Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's free will in the exercise of morality and moral choice
Since morality is part and parcel of the arena of human behaviour. So the freedom we have is to follow God and/ or his commandments or reject him.

Sure morality is an aspect of human behaviour and, of course, can be explained in evolutionary terms as the basis of maintaining strong societal cohesiveness that allows young humans (that are exceptionally vulnerable for years) to be protected.

And while societies have come up with the concept of gods there is no inherent or necessary link between morality and god, so I don't understand why you are somehow equating choosing between moral choices and choosing to accept or reject god. Unless you want to nail your colours to the ludicrous 'you cannot be good without god' deeply offensive nonsense.

[Free Willy]

Morning Gonners

We've discussed this before:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentric

Typically I am thinking of the second definition:

'interpreting or regarding the [universe] in terms of human values and experiences' - my edit.

But Vlad's attitudes (that human morality are critically important when discussing things at a cosmic level) also fit squarely with the first definition:

'considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe'

The cosmic level is your input.

Your argument for the unimportant of morality also would cover critical thinking so you are effectively putting the Kybosh on the thread.

"Pack up everybody, Professor BIG here has put the mockers on the whole thing!"

[Gonnagle]

Morning Gonners

We've discussed this before:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentric

Typically I am thinking of the second definition:

'interpreting or regarding the [universe] in terms of human values and experiences' - my edit.

But Vlad's attitudes (that human morality are critically important when discussing things at a cosmic level) also fit squarely with the first definition:

'considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe'

Dear Prof,

Thank you, Cosmic level? I honestly don't think Vlad is doing that but you and Vlad have been at this longer, so maybe I am missing something.

Anyway since this thread is all over the place ( moderation has went down hill since I was a boy ) my first port of call when looking for answers is now AI and as I have always been very wary of WIKI, but it seems that now everybody uses WIKI, even academicals like your good self cite it, do you think that AI  will soon become the new WIKI ? Just wondering

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

It's free will in the exercise of morality and moral choice
Since morality is part and parcel of the arena of human behaviour.

So 'theological free will' is just 'free will' then?.

So the freedom we have is to follow God and/ or his commandments or reject him.

So no different really than the freedom to engage with golf, or not.

Naturalist views on behaviour veer towards the mechanistic and deterministic.

So, are you saying that anyone with a 'naturalist' outlook, which presumably you see as being contrary to a 'theological' outlook, is morally and behaviourally constrained in some way?

[Stranger]

You are still a bit light on randomness and morality though. And morality is really the ground that theological free will operates.

You still don't understand.   

Morality is a subset of human thoughts and actions. The argument applies to all of them.

And, how many more times do I need to point out that it doesn't assume there is randomness, just that it's the only possible alternative to determinism for systems that change over time.

[Free Willy]

Sure morality is an aspect of human behaviour and, of course, can be explained in evolutionary terms as the basis of maintaining strong societal cohesiveness that allows young humans (that are exceptionally vulnerable for years) to be protected.

And while societies have come up with the concept of gods there is no inherent or necessary link between morality and god, so I don't understand why you are somehow equating choosing between moral choices and choosing to accept or reject god. Unless you want to nail your colours to the ludicrous 'you cannot be good without god' deeply offensive nonsense.

It can be explained in evolutionary terms but not exhaustively so and if that explanation is then reduced or reducible to merely the arrangement of particles then that is a difficulty for you.
In the light then that we are just genes, what the hell does the never justified piece of humanist sanctimonious "Good without God" even mean?

[Stranger]

It can be explained in evolutionary terms but not exhaustively so...

In what way do you think not? It may be the case that aspects of morality might not have been directly selected for, but arose from traits that were, and then there's cultural evolution.

...and if that explanation is then reduced or reducible to merely the arrangement of particles then that is a difficulty for you.

Don't see why. 

In the light then that we are just genes...

Where the fuck did 'just genes' come from? I don't think anybody has ever suggested that people are 'just genes'.

