Philosophy / Science / Religion

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I recently had an interesting discussion on Facebook with an old friend on religion, philosophy, etc and it wandered into a subject that I am very interested in lately. Writing it out made me realize how much this has crystallized in my head.

"Faith" is defined as a belief that is not based on any evidence whatsoever. This makes no sense to me. I do not have "faith" in things, I "believe" them to be true, due to observable evidence. This could, theoretically, include a belief in a God if I felt I witnessed any evidence for God's existence. I'm seeing evidence mount in the opposite direction.

Does this mean I've lost a connection to our communal spirituality, or the wonder of being? Quite the contrary. It's my firm belief that feelings of connectivity and delight in nature are quite natural and have no need for a magical shadow world. The more I learn about animals the more evidence I find that they have their own versions of connectedness and purpose and morality which are quite similar to our own and have no need for omnipotent authority.

I have come to believe that all of our impulses, much like our physical attributes, are derived from our evolutionary history. And just like our obvious physical similarities to other animals, mental gymnastics like morals, loyalties and respect are also evident in animals. The idea that we either a) were bestowed with these abilities by a higher being, b) created these concepts ourselves, or c) have evolved them out of whole cloth in a clean break from the rest of the animal kingdom is an illusion. Even spirituality, which is another way of saying you feel connected to things around you, is a version of what other creatures feel, all the way down to worker ants. (I love this video.)

I hope I don't upset anyone, but it seems plain to me that we are just as amazing as the other animals on this planet - which is plenty enough to be proud of without an invented divide.

What say you?

[flippyshark]

What she said.

I will note that I think the meaning of the word "faith" has shifted emphasis over time. It can also mean "trust," and in an earlier day, saying "Have faith in the Lord your God" meant "have trust in the Lord." It was taken as a given that God (or gods) existed, so an admonition to faith was more about your response to an entity whose existence was not in doubt. And hearing someone say "Have faith in Yahweh" might really mean "Don't give Baal, Attis or Marduk the time of day, Yahweh is the god we've made a pact with."

Defining faith as belief without evidence has become more of a necessity in our post-Enlightenment world.

[Alex]

Now, if you've given up on any idea of free will then my process of slow indoctrination is complete.

Err...I mean, I've never felt comfortable sharing my views on issues such as this so I'm not going to start now.

[flippyshark]

I'll happily concede that free will could easily be an illusion, an irresistible one without which I wouldn't know how to proceed. (I think I'm already on board with the self being an illusion, but I still sign my invoices and bank slips.)

[innerSpaceman]

very interesting thread to come across .... for a person, say, such as myself, who's been tripping on acid for the past few hours, and for the first time in decades.


But I can't collect my musings suitably, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass, for now.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

Now, if you've given up on any idea of free will then my process of slow indoctrination is complete.

Actually, short of digging up your old posts, I can say I've agreed with much of what you've said about free will.

And yes, you've indoctrinated me. Just five years ago I felt differently.

[keith - SuPeR K!]

Welcome to my school of thought I once felt differently as well, but I'm glad those dark ages are over.

[innerSpaceman]

I feel pretty much the same about philosophy, science, and religion as I did five years ago ... if anything, further along the same lines as before ... and pretty much the antithesis of classic Alexism.

[mousepod]

Hey Alex,

I've had a few friendly arguments about Free Will (or the lack thereof) recently. Other than trying to remember what boots I bought for college philosophy classes that I skimmed and threw away, what do you suggest I read to brush up on the concept? Schopenhauer? Locke? Someone more modern and digestible?

[Alex]

Not really, it is mostly a self-reached conclusion (which I had no choice but to reach).

I've seen no evidence for a non-deterministic universe. Free will is non-deterministic (in that if you chase it far enough, at some point it requires a result without a cause), therefore, I see no reason to believe in free will. But I'm sure any reasonably well educated student of philosophy would be able to argue circles around me (not that this would make them right, necessarily, just me improperly equipped to handle the debate).

It isn't a well researched position, though I have read plenty of people talking about it, but it is like religion to me in that it can be interesting to discuss the nature of god but until there's something that solidly requires god exists, it's just a game.

But it isn't that vital a point as obviously even if I'm right our chemistry results in us believing we have free will and so it is essentially a non-negatable hypothesis.

The closest we can come in answering the question in a lab instead of a metaphysics seminar, so far, is showing that aspects of behavior that we interpret as free will aren't necessarily evidence of such (such as Benjamin Libet's famous experiments or psychopharmacology which is heavily based on the idea of subconscious brain chemistry altering behavior).

And as a reminder, because I don't believe in free will doesn't mean that I necessarily believe in predestination. I accept that there are elements of randomness at the quantum level that do bubble up to the macro level in various ways that renders the outcomes of current state unpredictable. So the result can't be changed but it also can't be known.

Also, just because I don't really believe there is free will (no matter how strongly I perceive it) doesn't mean I believe we should (even if we could) throw up our hands and accept social anarchy on the grounds that nobody can be held morally responsible for their actions. If you can say you had no choice but to rape that girl I can in response say I have no choice but to support putting you in jail.