just to be honest here, im not very familiar with these kinds of problems. i kinda skipped around and read some of this, but didnt really sit down and absorb it. i have heard sam harris a few times, but never about these types of problems with free will. so i have to plead ignorance of this topic for now...
i will just state that there are some great mysteries that we just dont know, and maybe simply cannot know. this seems like it may be one of those. i will have to familiarize myself with these complaints and with what harris and dennett and others have to say about free will being an illusion. i think i know what the theistic explanation for free will is already.
harris states his opinion on the ought/is problem as trying to imagine the worst possible suffering for everything, and any steps taken to alleviate that is a good moral decision. trying to put morality in a scientific sense. is that right, or did i mess that up?
good stuff grumpy, thanks.
................
Personal assessment here. It's my opinion; I could be wrong.
I don't think the media hates Tebow's Bible verses or kneeling as much as people think the media does. They don't take offense when David Ortiz crosses himself after a home run. Athletes can thank God for things in postgame interviews; reporters will roll their eyes, but that's just annoyance, not resentment.
I don't even think they take Tebow's Super Bowl pro-life commercial as the biggest issue, although that certainly was more than enough to make him persona non grata for life. Compare Curt Schilling. The commercial was a one-time deal and not much threat for the future.
My personal suspicion is that what the media hates virulently, and fears the most, is that Tim Tebow was Christian-home schooled. I know that sounds weird. Think about it for awhile, let it simmer.
.........
Robert A. Heinlein, in the 1950's, visited the Soviet Union and came back profoundly alarmed. He preached, from then on, the need to avoid the government's control of media and education -- "the complete and utter control of information from the Cradle. to. the. Grave."
Can you see how important that question is, whether all American children are going to be forced through the K-12 system? Where they might be given books, in first grade, entitled "Susie has two mommies"? Or check out this "math by slave count" report from just this week.
............
I'm not asking which side you're on. Can you see the implications of the battle, why the culture war is fought with such passion?
What the internet has done to the New York Times? --- > alternative schooling stands to do to the indoctrination policies of the NEA. When Tim Tebow wore Jn. 3:16 on his eye black in the NCAA title game, Google ran 90M searches on Jn. 3:16 in a few hours.
Home-schooled Tim Tebow has a platform and a microphone now. It would have been nice, for many people, if he hadn't gotten on to that platform. Now that he's on it, it would be nice if he were knocked off that platform. The last thing we need is a compelling visual that Christian home-schooling is cool.
You probably don't care about that battle, but rest assured that the New York Times does.
......
Not everybody wants to debate "incorrect" ideas. Some people want to suppress "incorrect" ideas.
Hey, is home schooling a bad thing? Take a breath, use your indoor voice, and make your case. Concede the other side's valuable ideas, and then coolly demonstrate that your valuable ideas weigh more heavily.
Tim Tebow is a cultural icon, a major flash point in the American culture war. That is what is causing the disproportionate back-pressure on his NFL career.
.
[Next]
Comments
This is all a bait-and-switch.
1. Dawkins labors to gain traction for the idea that belief in God is delusional.
2. Then if you strongly call him on it, he throws down an exploding smoke grenade, "Oh no! I just meant, according to technical dictionary definition #4!"
3. People wander off, and he goes back to working towards the USSR's definition: that Theism is a diagnosable psychiatric disorder.
............
Longtime Reader, what would you say, precisely, to Richard Dawkins if he proposed that? That Theism be classed as a psychiatric disorder? What would be your precise reply to him? Please enclose your reply in quotation marks.
If you tell me that you would oppose him strongly, rebuking him for hatred and illogical thinking, I'll immediately shake hands and grant your point.
If atheists succeed in labeling theists as "delusional" -- if this label ever gained wide acceptance --
That this label would certainly empower those who would like to see theism classed as a psychiatric disorder.