...what the hell does the never justified piece of humanist sanctimonious "Good without God" even mean?

Makes exactly the same amount of sense as theists claiming that "God is good". 'Good' is a human concept. And, of course, we don't have the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God love what is good because it is good—making goodness greater than God—or is good whatever God loves, so if God had decided that it wanted rape and murder (which the bible actually suggests in places), then they would have been good?

[Free Willy]

You still don't understand.   

Morality is a subset of human thoughts and actions. The argument applies to all of them.

And, how many more times do I need to point out that it doesn't assume there is randomness, just that it's the only possible alternative to determinism for systems that change over time.

I did feel your unease with randomness earlier on and am interested in your notions of true randomness and effective randomness.

[Stranger]

I did feel your unease with randomness earlier on and am interested in your notions of true randomness and effective randomness.

I'm perfectly comfortable with randomness, we just don't know if true randomness is a feature of nature or not. Aspects of QM suggest it is, but it depends on interpretation. Logically, any system that changes with time that is not deterministic, has an element of randomness.

True randomness is things that genuinely have no reason for them to happen exactly like they did. For example, QM implies this is the case for a particular radioactive nucleus decaying at some specific time.

Effective randomness is something that is actually deterministic but prediction is impossible in practice. Rolling dice, flipping coins, and so on.

[Free Willy]

I'm perfectly comfortable with randomness, we just don't know if true randomness is a feature of nature or not. Aspects of QM suggest it is, but it depends on interpretation. Logically, any system that changes with time that is not deterministic, has an element of randomness.

True randomness is things that genuinely have no reason for them to happen exactly like they did. For example, QM implies this is the case for a particular radioactive nucleus decaying at some specific time.

Effective randomness is something that is actually deterministic but prediction is impossible in practice. Rolling dice, flipping coins, and so on.

Show us the logic then. Step by step that morality is deterministic and without freedom.....in your own time. Leave no explanatory gaps.

[Free Willy]

I'm perfectly comfortable with randomness, we just don't know if true randomness is a feature of nature or not. Aspects of QM suggest it is, but it depends on interpretation. Logically, any system that changes with time that is not deterministic, has an element of randomness.

True randomness is things that genuinely have no reason for them to happen exactly like they did. For example, QM implies this is the case for a particular radioactive nucleus decaying at some specific time.

Effective randomness is something that is actually deterministic but prediction is impossible in practice. Rolling dice, flipping coins, and so on.

Have you considered the role of observation in QM?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad and Stranger,

QM?

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Dear Vlad and Stranger,

QM?

Gonnagle.

Quantum mechanics.

[Stranger]

Show us the logic then. Step by step that morality is deterministic and without freedom.....in your own time. Leave no explanatory gaps.

For fuck's sake try to pay some basic attention for once in your life! How many more times?

• I've already posted the argument, and linked to a post with more detail (links in #225).
  
  
• It refers to anything at all that varies with time, so applies to all human thoughts and actions, including morality.
  
  
• I did not say it was deterministic!

[Stranger]

Have you considered the role of observation in QM?

What about it?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think we are talking at cross purposes.

My comment that you responded to was about whether god is considered to be objectively true (true for everyone) or merely subjectively true (true for me if I believe, but not necessarily true for you if you don't believe). That was a response to your comment below:

'I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I meant God as a concept, an idea, a thought, a tool.'

That read to me that you were talking about god being merely a subjective true for me, but not necessarily true for you thing. This would be consistent with the notion of a concept or an idea, rather that something that objectively exists for everyone, regardless of whether people believe in god or not.

However I glad that you have now confirmed that both you and I consider that religions consider god to objectively exist. And the notion that god is merely a subjective 'true for me' thing rather makes the whole discussion of theism vs atheism and its implications irrelevant as it merely boils down to the equivalent of whether you like rap music or baroque music.

