Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Research on tweeting shows Christians happier, less analytical

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A sample of research that merely ignores demographics:

une 26, 2013 — A computer analysis of nearly 2 million text messages (tweets) on the online social network Twitter found that Christians use more positive words, fewer negative words and engage in less analytical thinking than atheists. Christians also were more likely than atheists to tweet about their social relationships, the researchers found.

Overall, tweets by Christians had more positive and less negative content than tweets by atheists, the researchers report. A less analytical thinking style among Christians and more frequent use of social words were correlated with the use of words indicating positive emotions, the researchers also said.

Okay, but so what? There are many more serious Christians in the world than serious atheists. One outcome is that it is not especially difficult for most Christians to spend their social time mainly with people they like and get along with.* These types of situations don’t invite much analysis or many negative emotions.

Also because the net is wide, serious Christians will include many people, probably the majority, who are not especially intellectual. My impression is that most atheists are intellectuals.

In any event, people who belong to small minorities often face more limited social opportunities. The fact that two men are both atheists by no means implies that they will get along. It may increase the chances that they don’t.

I don’t doubt that there are spiritual issues as well. If you believe you live in a universe that doesn’t care whether you love or hate, it may be easier to hate than otherwise. But I leave that part to wiser heads. The main thing is, for any type of validity, this sort of research should be more firmly grounded in demographics.

* In Christian groups, this is often viewed as problem because it hinders evangelism.

Hat tip: Brains on Purpose

Comments
Proton, I very rarely do this, but I'm going to have to ask you to moderate your tone a little, when addressing Barb. If you don't wish to continue the dialogue with her, then of course you don't have to. That is your (free) choice. The topic of free will is a vexed one, and it is hardly surprising that people find it hard to understand one another's points of view, when the metaphysics runs so deep. Progress in this arena occurs very slowly, and patience is therefore necessary, on all sides.vjtorley
July 25, 2013
July
07
Jul
25
25
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
@Barb And yet you didn't post any step by step argument:
I posted real life examples of people overcoming what you term bad circumstances by free will, and you blithely claim that they are illusions.
It seems that your entire argument FOR free will depends on the existence of exceptions. Am I right? (If you think I interpreted your argument wrong, please indicate with precision your step by step argument so we can refer to it in the future. please make sure you include everything you believe is evidence, but make it in the form of a concise and clear argument, word for word). What you fail to see Barb is that: 1-"exceptions" only exist within an experiment with defined boundaries, under a defined number of factors. 2-Because an experiment CAN'T include ALL factors, "exceptions" to such experiments don't adecuately represent reality, because reality includes ALL factors. 3-SO EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PART OF REALITY, THEY ARE AN ARTIFACT OF THE EXPERIMENTS. 4-FURTHERMORE, an intersection of experiments indicating correlations from different backgrounds/factors studying a specific choice always reduces or eliminates this false "exceptions". In other words, the more factors are included in the correlation function, the more the amount of exceptions reduce, tending to zero. Hence, you're not basing your argument on REAL empirical evidence, but on incomplete and flawed data instead. Hence, your "argument from exceptions" completely FAILS. Exceptions don't exists in reality. They're artifacts of incomplete data. You should do what I do Barb, and instead of wasting lines and lines saying I'm wrong, actually PROVE me wrong.Proton
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Proton, my argument has been very clearly laid out in numerous posts in this thread, most of which you have apparently ignored. I posted real life examples of people overcoming what you term bad circumstances by free will, and you blithely claim that they are illusions. I posted a logical syllogism and you ignored that as well. Another poster in another thread had it right: please stop posting embarrassing arguments. You live in a world of your own making, which has little to do with reality as a whole. You choose to believe whatever you want to believe, but don't call anyone else delusional simply because they disagree with you. My beliefs are based on well-reasoned evidence. Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. I'll just chalk this up as a "win" in my column, since you refuse to refute my arguments. Oh, and pretending that you are better than everyone else doesn't do you any favors. Your condescending attitude is amusing at best, tedious at worst.Barb
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
@Barb No offense, but I'm just going to answer to people who have shown they can think for themselves instead of regurgitating the same worn out deluded arguments again and again without a glimpse of a real, well-structured argument... If you can describe my argument with a precision I agree with, and then describe your counter argument in a clear and concise way and show how it falsifies mine, then I'm all ears. If you can't think of such structured argument, then maybe your beliefs are based on no argument at all. Am I wrong? Then show me your argument, step by step, premises and conclusion. Until then, I'm going to discuss my arguments with others who look like they can at least adress my argument in detail.Proton
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Proton continues,
The “exceptions” you base your argument on are ILLUSIONS, artifacts of the experiments. There are NO exceptions in reality. And let me show you why:
Who says they are illusions? I provided real life examples of real people. Are these people illusions, or are you delusional and irrational by refusing to acknowledge the evidence that contradicts your claims?