If you, LR, succeed in labeling theists as delusional, then the next generation is much more enabled to incarcerate theists, and to control them under threat of incarceration. As the USSR did.
...........
Would you concede that?
i have spelled my case out, and have had to repeat and refocus my points. i feel like my questions to you are being ducked, morphed into something i didnt say, then stiff armed back at me. i defended dawkins up to a certain point, but i also stated his shortcomings in the debate.
i am NOT a blind dawkins worshipper, despite the way you characterize me as such. i really wish i had more time, but again i must go pay the bills. i will write more later, but let me say for now, that i am writing out what i and i think other clear thinking people would describe as good questions, and good observations. you are taking those, boiling them down to a few sentences, and interpretting from that what you like. totally unfair to the discussion.
if you want me to give you specific answers to your dawkins questions, it would be courteous to first answer the many questions i have posed to you. thats the way a discussion ought to work. i have no problems answering ANY of your questions, do you have problems answering mine?
If you specify which one of your questions you want answered first, and you phrase it in very clear, concise form, then I'll answer very clearly, and concisely, in 25 words or less.
My question for you is, What would you say, exactly, to somebody proposing that belief in God be classed as a pyschiatric disorder? In 25 words or less.
I've answered your quibbling over ideas like "going to delusional lengths to be stubborn about an issue" by pointing out that "delusional" has a psychiatric overtone and is not appropriate here. You reply by saying that you don't mean the word in a psychiatric sense.
I've replied to 90% of your material, such as with my reply that the quibbles over definitions are nothing more than bait-and-switch. You, then, believing my answer to not be satisfactory, contend that I have not answered.
We can use the 25-word Q and 25-word A concept to cut through the fog, if you like.
Q. "Isn't rejection of evolution an example of delusion? Don't the 40% who doubt evolution prove that large numbers of people can be delusional?"
A. No, rejection of evolution is not delusional. It may be mistaken, but it is not based on mental illness. Here is a site that rejects evolution using a purely scientific method. The scientists on staff dispute evolution in a hyper-technical, rational manner.
Q. Isn't it okay to use "delusional" simply to mean "stubbornly rejecting strong evidence"?
A. No, it's not.
Here are the *first two* paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on delusion:
A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of anillness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects ofperception.
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders includingschizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.
Labeling a group "delusional" is hate-filled and can lead to USSR-like conditions.
..........
Okay, there are two very concise, core answers on my part.
Your turn!
...........
Q. What would you say to somebody proposing that theism be classed as a psychiatric disorder?
I had never actually contemplated this line of thought before I read this post. At least not in a significant way.
I'm not even going to attempt a coherent response to this, because I'm just getting my mind around it, but I will say that you seem to be correct in your position that a purely naturalistic world is incompatible with free will, however, in doing some surfing around the web, I've found that there are a tonne of atheists who have absolutely no issue with this.
I thought this to be a decently well-thought out summation of the question. (Link goes to a specific comment by a reader in, yes, a Richard Dawkins forum...sorry in advance as he seems to be disliked by the believers in here).
In any case, I feel compelled to add to the debate in here. Not entirely sure why - I consider myself an atheist; I've explored both Christianity and atheism fairly dispassionately, and while I don't find it "crazy" that any person would choose one over the other - indeed I see compelling reasons for the choices people make in this area - my feelings aren't super-strong in either direction. Personally, with regards to free will, I'll happily accept that perhaps it doesn't actually exist (within the framework/confines of how we generally define it), and carry on in wonder of the world where we live. It's okay.