My comment was referring to the subjective beliefs of theists about a true for everyone god. Since we have no method to test for objective 'existence' of a god, 'existence' is not really much of a discussion. So my comments were about humans evolving to hold subjective beliefs about god based on nature/ nurture.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We have been discussing quote mining upthread ... and this is a humdinger.

It isn't quote-mining. Go back and read your definition of quote mining to understand why.

Why have you omitted the next sentence which gives the earlier one meaning in the context of our discussion. What I actually said was:

'Of course there is a choice in looking at things from different perspectives and that is fundamentally a good thing and not just in the case of (a)theism. But that is completely different from a choice in believing something or not believing in something - I can no more choose to wake up tomorrow and believe in god than you can choose tomorrow to wake up and not believe in god. We might change our minds over time, but that is a different matter as that isn't the same as choosing to believe or not believe in god in the same manner as choosing to have cereal or toast for breakfast.'

My point being that while looking at things from different perspectives is valuable (and we can choose to do it or not) it is not the same as being able to choose to believe in something one moment and then choose not to believe in that thing the next moment. Which was me disagreeing with my interpretation (I may have been wrong, please correct me if I was) of your point:

'Some people find their life works better for them without a god in it because of their nature and experiences which go towards them deciding who they want to be.'

Which implied to me that you felt that people could simply choose not to believe in god if they felt that would make their life work better. I don't think that is true.

So when you don't quote mine you will see that I wasn't agreeing with you unless my interpretation of your post was wrong and that you do not think that people can simply choose whether or not to believe in god, as they would choose their breakfast cereal. In which case ... glad you agree with me.

I did not mention choosing beliefs. I said "There's a choice in trying to looking at things from different perspectives." And you agreed with that view.

Why have you ignored my question about why you described what I wrote as a slur? Which bit of it was the slur, considering you proceeded to agree with me in your next line?

[Free Willy]

For fuck's sake try to pay some basic attention for once in your life! How many more times?

• I've already posted the argument, and linked to a post with more detail (links in #225).
  
  
• It refers to anything at all that varies with time, so applies to all human thoughts and actions, including morality.
  
  
• I did not say it was deterministic!

How many more times. Your explanations are riddled with assumptions. Chief of which is you must be right.
The problem of course is getting from matter and it's arrangement to morality.

On the other hand you seem to be saying that because randomness is found at the quantum level then it's actually freedom which is fundamental and determinism isn't.

If there is logic here I'm not finding it from you and will have to find it elsewhere.

[Stranger]

How many more times. Your explanations are riddled with assumptions.

Which you seem totally unable to point out.

Chief of which is you must be right.

The logic is there for you to point to a flaw in, if you can. Currently, I see no evidence from your posts that you've even read it. If you did, you clearly didn't understand.

The problem of course is getting from matter and it's arrangement to morality.

Totally irrelevant. I didn't assume matter.

On the other hand you seem to be saying that because randomness is found at the quantum level then it's actually freedom which is fundamental and determinism isn't.

What the fuck does this even mean? Randomness isn't freedom in any relevant sense, and I'm not assuming it exists—or that it doesn't.

If there is logic here I'm not finding it from you...

Try reading the actual argument, with your brain engaged. Let's actually quote the link to the fuller version, 'cos I find it hard to believe that you followed the link and read it.

Let's say the state of something ('system' in the broadest sense, we don't care what it is exactly) that changes over time is S_t at some time t. Let's say its environment (anything external that can affect it) at that time is E_t. How consider some small time later t+dt at which the system has state S_t+dt. We can consider the limit as dt approaches zero (as in calculus), or take it to be the Planck time or some representation of how fast the system can possibly change or react.

Now, we don't care what S is or what rules apply to it, we don't care if it's a physical system or operates under entirely different rules that we just made up or under rules that we have no idea about. In any case, we can ask a simple question, namely, given S_t and E_t is there always only one possible S_t+dt?

This is a question that will always have a yes/no answer (whether we know the answer or not) for any system that changes its state over time, regardless of the complexity or of the rules that it operates under.