When a correlation is observed that, for example, “89% of people from background A choose X”, this DOESN’T MEAN that the remaining 11% are exceptions that prove free will, because what was defined as background “A” is necesarily incomplete. The “exception” is regarding a specific set of factors which were arbitrarily chosen to describe background A. But they’re NOT ALL THE FACTORS. This means that the remaining 11% of people who choose different are constrained by factors not included in background A. This factors can be anything not previously included in the definition of background “A”.
The problem is that we've already maintained that there are factors that affect the decision-making process. That's nothing new. But that doesn't mean that people don't have free will. And an "arbitrarily" chosen set of factors doesn't seem like scientific investigation. You'd also need to factor in sample size and potential biases in your subjects as well. It's an interesting experiment that you've described, but it doesn't prove your point.
Your delusion here is attributing the effect of such factors to free will, which is nonsense because when the evidence for correlations is so paramount, it’s only rational to conclude that such extra factors are ALSO part of the background (something that can be tested too, it’s not a matter of believing in it).
Correlation does not equal causation. Try taking a remedial course in logic sometime.
Hence, you’re irrational.
LOL.
I already refuted that in the context of free will, but you never responded to my refutal. This is a great time to refute you again, I’ll quote my previous response: Proton says: “correlation does not imply causation” is used when there could be a Z factor affecting BOTH variables (background being X and choices being Y) and generating a false correlation. However, WHAT would Z be?
No, correlation does not imply causation is a simple rule of logic. It's used every single day, and not just when doing random statistical sampling (as you're doing here).
And FURTHERMORE, because these correlations, contrary to being isolated cases, are pervasive in all human experience and completely dependent on the backgrounds involved (meaning that correlations for different set of backgrounds/choices are unique),
But you're still ignoring the people who don't fit into this shiny little mold you want to squeeze them into. Decision making isn't entirely dependent on the backgrounds of individuals, because you are also ignoring factors like education, which you stated doesn't play a role here. In other words, you are designing a statistical survey that confirms your beliefs. Real science doesn't work that way.
it’s outstandingly irrational to believe that there’s an unknown factor Z generating such correlations!
You are aware of problems with statistical sampling, right? Rejecting the null hypothesis? Biases in terms of sample size? There's nothing irrational about taking into account the fact that you cannot possibly know every single factor about every single person on this planet and how they make decisions.
How could a factor Z affect ALL correlations (so you can sustain your claim) and generate at the same time a set of correlations with specific non-repetitive patterns unique to them? Such thing is impossible!
My claim is that free will is freedom of choice. You may not like that definition, but it is mine. And it does conform to reality. When a person makes a decision, big or small, they are exercising their free will. According to the links I posted upthread, some scientists believe that it's hardwired into us. Did you even bother reading those links?
You see you HAVE to be irrational to believe in free will?
No. What I see is someone who is desperately trying to fit people into a preconceived mold of his own making. It's really not working.
The problem for you Barb is that you’re running out of ways to escape my arguments.
I could just ignore you. Of my own free will, of course. You haven't responded to several of the points in my posts either, so don't pretend to take the high ground.
The second you accepted that a correlation exists, you already HAD to believe that “Correlation does not equal causation”, because is the ONLY way to escape the implications of this correlation.
Correlation does not equal causation. Again, a simple principle of logic that you would do well to Google sometime.
However “Correlation does not equal causation” is not applicable to my argument because of the vast set of non-repetitive correlations which conform the empirical evidence, which makes impossible to sustain the idea that there’s a hidden factor generating the correlations.