I will say, even though I've decided (free will!) to comment on this topic, I really, really, can't wait to carry on with the baseball (and occasional football) commentary on this blog - it's really the only place I come on the net where I make it a point to read ALL the comments, as well as the articles themselves. Everyone here deserves a huge thank you for furthering discourse on a wide range of subjects, and for putting "group think" far, far away.
in this debate, is going to be how we understand the word delusion. if you dont prefer to use that word, i will let you pick a word that best describes someone who wants to believe something that can be proven in multiple ways, scientifically proven, to be false, and will choose not to believe in something strictly because it runs counter to what they already believe. i want you to find the word that best descibes that way of thinking, and tell me what it is, and if i agree, that is the word we can use. im trying to meet you in the middle here, because i think delusion works just fine, but you think if goes to far and is insulting, so i will back off. deal?
ok, now to the issue with evolution. let me first ask you, do you believe in evolution by means of natural selection, as described first by darwin, and championed later by brilliant guys like stephen jay gould, daniel dennett, dawkins, jerry coyne, the list goes on? if so, why? if not, why?
that site you linked, if you take a few minutes to read some things in it, you will notice that it states things like "We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings."
and "The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses."
their ideology determines what they must find, instead of letting what they find determine their ideology. they have it completely backwards. they cherry pick a little thing here, and a little thing there, and go "see, this doesnt add up, evolution is a myth" and largely ignore the massive other quatities of evidence compiled over years and years. ill just have to wait on your answer as to your personal belief before i go any further on that.
i would say that theism should not be classed a phychiatric disorder. i wont begin to pretend to understand all the nuances that go into classifying something as such, but i would not call a theist psychotic. i have already said, there are many intelligent people that have compelling arguements for the belief in a god.
but who knows, maybe there is something going on in the brain that leads someone to be more prone to believing in a god. in fact, human beings might someday be able to predict which person is going to believe in god and which person isnt by looking at a brain scan. if that were the case, then you could make a case that believing in a god might be a mental disorder. or maybe thats completely wrong, and that day will never come because its impossible. this is purely speculation on my part, but its interesting to think about.
ok my turn. what do you make of einstein not believing that jesus was the son of god? i get that he respects those that do, but what does it say to you that he didnt find the evidence compelling enough?
But is that all you would say to a person who wanted to classify a theist (or a gay person, or an environmentalist) psychotic? That you personally would not do so, and you don't think they should, either?
.........
Answering your question: Einstein remarked on many other occasions that he disliked the idea of a personal God, in part because of evil in the world. In this he was very similar to Antony Flew, whose writings I'm very familiar with.
I make of Einstein's unbelief that --- > either (1) the evidence for Christ's divinity is weaker than I think it is - OR - else (2) Einstein could not overcome his personal preferences, and his biases clouded his thinking on this particular issue.
Einstein fell prey to this on other issues, such as on the Big Bang question.
..........
And here's answer #4 from my side, leaving me with 3 questions in hand ;- )
I understand that microevolution - the lengthening of a giraffe's neck - occurs. Natural selection pressures exist, and shape animal populations.
I know more genetics than the average bear, and I do not believe that evolution across species occurs. I don't believe that selection pressures can logically produce (say) an eyeball, much less the flagellation motor of a bacterium.
Yes, I've seen the attempts to show how they might. I believe that selection pressures work *against* the intermediary stages of complex organisms, that a half-developed eye is a handicap for procreation, not an advantage.
That's another 1,000-page debate, but there's my answer. No, I don't believe that macroevolution occurs - my belief is on purely scientific, not religious, grounds.
...........
Many evolutionists reject classical Darwinism on the same grounds, retreating to more radical paradigms such as punctuated equilibrium.
62% of medical doctors -- who I'm assuming have more scientific training than you do, LR? -- reject classical Darwinism, and at least 50% believe that schools should be allowed to teach Intelligent Design.
It being my turn to ask a question or three, I'm calling a 7th-inning stretch, for a couple of reasons:
(1) Your answer on "delusional" satisfied me that we have enough middle ground from my point of view. I understand that you don't share Dawkins' agenda in proselytizing the idea that theism is a psychosis.
(2) I don't know how many other people, if any, care about our discussion; I don't know if we have any audience whatsoever at this point.