If the answer is yes, then we have a deterministic system, if it is no, then there must be some randomness in how the system is changing.

Note that there are no assumptions or observations of the physical world needed. All we assumed was something (anything) that sits in some environment (which again could be anything, or nothing for that matter) and changes over time.

In fact, it's so general, we could even replace time with any other variable and see if our something varies deterministically with that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there are very important differences.

Specifically if you are a christian (as an example) you already have a very clear roadmap set out for you as there are christian teachings, scriptures etc etc.  An atheist is not like that - atheism is defined as a lack of something (in this case a belief in god) so there is no clear road map, anymore than there might be a clear roadmap for people who do not believe in Thor or who aren't christians.

It is possible, of course that someone who does not believe in the christian god might have a clear roadmap (e.g. if they believed in the hindu gods or had a strong belief in socialism through upbringing) but that again is different.

So what you implying is that some atheists might have a roadmap, but that wouldn't necessarily have any relevance to their atheism (christians can also have a particular political viewpoint etc etc) but there is no 'atheist roadmap' in the manner that there is for religions.

Yes, there is no atheist manual - and my point was that atheists are a product of their nature/ nurture, similar to theists.

Regardless of the words in a Christian roadmap such as a Bible (translations vary between literal translations and dynamic equivalence) or even a talk given by a priest, the words have no impact on the brain until a person e.g. a Christian interprets the words according to their nature/ nurture based on all the input they have from their environment/ culture that shape the moral values they hold. Hence, Christians disagree about ethical issues despite a roadmap.

The environment / culture for both theists and atheists, that influence the moral values they both hold, would have a lot of influence from Christianity as well as non-Christian and non-religious influences e.g. ideas from other religions as well as philosophical and political beliefs.

So I am saying there is not much difference since a theist's practice of their interpretation of religious words would be influenced by their individual personal moral values derived from both Christian and non-Christian inputs.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Show us the logic then. Step by step that morality is deterministic and without freedom.....in your own time. Leave no explanatory gaps.

"Without freedom"..... from what?

Can you please give a step by step example of how you think morality with freedom works and then a step by step example of morality without freedom?

[Gonnagle]

Yes, there is no atheist manual - and my point was that atheists are a product of their nature/ nurture, similar to theists.

Regardless of the words in a Christian roadmap such as a Bible (translations vary between literal translations and dynamic equivalence) or even a talk given by a priest, the words have no impact on the brain until a person e.g. a Christian interprets the words according to their nature/ nurture based on all the input they have from their environment/ culture that shape the moral values they hold. Hence, Christians disagree about ethical issues despite a roadmap.

The environment / culture for both theists and atheists, that influence the moral values they both hold, would have a lot of influence from Christianity as well as non-Christian and non-religious influences e.g. ideas from other religions as well as philosophical and political beliefs.

So I am saying there is not much difference since a theist's practice of their interpretation of religious words would be influenced by their individual personal moral values derived from both Christian and non-Christian inputs.

Dear Gabriella,

Well! Thank you once again, but I have been saying this since I returned to this forum but it some how bypasses Atheist thinking, I am Human.

To err is human to forgive is divine Shut it Mr Pope, lets stick to the human part

Gonnagle.

[Free Willy]

"Without freedom"..... from what?

Can you please give a step by step example of how you think morality with freedom works and then a step by step example of morality without freedom?

Not at the moment, Sorry but before you charge me with hypocrisy I never claimed to be able to or claimed that I had unlike my friend Stranger.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Thank you, Quantum Mechanics

God is in the detail

But I much prefer,

The Devil is in the detail

But consider me slightly more educated ( a Quark size slightly )

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gabriella,

Well! Thank you once again, but I have been saying this since I returned to this forum but it some how bypasses Atheist thinking, I am Human.

To err is human to forgive is divine Shut it Mr Pope, lets stick to the human part

Gonnagle.

I am an atheist and it doesn't surpass my thinking. That said maybe making lazy generalisations is the epitome of being human