It's applicable to anyone who is doing statistics.
Which means that these correlations are true representations of the relationship between specific backgrounds (X) and associated choices (Y), and in turn prove that choices are constrained by our backgrounds.
Says the man who refuses to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary.
What will you come up with now to explain this away?
I came up with basic principles of logic, which you seem determined to ignore at all costs.
Your opinion is irrelevant, what does EVIDENCE say? Besides, I never said we are programmed robots. Robots can’t feel or dream. We do.
Your opinion is also irrelevant, mostly because it's based on illogical thinking. The evidence clearly shows that people do have free will. Try reading some of the links I posted, and tell me what you think.
In any case you can’t just ignore the evidence because you don’t like where it leads. Aren’t you and ID?
Actually, no. We are following the evidence. And we're using logic and common sense while doing so, which is more than I can say for you.Barb
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
@Barb
And how do you factor in the exceptions?
The "exceptions" you base your argument on are ILLUSIONS, artifacts of the experiments. There are NO exceptions in reality. And let me show you why: When a correlation is observed that, for example, "89% of people from background A choose X", this DOESN'T MEAN that the remaining 11% are exceptions that prove free will, because what was defined as background "A" is necesarily incomplete. The "exception" is regarding a specific set of factors which were arbitrarily chosen to describe background A. But they're NOT ALL THE FACTORS. This means that the remaining 11% of people who choose different are constrained by factors not included in background A. This factors can be anything not previously included in the definition of background "A". Your delusion here is attributing the effect of such factors to free will, which is nonsense because when the evidence for correlations is so paramount, it's only rational to conclude that such extra factors are ALSO part of the background (something that can be tested too, it's not a matter of believing in it). Hence, you're irrational.
Correlation does not equal causation.
I already refuted that in the context of free will, but you never responded to my refutal. This is a great time to refute you again, I'll quote my previous response:
Proton says: “correlation does not imply causation” is used when there could be a Z factor affecting BOTH variables (background being X and choices being Y) and generating a false correlation. However, WHAT would Z be?
And FURTHERMORE, because these correlations, contrary to being isolated cases, are pervasive in all human experience and completely dependent on the backgrounds involved (meaning that correlations for different set of backgrounds/choices are unique), it's outstandingly irrational to believe that there's an unknown factor Z generating such correlations! How could a factor Z affect ALL correlations (so you can sustain your claim) and generate at the same time a set of correlations with specific non-repetitive patterns unique to them? Such thing is impossible! You see you HAVE to be irrational to believe in free will? The problem for you Barb is that you're running out of ways to escape my arguments. The second you accepted that a correlation exists, you already HAD to believe that "Correlation does not equal causation", because is the ONLY way to escape the implications of this correlation. However "Correlation does not equal causation" is not applicable to my argument because of the vast set of non-repetitive correlations which conform the empirical evidence, which makes impossible to sustain the idea that there's a hidden factor generating the correlations. Which means that these correlations are true representations of the relationship between specific backgrounds (X) and associated choices (Y), and in turn prove that choices are constrained by our backgrounds. What will you come up with now to explain this away?
Unless you wish to argue that we are all programmed like robots. Which we are not.
Your opinion is irrelevant, what does EVIDENCE say? Besides, I never said we are programmed robots. Robots can't feel or dream. We do. In any case you can't just ignore the evidence because you don't like where it leads. Aren't you and ID?Proton
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
... nor are we robots. It may be Hobson's choice, but one is free to make the more foolish choice.Axel
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Proton continues,
Maybe it’s invisible to you? Do you need more clear evidence?
No, it's visible. I simply think that you're interpreting it wrong.
Think global surveys on family values. Think global surveys on habits of spending money, or on views about marriage, feminism, homosexuality, etc etc. This surveys always give results the type of “24% of people in India think negativily about marriage” or “78% of people in the UK have conservative money spending habits”, etc etc (numbers made up as example). Such global surveys are a CLEAR indicator of how backgrounds (in this case, the country and/or culture) CONSTRAIN choices on the way to live life and think about big and small things.
