could predict everything we do/think. I think part of the ridiculous complexity of the brain is its provision of a large degree of freedom of thought/expression that some people would refer to as a "soul".
 
Last edited:
VentdependenT said:
Im about self awareness.

BTW life would be short, hard, and riddled with struggle for food, shelter, and health without technology. technology is based on science. its what allows us to have and enjoy time to ponder our existence as spiritual beings.
Click to expand...

It also distracts us. It fills our days with passive amusements and sucks up valuable time that could be used for pondering our existence as spiritual beings.

E.g., I could have been pondering my own existence, but instead I'm repeatedly refreshing twitter and SDN, reading about how doctors don't make enough money, and about nightmare airway scenarios.

Ahh, technology.
 
VentdependenT said:
Im about self awareness.

BTW life would be short, hard, and riddled with struggle for food, shelter, and health without technology. technology is based on science. its what allows us to have and enjoy time to ponder our existence as spiritual beings.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but now life is often riddled with mental struggles as opposed to physical struggles. We spend less time with family then probably ever in history, all because of technology and advanced civilization. Also, there are some terrible people out there who combine power they've acquired (through modern political/societal systems) with technology to create devastation.

We would have no chance of ending the human race if we were still running around with spears and rocks. Unfortunately I think we've set ourselves up for a very short run as a species.

(I'm sorry I think my Prozac may be expired :oops: )
 
Pooh & Annie said:
We would have no chance of ending the human race if we were still running around with spears and rocks. Unfortunately I think we've set ourselves up for a very short run as a species.
Click to expand...

The Black Plague had a pretty good run at ending the human race. Sure put a dent on civilization for a long time. Too bad humans didn't know what Y pestis was.

70,000 years ago it looks like the human population got down to about 15,000 people after a volcano erupted and it got chilly for a little while. Too bad we humans were hunter-gatherers, who lacked the technology to easily migrate, plant crops, plug in a space heater ...

And then, there are asteroids.

I like our chances better now. :)
 
Mere Christianity was a book that helped me along quite extensively in my own faith. Jesus as an historical figure is debated and disputed and by many, despised. Was his coming a reality? Was his death and resurrection a farce?

Historically-speaking, the reality of Jesus of Nazareth is not disputed by many. On that premise, I read Lewis saying:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
 
pgg said:
The Black Plague had a pretty good run at ending the human race. Sure put a dent on civilization for a long time. Too bad humans didn't know what Y pestis was.

70,000 years ago it looks like the human population got down to about 15,000 people after a volcano erupted and it got chilly for a little while. Too bad we humans were hunter-gatherers, who lacked the technology to easily migrate, plant crops, plug in a space heater ...

And then, there are asteroids.

I like our chances better now. :)
Click to expand...

Points well-taken... However, nature typically has a way self-limiting its devastation so that entire species aren't lost. Technology in human hands, used for evil purposes, usually doesn't provide that protection.

And you really like our chances better now? Homo sapiens have existed for something like 100,000 years. Modern civilization started about 2-3 millennia ago, with modern technology much more recent and advancing at astronomical rates. I personally am very pessimistic that we won't create some sort of mass devastation, whether it be through war, biological manipulation, or some other technological catastrophe within the next 1000 years. Probably much sooner. I am not optimistic that we will last as a species at the rate we're going.

And despite what I say I am NOT a technology hater! I love my computer, iPhone, 65"tv (which I watch the **** out of), GPS... Not to mention my vaccines and clean teeth. But speaking philosophically, I don't know that we've done ourselves any favors with some of the places we've gone in the name of science.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Agreed, but now life is often riddled with mental struggles as opposed to physical struggles. We spend less time with family then probably ever in history, all because of technology and advanced civilization. Also, there are some terrible people out there who combine power they've acquired (through modern political/societal systems) with technology to create devastation.

We would have no chance of ending the human race if we were still running around with spears and rocks. Unfortunately I think we've set ourselves up for a very short run as a species.

(I'm sorry I think my Prozac may be expired :oops: )
Click to expand...

The law of natural selection still holds true. No point in worrying about the world ending, nothing I can do about it. people have been tolling "the end" since forever. As we evolve socially we will figure this stuff out. I dont think the 3rd worlders are lovin life anymore than we are with starvation, easily preventable/treatable infectious diseases gone wild, poor sanitation, and lack of infrastructure.

Regardless, My lofty goals are: to treat others as equals, to spread joy, to bring comfort, be a good father/son/husband/person, and to stay connected to the truth that Im a little blob with consciousness on a little rock in the infinate surrounding of the universe. Why? Cause it keeps me humble. All the other $hit that I allow to occupy my time/brain is just of my own making.
 
VentdependenT said:
The law of natural selection still holds true. No point in worrying about the world ending, nothing I can do about it. people have been tolling "the end" since forever. As we evolve socially we will figure this stuff out. I dont think the 3rd worlders are lovin life anymore than we are with starvation, easily preventable/treatable infectious diseases gone wild, poor sanitation, and lack of infrastructure.

Regardless, My lofty goals are: to treat others as equals, to spread joy, to bring comfort, be a good father/son/husband/person, and to stay connected to the truth that Im a little blob with consciousness on a little rock in the infinate surrounding of the universe. Why? Cause it keeps me humble. All the other $hit that I allow to occupy my time/brain is just of my own making.
Click to expand...
That's good stuff, and I couldn't agree more. Stayin humble and makin life about everyone but YOURSELF is what happiness is about as far as I'm concerned. Buddhists (my favorite lifestyle philosophy) would agree.

I'm not as optimistic about the social evolution though. Although the sources are much different, I think hatred, jealousy, and ill will are no different than they were 50,000 years ago. The differences between the haves and the have-nots are not getting better. The rich are still never rich enough (just read this board), and the poor still feel ignored. Add nationalism and religious fervor and you see some real unchanged social pathology.
 
This thread kinda went everywhere! But that is OK, after all it is the Biggest Questions About Life thread lol! Thanks for all the stimulating discussion. And although I am forthright and believe in vigorous and critical discussion, I hope that doesn't come across too intense or arrogant...I know I could be wrong in my opinions, and am also on a search for truth.

I thought I would respond to just a few interesting points:

CLEANSOCKS:
You say that "Everything we do and feel CAN be explained logically by evolution" and include morality in this as well. However, you are making a fundamental mistake of categories in your thinking here. David Hume pointed out that you cannot get an ought from an is. Evolution (and science generally) can tell us a lot about what is. It cannot tell us anything about what ought to be. For instance, you explain that other animals seem to have kinship type feelings, and state the evolution and gene propagation explains the way we feel in regard to our moral sentiments. Good! Maybe it does! Maybe it also explains the way that we behave at times, and how we have come to talk and think about moral obligations. However, evolution can never address the question: do objective moral values actually exist, and if so...what is the source of these values. Consider...maybe you are evolutionarily programed to consider incest wrong by the mechanisms you discussed in your post...the question remains...is it actually wrong though? Regardless of whether you consider it to be wrong, and why you may or may not...is it? The view as you stated actually undermines morality, it just accounts for our moral feelings in a world that is totally physical. It says that morality is not real. It is a view that states that moral values are not objective, but merely a convenient byproduct for evolution. However, as I said before, this view is not intellectually tenable. I have yet to see anyone in this thread deny that rape, racism, and arbitrary/cruel torture are categorically morally evil. To deny these realities, and attribute all moral sentiment to biological and chemical precedent, is to deny the basic facts of our human experience...it is not to explain or in anyway deal seriously with the questions of moral agency in human beings. You state that you "really wish I could believe in religion and such. Heaven, souls, etc. That would be so awesome. I try! But I can't." Yes you can, my friend! Frankly, your views on this issues lead to all sorts of contradictions and difficulties, which can be effectively addressed in a Christian framework.

GASSMANMD
The contradiction that I referred the above arguments, which you asked me to elaborate again, is simply that many seem content to say that everything is physical and thus, when pressed, will admit that this as a result does preclude the existence of real free-will choices. But when pressed further on how morality, rationality, and personhood are totally undermined on such a view (see my earlier posts), they seem to want to hold on to these entities anyway...without any justification at all!
On the question of animals and souls...there are a variety of different opinions among Christian philosophers, and I am certainly no expert in the area. I know some posit that animals have simpler souls then humans (for instance, they have no moral obligations), and I believe some posit they do not have souls. I think most would argue there behavior is deterministic as it is not clear animals even have a clear concept of "self" versus just displaying certain instincts, but I would not be dogmatic on this point.

POOH AND ANNIE:
Your post states that although, "I believe that everything I do and think is the result of chemical messengers and neural activity", still..." the brain provides a certain degree of open-endedness that provides me freedom of thought." If an accurate description of your brain is "The four fundamental forces (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity) acting on matter and energy in a purely physical cause-and-effect way, without any outside influence," I just dont see how you could possibly posit that "you" (even though there would be no such thing as "you" in a purely physical world) have any real influence in how you behave or think. It seems to me that only if there is a non-physical part of you, can this dilemma be escaped. Can you elaborate on how free will is possible in a world of carbon atoms, electrons, etc and simple physical forces?

I hope you will all take time to think through these arguments, and take seriously the implications of your view of the world. Lets not only be evidenced based in our medicine, but also evidenced based in the things that count most. Fellow SDN peeps, these questions are not abstract arm-chair philosophy arbitrary exercises. But the very stuff on which we base our lives. Of infinite consequence. Plato said "the unexamined life is not worth living for a man."

To me the transcendent, art, existential issues, morality, beauty, God etc are not things that I have only arrived at vis-a-vis the conclusions of arguments. They are tantalizing glimpses of the eternal, of that which remains, of that which is behind the veil. To be encountered not just in books but on a morning swim in the lake, in the joy of good food and company, in our prayers, in our finitiude and smallness, in the smiles and laughs of our children, in our suffering and loss, in the many obscure and strange religious texts, and in the mysteries of existence which we never reach the end of. For me, arriving at Christianity, arriving at the person of Christ, by a long and indirect road, has been like coming home to all that has been true and meaningful in my life, although I never would have called it by that name. CS Lewis said "I believe Christianity is true as I believe the son is risen. Not because I see it. But because, by it, I see everything else." Could it be that Christianity could add, for you, an extra layer of meaning, a deeper view of reality? If the evidence began to point in this direction, would you pursue it? I am convinced, personally, after extensive reading, thought, and discussion, that Christianity offers the most comprehensive, coherent, and genuine answers to the human questions.
 
So what you just said gets me to my next point. It seems that if animal actions are purely deterministic and do not have souls, then you are saying that humans are not descendants of animals because the soul is not something that can evolve through natural selection. So therefore you have agreed that to:
1) to believe in free will, you must believe in a soul
2) to believe in a soul, you have to reject evolution (please don't say you can believe in partial evolution or something, please, you are an MD after all)

I think this gets me to my core argument of how difficult it must be to force feed yourself the notion of free will. Free will is predicated on so much. Lets use occurs razor here. Which theory is simpler and makes the fewer assumptions?
Belief in a soul is difficult to argue, but evolution is quite different. In fact, I will not spend any time arguing it because it will go no where, but the evidence should be enough unless dogma is clouding ones judgment and impartiality.

Now I have another assumption for you. To believe in free will, and a soul, must one believe in a higher power ? How else could you get a soul if not from a higher power?

I think you can see where my argument is going by now. You have to make so many faith based assumptions in order to believe in free will that occums razor will surely weigh against the theory. Search determinism and you will see far fewer assumptions.
 
How does evolution prove we dont have a "soul." By soul you mean what? My "soul" is the inexplicable connection I have with the intangible. Spirituality. Oneness. Consciousness of myself and all that this entails, including acceptance of my own mortality.

I have faith that the soul will be explained some day. once we figure out how subatomic particles influence everything. Dark matter is the stuff which connects all. It goes deep.

By soul you cannot mean an extracorporeal copy of myself just waiting to be released into almighty heaven...i hope.

Faith doesnt have to defy logic. Faith opens up so many options. Its pretty cool. However for it to be useful it must be backed by meaningful and thoughtful action.
 
Last edited:
Timeoutofmind said:
POOH AND ANNIE:
Your post states that although, "I believe that everything I do and think is the result of chemical messengers and neural activity", still..." the brain provides a certain degree of open-endedness that provides me freedom of thought." If an accurate description of your brain is "The four fundamental forces (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity) acting on matter and energy in a purely physical cause-and-effect way, without any outside influence," I just dont see how you could possibly posit that "you" (even though there would be no such thing as "you" in a purely physical world) have any real influence in how you behave or think. It seems to me that only if there is a non-physical part of you, can this dilemma be escaped. Can you elaborate on how free will is possible in a world of carbon atoms, electrons, etc and simple physical forces?
.
Click to expand...
Good questions, but I think quite a bit of semantic misunderstanding (as 90% of philosophy boils down to in my experience).

"You" (in this case, "me"), is what I call my physicality as well as my mind.
"I" am made up of chemicals, reactions, and forces, as you mentioned.
There is level-upon-level of complexity that culminates in neural systems (that no one understands very well) that result in something that I SENSE as a "me". That sense of "me" is a result of those neural systems (made up of those forces, chemicals, etc) interacting in ways that become very well organized, with certain anatomical sites responsible for very specific functions. fMRI studies have located some of these sites. These complex interactions result in what some would call a "soul". I'm fine with that. But not in the sense of the soul being a cosmic, unknown magical substance that defines me.

I very well understand the ramifications of this. I'm a complex pile of atoms, and that's all. I'm at peace with that. One of the ramifications is that systems and chemicals and physiology can be faulty. The various brain pathologies, (some of them predictable by sites of disfunction), result in a gamut of behavioral/emotional/affective/etc irregularities that are sometimes so severe that it would be hard to find evidence of a "soul", no matter how it would be defined.

Anyway, although there are minute forces and particles that make up "me", its the astonishingly complex organization of the particles into interactive systems that provide my conscious thought, (including what I believe are interactions that allow some freedom of thought).
 
By the way, the world is not just a soup of random atoms being acted upon by various forces. That may be how things started out, but after billions of years those atoms and forces have organized through various processes. So while the brain is made up of minutia, higher level interactions provide me what I perceive as "me".
 
VentdependenT said:
How does evolution prove we dont have a "soul." By soul you mean what? My "soul" is the inexplicable connection I have with the intangible. Spirituality. Oneness. Consciousness of myself and all that this entails, including acceptance of my own mortality.

I have faith that the soul will be explained some day. once we figure out how subatomic particles influence everything. Dark matter is the stuff which connects all. It goes deep.

By soul you cannot mean an extracorporeal copy of myself just waiting to be released into almighty heaven...i hope.

Faith doesnt have to defy logic. Faith opens up so many options. Its pretty cool. However for it to be useful it must be backed by meaningful and thoughtful action.
Click to expand...

Your definition of the soul is different than what I am arguing against. What you describe can of course be evolved through natural selection.

I'm just saying that you can not have free will without some sort of thing inside you, lets call it a "soul", that acts outside the laws of physics, that can break the chain of cause and effect, and ultimately lead to free will. Then I brought up animals because many do not believe they have souls, and therefore there actions are deterministic, as the OP agreed. Now how can you evolve something, the soul, that is outside the laws of nature and therefore outside the laws of natural selections? You can't. So to believe in this type of soul, you have to believe in a higher power, outside laws of nature, from where the soul can come. And you must believe humans could could not have evolved from other primates. Hope that makes more sense.

What you describe as the soul is definitely present in us all, probably found in higher cortical processes and functions, which are clearly bound by the laws of physics and function deterministically. So it's not the same soul I use in my argument with the OP.
 
In.

Sent from my LG-LS970 using Tapatalk 2
 
You assume a higher power by painting yourself into a corner with definitions. You haven't said anything that actually proves that an eternal soul is required for free will or morality. Lets not call it a soul, lets call it a high level of perception, memory, planning, differences in preferred outcomes, and a complex world where simple cause effect reactions are not the driving forces of our actions.

Even IF you were right about morality requiring a soul and a soul requiring a creator, that would still not begin to suggest that Christianity is correct in any way, other than containing the idea of a creator. Big big leap to pretend Christianity is the logical outcome of your philosopical attempts to define yourself into the answer you want. The most likely explanations for 'prophets' are schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
 
Last edited:
"The most likely explanations for 'prophets' are schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

This is fully consistent with what we are told: "there are many false prophets."
 
imfrankie said:
I reason the probability of the human brain able to fathom the truth as infinitesimal. Don't forget to count yourself among your "ALL."
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic = the opposite of a prophet.
I don't know what the truth is, I just know that no one else does either.
 
imfrankie said:
I reason the probability of the human brain able to fathom the truth as infinitesimal. Don't forget to count yourself among your "ALL."
Click to expand...

But it does seem like the more we learn about natural history, genetics, etc... the less reasonable it is for god or whoever to hold it against us for not believing in or worshipping him. It wouldn't be fair to allow us scientific evidence disproving the various religion's doctrinal books then expect us not to question their relevance/truthfulness.
 
GypsySongman said:
I'm agnostic = the opposite of a prophet.
I don't know what the truth is, I just know that no one else does either.
Click to expand...

I've never really understood agnostics.

You know that leprechauns don't exist, don't you? You're not hedging that bet, are you?

Why the reluctance to apply the same logic and standards to other supernatural forces, creation myths, and god ideas?
 
Nobody can prove or disprove existence of God. All there is, is faith. Faith that there is and faith that there isnt. I dont care what others views are so long ad they dont infringe on my rights or my safety.
 
pgg said:
I've never really understood agnostics.

You know that leprechauns don't exist, don't you? You're not hedging that bet, are you?

Why the reluctance to apply the same logic and standards to other supernatural forces, creation myths, and god ideas?
Click to expand...

Militant proselytizing agnostic here. I'll take this one.

How do you know that leprechauns don't exist? Just because you haven't seen any on YouTube? The world is a mysterious place.

Here's the deal about reason and logic. They easily allow you to avoid making the leap of faith required for belief in religion, but they also prevent you from making the leap of faith required for belief in atheism.
 
VentdependenT said:
Nobody can prove or disprove existence of God. All there is, is faith. Faith that there is and faith that there isnt. I dont care what others views are so long ad they dont infringe on my rights or my safety.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
There is no leap of faith required since "belief in atheism" is a non-sequitur. Sometimes atheism is classified into strong and weak, I.e. making the positive claim that god definitely does not exist vs simply being without belief in god. The original human condition is weak atheism- it takes the right amount of indoctrination/selective use of logic to become a theist, and I suspect most atheists who have sat down and thought about the issue would not be foolish enough to make the strong, positive claim. Similarly, I don't feel the need to call myself a leprechaun agnostic or santa agnostic just because I can't prove those negatives either.
 
pgg said:
You know that leprechauns don't exist, don't you? You're not hedging that bet, are you?
Click to expand...

pgg you're a smart cat and I love reading your posts, so it pains me to do this but I have to point out that you are just flat wrong here.

[YOUTUBE]nda_OSWeyn8[/YOUTUBE]














***Extremely old youtube video, but please if you haven't seen it take the 2 minutes and watch it all, you'll be glad you did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

K
Life Insurance: Experiences when purchasing?
Replies
24
Views
1K
cchoukal
C
H
Worst Jobs-Biggest Rip Offs
2 3
Replies
117
Views
10K
Ashers
Ashers
Twiggidy
Life Expectancy By U.S. State
Replies
15
Views
2K
sevoflurane
sevoflurane
P
Regional Anesthesia Fellowship Lifestyle (UCSF specifically)
Replies
10
Views
2K
DrN2O
D
N
Crna delegation thread
Replies
0
Views
785
neutro
N
Top