(3) I want to talk about Jesus Montero. :- )
:daps: LR
i read and reread that article, thinking my eyes had deceived me. you have it backwards doc. "Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design." if im missing something obvious, please point it out for me. a few more really interesting tidbits from that article.
"The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%)."
“As our earlier physician studies indicated, religion, culture and ethnic heritage have an impact on their views of science, even from this relatively homogenous group of physicians who share similar education, income and social status,” noted Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner, HCD Research.
..................................................................................................................................
to your point about lumping gay people, environmentalists, and theists together, first of all, homosexuals (i believe) arent given the choice of which side of the aisle they want. genetic discoveries will someday make that obvious, but for now we have this archaic debate on our hands about homosexuality being a "sin" driven by, coincidentally, the religious. so no, i dont think they have a psychotic disorder and differently than a person born with blue eyes.
and environmentalists have good reason to care about the environment, we, and all of our future generations have to live in it. there are many studies out showing what effects man has made on the environment, and not many of them are good. how in any way is that even debatable as to whether it may be a psychotic disorder?
a theist is given a choice (well, some of them are, many are indoctrinated from birth) and ample evidence and information to go on to make that choice. after typing all of this out, im rethinking your statement, and maybe you werent inferring that those types of people should be lumped together, but rather how would i respond to someone trying to classify them as having a p.d. but you did lump them together, so im confused.....
.....................................................................................................................................
regarding evolution, so that makes you a creationist? that humans didnt evolve from our common ancestor with chimpanzees? and then that all life exists pretty close to its original form? how old do you think the earth and universe is? how long do you think homo sapiens have been on the planet? i know im using up a lot of questions here, but im really curious.
i would love to post a link to a video explaining exactly how the eye could have evolved from scratch, but two issues. first, i dont want to come off as condescending. you said youve studied the subject, and come to your own conclusion, so i can respect that. but if you do want to take a look, its about 8 minutes long, and has links to numerous other videos filling in the holes, like the problem with irreducible complexity. its really quite fascinating, but ill leave that totally up to you. if you do want to give it a watch, that leads me to my 2nd problem. this is literally one of the first internet discussions ive ever had, and unfortunately i dont know how to post a link. so ill leave that totally up to you.
i know im throwing a lot at you, and thats not really fair in regards to our q and a back and forth. so if you have more than 1 question, ask away.
yeah, i kinda figured that with the trade news last night, our discussion might start drawing to a close. i just find this stuff really fun to talk about, as you can probably deduce from my novel sized entries. i guess im not used to the idea of being on a public blog, where the interest level of others partly determines which discussions take place, this being my first rodeo and all. if you would like to continue this discussion through email or whatever, id happily oblige. if youve had enough pestering, i can understand that too. ill leave that up to you.
whatever you decide, its been fun! on to montero!!
There was no one 2000 years ago with the names of the bible or book of mormon. There was no alphabet with the symbols to produce those names. We do not translate names the sound would stay the same. All religions are delusionsal cults. The weight you allow them to be in your life defines your mental illness. The passive accepting do to envirmental situations verses the pusher man of religion, We know what god says of him. This is 2012 not 20 AD. first grade education proves religion wrong. the ian of chirstian is a suffix denoting places not persons. There is no item situation or name that fits the time period, enough said thank you John Cunningham
I take it then that you must believe free will is a delusion (see below). Free will is impossible in a deterministic universe. If w live in a deterministic universe, then most of humanity, including most atheists would share that delusion.
This is the link that I meant to put in that particular paragraph.
The other link gives 67% as doctors accepting all forms of evolution. I was talking about that sector of evolutionary theory that carries Classical Darwinism as its paradigm.
Whatever the number, 30-50%, whatever, of doctors are friendly to ID. Goes to the question of whether it's marginal.
Ya, I'd like to get back to Montero.
The discussion was improving as we went along, I thought. Would like to get back to it before too long.
LR and Steen were posters; this guy is trolling. Thanks Dr. G :- )