And I already stated that there are both external and internal factors that affect the decision-making process. What you are failing to grasp is that people still make choices every single day about how to behave, whether or not they take into account these factors (consciously or unconsciously). You seem to be arguing that humans don't have total freedom, which you seem to posit as a requirement for free will. This is an error on your part. Nobody has total freedom; we all have to obey various physical (and moral) laws. This does not mean that free will does not exist.
Meaning, it shows a clear CORRELATION between certain backgrounds and beliefs/decisions.
And how do you factor in the exceptions, like the ones I noted in this thread?
Is that the empirical evidence you said I didn’t have?
It's empirical evidence, but it doesn't really prove your point. You're trying to state that correlation=causation, a common logical error.
How can free will explain such obvious and pervasive correlation seen everywhere around us? Do people in country X have really the “free” choice to decide about choice Y if we already know that people in that country choose Y only 4% of the time? Or 67% of the time?
Because they are making choices on how to behave, regardless of their circumstances or backgrounds.
It’s useless to ignore the OBVIOUS implications of these correlations regarding the falsehood of free will.
It's also useless to extrapolate that because there is some corelation, this equals causation. It doesn't.
We may “feel” that we have free choices, but all of us are part of the statistics, and therefore the truth is obvious: We don’t really have free will.
We actually do. Unless you wish to argue that we are all programmed like robots. Which we are not.
That doesn’t mean we’re not free to do whatever we want, we still FEEL like we’re doing whatever we want, but ultimately such actions are predetermined, and existing correlations EVERYWHERE show that.
Correlation does not equal causation. Period.Barb
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
@Andre Your story does not prove free will is true for two reasons: 1-Maybe your bad background is exactly the thing that constrained you to choose your way out of it, instead of into it again. Have you considered that? 2-Even if you're an "exception", that doesn't prove the correlation wrong. As I say here, the correlation does not need to be 100% to make free will false. It just needs to be above 0% and free will fails. ------------------------------------------------------ @BA77:
So you are saying I can personally freely choose...
Choice is not the same as "free choice", because a "choice" can be free (if free will is real) or constrained (if free will is false). You just assume that the first scenario is true, and worse, in your head, "choice = free choice". That's why you can't make sense of my simple argument, you have your definitions all messed up!
Please do tell how you can hold these two opposing views at the same time without your head exploding
The reason is simple: "Choice" does NOT equal "free choice" and therefore there's no contradiction. Maybe your head is the one that will explode, since you consider both the same thing! ------------------------------------------------------ @Barb All your comments are the same and add nothing, why bother?
You don’t have any empirical evidence.
Maybe it's invisible to you? Do you need more clear evidence? Think global surveys on family values. Think global surveys on habits of spending money, or on views about marriage, feminism, homosexuality, etc etc. This surveys always give results the type of "24% of people in India think negativily about marriage" or "78% of people in the UK have conservative money spending habits", etc etc (numbers made up as example). Such global surveys are a CLEAR indicator of how backgrounds (in this case, the country and/or culture) CONSTRAIN choices on the way to live life and think about big and small things. Meaning, it shows a clear CORRELATION between certain backgrounds and beliefs/decisions. Is that the empirical evidence you said I didn't have? How can free will explain such obvious and pervasive correlation seen everywhere around us? Do people in country X have really the "free" choice to decide about choice Y if we already know that people in that country choose Y only 4% of the time? Or 67% of the time? It's useless to ignore the OBVIOUS implications of these correlations regarding the falsehood of free will. We may "feel" that we have free choices, but all of us are part of the statistics, and therefore the truth is obvious: We don't really have free will. That doesn't mean we're not free to do whatever we want, we still FEEL like we're doing whatever we want, but ultimately such actions are predetermined, and existing correlations EVERYWHERE show that. Is that enough evidence for you?Proton
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Proton @ 80:
I’m the less biased. I’m don’t adhere to any religion, not even evo-religion. Couldn’t it be that my “view” is actually less impaired than yours and that the one deluded by religion, and not able to think straight, is you?
No, you're clearly biased against Christianity. You've made that very clear in your posts. You might not claim adherence to any particular religion or creed, but you still harbor prejudices and biases like everyone else. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge evidence that proves your assertions false is one sign that you are just as deluded as the Christians you insult on these forums. Your entire post boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong!" All the great thinkers and philosophers who argued in favor of free will were wrong, and Proton is right. Yeah, I'd like to see some empirical evidence of that. Oh, wait. That's right. You don't have any empirical evidence.Barb
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Proton Your assertions are false and I'll give you a first hand account. As the oldest child of five children, we grew up in a very violent house, alcohol abuse was frequent, violence was frequent and sexual abuse too. Four of us out of the five have not followed in the footsteps of our parents, we all have children now the chain is broken! Only one sibling, my younger brother did not make it, he committed suicide in 2010 due to his losing battle with drug addiction. So 4 out of 5 that did not follow in the footsteps of our parents, and have broken the chain makes your claim totally bogus! You are not bound by your circumstances only if you choose to believe that it does! Give this book a read, it is worth it! Once an Arafat man. http://www.amazon.com/Once-Arafat-Man-Story-Sniper/dp/1414334443Andre
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Proton, So you are saying I can personally freely choose to believe that your view of no personal free will is coherent. Please do tell how you can hold these two opposing views at the same time without your head exploding. It is getting close to bed and I need a bedtime story similar to the man who dug a hole to china.bornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
BA77 LOL you have a completely messed up idea of the consequences of the falsehood of free will, no wonder you so desperately hold to it.Proton
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Proton seeing as I have no free will on your view of reality then I guess I just doomed to forever be a automaton who will always oppose your views are completely absurd! And you will always be doomed to believe your insanity is rational! Go figure!bornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
BA77 and yet you avoid again a response to my simple argument. I predict such response from you will never arrive. By the way, vjtorley aknowledged my argument here and tried to respond, so so much for your idea that QM fixes the free will problem (not that it did anyway). Maybe is not so wicked to think that I have a "window seat view of reality", after all, out of everyone here, I'm the less biased. I'm don't adhere to any religion, not even evo-religion. Couldn't it be that my "view" is actually less impaired than yours and that the one deluded by religion, and not able to think straight, is you?Proton
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
I find it ironic that I presented empirical evidence of free will, which Proton ignored, simply because it doesn't fit his "window seat of reality." That's cognitive dissonance for you.Barb
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
window seat view of realitybornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Oh but Barb, the whole world has gone mad save for Proton and his privileged widow seat view of reality.bornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Maybe they're not refuting your argument because your argument is fallacious to begin with, Proton. You like to think everyone else but you is deluded. What if it's the other way around?Barb
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Axel I don't understand your point, you're not refuting nor attempting to refute my argument. And BA77, it's funny that yet again you don't try to refute my argument, but either try to dismiss my reasoning. If you can't refute an extremely simple argument based on clear observational evidence, then this should say something about how "strong" your position really is... I'm not surprised by any of this though, I've been following UD for months and recently signed up to discuss my views on free will, curious about the reason why so many IDs (people I thought were "the rational ones") were also Christians (which I thought, and still think, are deluded). What I discovered after weeks of discussing free will with Barb and now with you is that I was correct in my hypothesis: One can't believe in free will unless one ignores obvious empirical evidence to pursue delusion.Proton
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
'A computer analysis of nearly 2 million text messages (tweets) on the online social network Twitter found that Christians use more positive words, fewer negative words and engage in less analytical thinking than atheists. Christians also were more likely than atheists to tweet about their social relationships, the researchers found.' Whatever atheists might make of it, this apparent slur on the exercise by Christians of analytical thinking (disproved in spades right up to the present day, of course), need, by no means be viewed as as entirely negative trait, or indeed as, effectively, other than notional. Indeed, it is the mix of both analytical thinking and what Aldous Huxley refers to in his essay on comparative religion as, 'unitive thinking' (more proper to spiritual matters and human relationships via its empathetic content), which has given Judaeo-Christian thinkers, notably scientists, such pre-eminence.Axel
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Actually, it's a vastly more complex matter than atheists (or your particular school of deism) could get a handle on - or even QM, I believe, since the matter of supernatural grace, and the forfeiting thereof, through repeated serious sin, resulting in demonic possession, may supervene. This, in addition to the Fall (and consequent forfeiture of integrity of supernatural grace). After the Fall, virtue has, paradoxically, become a privilege, as well as a duty. St Paul, in one of his Epistles speaks of 'not always being able to do things our will approves' (not, perhaps, verbatim) - which may be an elliptical way of saying, 'We sometimes do things our will does not approve.' This would, I believe conform with mainstream Christian theology. Mercifully, we are not always as single-minded in our desire to sin, as we are to persevere in virtue. NEVERTHELESS, I don't doubt for a moment the ultimate gift to man of free will, taught by the mainstream Christian churches. Which is also nice, in the light of QM. We don't want any more infinite, multiverse rainbows. Yes, there is a paradox, since predestination is also involved, but, since eternity in hell is one of the only two choices facing us, the God I know to be compassionate beyond anything we can conceive, would not deprive us of the ultimate choice. If we go to hell, we ourselves will have chosen it.Axel
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Proton, there is nothing ambiguous from quantum mechanics yet, because the results refute your strawman argument, you call them blurry. Funny how Axel predicted you would do as such! I suggest you take Axel's further advice and write a book before someone plagiarizes your "ahem' irrefutable proof against free will.bornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
'QM may need “choice from an observer”, but that does not mean “unconstrained choice from an observer”! A choice is still a choice even if it’s constrained, only Christians believe choices need to be free from constraints to be called “choices”!' You should write a book, post haste, before anyone else plagiarizes you, Proton. You'll get a Nobel prize for exposing the sorry hyping that atheists, aping the Christians, have given to the 'choice of the observer', when they don't allow for the possibility of his/its being constrained. For some reason, I don't think anyone else has thought of that.Axel
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
BA77
quantum mechanics goes much deeper than the superficial level you are dealing with
You mean that we should also ignore all macro/observable evidence for ID just because QM is embedded everywhere? Or you just hide behind QM in the topic of free will where it's convinient? Of course we know the answer: Religious bias!
constructing imaginary strawmen
Describe these imaginary strawmen please, let's see what comes out! As I see it, you say QM proves free will to be true. I say observational evidence proves free will to be false. They can't both be right. However observable evidence is unavoidable and undeniable because it's everywhere around us, unlike the blurry QM. The correlation I talk about is crystal clear: People from certain backgrounds and in certain circumstances are more likely to make certain specific choices than other people from different backgrounds in the same circumstances. This correlation has a sample of size 6 billion people and proves without a doubt that choices are constrained by our backgrounds. How does a Christian explain such correlation/pattern if the existence of free will implies that such correlation/pattern shouldn't in principle exist? The only rational conclusion: Unconstrained choices don't exist. QM may need "choice from an observer", but that does not mean "unconstrained choice from an observer"! A choice is still a choice even if it's constrained, only Christians believe choices need to be free from constraints to be called "choices"!Proton
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Proton, because quantum mechanics goes much deeper than the superficial level you are dealing with, you have no argument! Perhaps you should actually deal with what our best evidence from quantum mechanics says about reality instead of constructing imaginary strawmen?bornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
@BA77 You're doing what I thought you'd do: Avoiding directly adressing my main argument (you never even quoted it once)and instead say my reasoning is flawed. Nice way to circumvent the problem. My argument is extremely simple and straightforward. It does not depend on complicated logical constructs and doesn't involve fallacies. Christians just can't answer it!Proton
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Proton continues,
Free will does NOT mean simply “to choose”, because such reasoning is fallacious (“free will implies choosing, people choose, therefore people have free will”). That “choosing implies free will” is religiously motivated.
My reasoning isn't fallacious. You haven't provided one shred of evidence that it is. All you've done is conveniently ignored evidence that I provided that contradicted your worldview. Free will is freedom of choice. "“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/) You choose not to define it as noted above because you view all Christians as deluded. You allow your prejudice to cloud your objectivity.Barb
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
And once again proton I point out that your position is logically incoherent: Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.htmlbornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Proton, if you know of another method that can get to a deeper level of reality than quantum mechanics can, please let us know. And seeing quantum mechanics does enjoy preeminence as our most accurate, foundational, description of reality, and free will is 'built into' quantum mechanics, then it is you that is inaccurately weighing the evidence for free will.bornagain77
July 21, 2013
July
07
Jul
21
21
2013
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply