Research on tweeting shows Christians happier, less analytical

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 30, 2013

Atheism, Religion, Society}

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

Yes, I’m still here. You write,
Again your own logic at fail here. If by “affecting others” you mean that our decisions can be considered as an external factor that might affect someone else’s decisions, then YOU are implying that no one has free will because we’re constantly affected by the decisions of others, starting from our leaders, to our bosses, to our coworkers, to people on the streets, to our friends and to our family members, and of course, the combination of the decisions of all those people. Oh and also that person who bumped at you on the street the other day and didn’t choose to apologize because he was having a bad day.
This is a non sequitur. We CAN be affected by the decisions of others but it doesn’t mean that we ARE affected. Free will, as I have mentioned countless times by now, is the ability to make a choice. We control our own behavior. Let’s take a real world example. I am laid off from my job. It’s my supervisor’s decision. Does it affect me? Yes, in that I no longer have a job. Does that mean that I will never again have another job, or that I will soon spiral into depression? No, it does not. Because I can control how I react to this decision based on free will. Free will is freedom of choice. If you cannot or will not see that simple point for the truth that it is then there is no point in further discussing this issue with you.
Now, if you want to counter this argument by saying that “affecting others” does NOT mean “affecting their decisions”, then you have a problem. If you affect someone, but not their decisions (leaving aside how crazy that sounds), then you’re affecting their enviroment. If you affect their enviroment, you’re affecting how the feel. If you affect how they feel, then you affect the way they rationalize things. If the way they rationalize things changes, their decisions will also change, and so free will is false. If you now say that “affecting their enviroment” doesn’t affect the way people feel (and therefore how they rationalize things), then feelings have no meaning because they can’t affect free will. Is that what you believe?
What you have just posted is the most insane amount of illogical drivel I have ever read on the Internet. At no time did you produce even one coherent thought.
You see that the entire logic behind free will is a BIG question-begging position? It only makes sense if you bend and twist and maneuver around your observations to fit it, and even then it begs the question big time.
Actually, it doesn’t, but then again, you don’t appear to have really read any of my posts anyway.
Anyway, thanks to you I’ve discovered a sort of formal argument that can be made against the concept of free will (and hence against the base of Christian religion), which can be described below (words or premises might be changed/edited later to avoid ambiguities, but the idea remains): 1-Our past and present affect our feelings. 2-Our feelings affect our choices. 3-Therefore free will is false.
Okay, let’s examine your argument.
Premise 1 is undeniably true: Countless examples based on human experience can be made to support this.
Our past and present can affect our feelings, but they do not always affect our feelings. We can overcome a difficult past. Countless real world examples can be shown to verify this. Your first premise is on shaky ground. Here’s a real world example: Chris Gardner, the real life character from the Will Smith movie “The Pursuit of Happyness.” He was homeless. However, he overcame that background to be successful on Wall Street. Did his past affect his feelings? To some degree, yes. Did he overcome his past to improve his present? Undeniably, yes.
Premise 3 is also undeniable true: If our choices are affected by anything that has a material source, then free will is false.
No, it’s not. Premise 1 and 2 have to be true and you haven’t shown that.
Premise 2 is the one that can be a bit tricky, and therefore where more detail is necessary to make explicit it’s truth: If premise 2 is false, then that would mean that feelings have no effect on choices. However, if this is true, then our feelings are meaningless. If feelings are meaningless, then our souls are meaningless, which is an untenable position.
Our feelings can affect our choices, but they don’t always affect our choices. We can “follow our heart” (as countless Disney movies advise us to do) or we can use our brain. Your oversimplification has not proven free will false; it only shows that you need to study logic a bit more before trying to construct a syllogism.Barb_{July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Barb, are you still there? I'm expecting your opinion on my last comment (above this one). Anyway, thanks to you I've discovered a sort of formal argument that can be made against the concept of free will (and hence against the base of Christian religion), which can be described below (words or premises might be changed/edited later to avoid ambiguities, but the idea remains): 1-Our past and present affect our feelings. 2-Our feelings affect our choices. 3-Therefore free will is false. Premise 1 is undeniably true: Countless examples based on human experience can be made to support this. Premise 3 is also undeniable true: If our choices are affected by anything that has a material source, then free will is false. Premise 2 is the one that can be a bit tricky, and therefore where more detail is necessary to make explicit it's truth: If premise 2 is false, then that would mean that feelings have no effect on choices. However, if this is true, then our feelings are meaningless. If feelings are meaningless, then our souls are meaningless, which is an untenable position. I think this is a very raw set up and probably will need to be added lots of details to avoid ambiguities and confusions, but I think it gives something to think about.Proton_{July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Proton:
Every comment you make just helps to solidify the idea that Christians are in fact deluded. I’m going to save this long thread of comments for future reference, because the things I read here are really something.
Christians are most assuredly not deluded, despite what your above-average intelligence might tell you. Your tone is insulting, to say the least.
Most of your counter arguments are obviously question-begging, and I’m surprised that an ID can fall pray of following such arguments, but at the same time I’m not surprised that such arguments come from a Christian, who you’re helping me confirm, are deluded in favor of religion putting in second place the observation of the world.
And yet I gave you real world examples which had nothing to do with religion (Michael Vick). Are you honestly even reading what I write, or are you simply falling victim again to faulty logic that states that anything that contravenes your preconceived notions (Christians are deluded) must be wrong?
If you keep putting the Bible as a filter to everything you observe about the world, you’ll never see what how world actually is.
I’m having a hard time not laughing at this response. The Bible is scarily accurate when describing the behavior of humans (see 1 Timothy 3:1-5, for example). I do the see the world as it is. You apparently see whatever you wish to see and ignore everything else. That is delusion.
Just like materialists are wrong in interpreting the world according to only the naturalistic filter, even if the world is in fact material in great sense, so are Christians wrong in interpreting the world through a religious filter, especially because we can’t know if the Designer is God.
ID makes no claim of who or what the Designer is, but Christianity does. I believe in following the evidence, which led me to Christianity. I can see that you haven’t done so, and it’s highly arrogant of you to presume to be right and 1 billion people be wrong. Particularly when you haven’t provided one shred of proof of your point: that free will doesn’t exist.
You’re failing to see the flaw in your own reasoning. Take this example: A = Bible is true. B = Free will is real. You’re doing this: Assume A is true >> Interpret observation according to A >> >> Filtered observation matches A >> Therefore B is true.
You could be said to be doing the same thing: A = Bible is untrue B = free will is nonexistent You are seeing everything through the lens of non-theism. You are blinded by your own biases and yet you feel the need to correct others?
Such reasoning will always match your religious filter because the religious filter is part of the reasoning. You see what you choose to see, instead of what is really going on. It should be like this: Unfiltered Observation >> Conclusion >> Does the conclusion support B?
And yet you are filtering everything through a lens that states that Christians are deluded. Yet you fail to see that your logic is flawed as well. Ironic, isn’t it?
I know that I’d be expecting way too much of a Christian if I were to ask them to silence their bias and religious filter at least for a moment to observe the world as it is, but that’s exactly the point, it’s hard to silence a belief you’ve been holding to your entire life because it’s already filtering everything your perceive about the world.
Your condescending tone is noted and ignored.
That’s why I’m confortable saying something like “Christians are deluded”, because even if it sounds a bit strong, the truth is I’m not biased for any religion, I don’t have any established religious filter conditioning or bending my observations to fit a personal worldview. I just observe, and then conclude.
No, you observe everything through the filter that states “Christians are deluded”. Your patronizing, illogical arguments fail to convince me of anything, except the fact that you suffer from unwarranted self-importance.
If I have a filter bending my observations, then it’s source is observation itself, which in any case has little to no bias, unlike a religious filter, which splatters a bias contamination all over rational reasoning.
Atheism isn’t biased? Please.
If you respond to this by saying the one with a contaminated reasoning is me, I’d like you to tell me the source of the contamination. In your case, it’s easy: Religious text.
In your case, it’s atheism.
I see no particular relevance in education, because every waking moment of our lives we’re receiving information from the world around us and storing that on our brain.
In other words, you choose to ignore an important, defining aspect of a person’s life, one that can directly influence how their life turns out. That is willful ignorance at its finest.
We’re learning all the time just by having our eyes open. If you’re putting education, and specifically, moral values imposed by education, as a separate variable, then that’s based on your preconceived notion that morality has a special place in counciosness, which is based on your religious filter.
Actually, I was putting education in general as a defining variable. Look at the (nonbibilical) examples I gave: inner-city teachers who specialize in helping at-risk youth. Without their input, the at-risk youth would most likely follow the same course as others in their neighborhoods: gang membership and violence, alcoholism, drug dealing (or taking), etc. You are literally putting words in my mouth and then condemning me for them. That’s blatantly intellectually dishonest, but then again, I’ve come to expect this sort of behavior from non-Christians.
Again, you’re falling prey of circular reasoning. You’re implying something is true using a premise that is the result of a religiously filtered reasoning. Such reasoning will always render true to you of course! But what happens if you remove the religious filter you have so stuck to your reasoning and see morality like any other brain function that is affected by our background?
Morals can be learned regardless of one’s background. A person (let’s say he’s an atheist) can grow up in a drug-infested neighborhood yet remain clean and sober. Isn’t this free will?
You state your opinion as fact. You forgot to add: “I believe so because I want free will to be real”.
Pot, meet kettle.
I would have preferred you had used an example that wasn’t in the Bible, simply because I don’t know if this Hezekiah was a regular person like you and me. But let’s pretend he was a normal person like anyone you meet on the street,
Fine, biblical examples annoy you. What about Michael Vick? Jamie Escalante and his students? Those aren’t biblical examples. You haven’t said anything about them. Why not? Does the conclusion interfere with your belief that free will doesn’t exist?
No, the point “doesn’t remain”. It’s easy to see why your reasoning is flawed.
Please, take your condescension and shove it. You are tedious and boring and illogical.
Turning around a bad background means nothing for free will, because people can choose a path different from their parents simply because they’ve grown to not like or even despise such path.
THAT IS FREE WILL. REMEMBER WHAT I STATED EARLIER: FREE WILL IS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE. Really, what part of this statement do you NOT understand? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
In any case, this feeling towards a particular path (following it or moving away from it) can be the result of previous experiences, NOT free will.
Moving away or towards a particular path is free will. Let’s take the sober atheist I created earlier. He lives in a drug-infested neighborhood. He sees police cars there all the time. He sees the wealth of the dealers, but he also sees the ruined lives of the junkies. He chooses not to become a junkie. That is free will.
Hezekiah might have had certain experiences with his father background that led him to reject it purely on the combination of an undefined number of elements from his past. What you’re doing is ignoring the effect of this elements from his past and attributing the decision to free will. Why?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FREE WILL IS: THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE. Your stupidity is getting tedious.
Because in your mind: I assume free will is real >> This means choices are the result of free will >> Hezekiah made a choice >> Therefore free will is real. It’s circular reasoning.
Or free will is real and you’re the deluded one. I prefer to follow this logic.
Below another problem of your faulty logic. I’ve yet to see any evidence of genes that contribute to alcoholism or promiscuous behavior This is a complete misundertanding of what genes can and can’t do. You’re putting everything that could be a “background” in the same bag.
Actually, you did this from the outset. You combined “background” into one giant happy bag of fun wherein you included genetics, social, and environmental factors. If the logic is faulty, it’s because you haven’t clearly defined what background is. The mistake lies with you, not me.
Genes don’t decide if someone becomes an alcoholic or promiscuos (as far as I can tell), but an unhappy childhood due to bad parenting (or any other negative background elements) can produce such behaviour. You’re falsely implying that background = genes, and ignoring (perhaps deliberately to fit your worldview) the other vast number of elements of someone’s background.
You falsely implied that genetics are a factor in one’s background. You included it in your list. Proton, you are a sad little atheist. You see everything through a cloudy lens and then self-righteously proclaim that everyone else is wrong and you are right. I’ve had deeper conversations with third graders. Your logic is flawed. Your proof is nowhere to be found. You provide no clear evidence of anything but the fact that you are the deluded one.Barb_{July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Every comment you make just helps to solidify the idea that Christians are in fact deluded. I'm going to save this long thread of comments for future reference, because the things I read here are really something. Most of your counter arguments are obviously question-begging, and I'm surprised that an ID can fall pray of following such arguments, but at the same time I'm not surprised that such arguments come from a Christian, who you're helping me confirm, are deluded in favor of religion putting in second place the observation of the world. If you keep putting the Bible as a filter to everything you observe about the world, you'll never see what how world actually is. Just like materialists are wrong in interpreting the world according to only the naturalistic filter, even if the world is in fact material in great sense, so are Christians wrong in interpreting the world through a religious filter, especially because we can't know if the Designer is God. You're failing to see the flaw in your own reasoning. Take this example: A = Bible is true. B = Free will is real. You're doing this: Assume A is true >> Interpret observation according to A >> >> Filtered observation matches A >> Therefore B is true. Such reasoning will always match your religious filter because the religious filter is part of the reasoning. You see what you choose to see, instead of what is really going on. It should be like this: Unfiltered Observation >> Conclusion >> Does the conclusion support B? I know that I'd be expecting way too much of a Christian if I were to ask them to silence their bias and religious filter at least for a moment to observe the world as it is, but that's exactly the point, it's hard to silence a belief you've been holding to your entire life because it's already filtering everything your perceive about the world. That's why I'm confortable saying something like "Christians are deluded", because even if it sounds a bit strong, the truth is I'm not biased for any religion, I don't have any established religious filter conditioning or bending my observations to fit a personal worldview. I just observe, and then conclude. If I have a filter bending my observations, then it's source is observation itself, which in any case has little to no bias, unlike a religious filter, which splatters a bias contamination all over rational reasoning. If you respond to this by saying the one with a contaminated reasoning is me, I'd like you to tell me the source of the contamination. In your case, it's easy: Religious text. Now to the specifics:
So you’re continuing to ignore the education factor.
I see no particular relevance in education, because every waking moment of our lives we're receiving information from the world around us and storing that on our brain. We're learning all the time just by having our eyes open. If you're putting education, and specifically, moral values imposed by education, as a separate variable, then that's based on your preconceived notion that morality has a special place in counciosness, which is based on your religious filter. Again, you're falling prey of circular reasoning. You're implying something is true using a premise that is the result of a religiously filtered reasoning. Such reasoning will always render true to you of course! But what happens if you remove the religious filter you have so stuck to your reasoning and see morality like any other brain function that is affected by our background?
The thinking process generally stops with the person making the choice.
You state your opinion as fact. You forgot to add: "I believe so because I want free will to be real".
It is also possible for a child to overcome a bad home life and become a better person. I proved this point with my example of Hezekiah in my previous post.
I would have preferred you had used an example that wasn't in the Bible, simply because I don't know if this Hezekiah was a regular person like you and me. But let's pretend he was a normal person like anyone you meet on the street, lets see:
Hezekiah’s father Ahaz practiced human sacrifice. Hezekiah, however, began a program of spiritual reform that helped the nation. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say who influenced Hezekiah to do this, but the point remains: his course of life was markedly different from his father’s. His background was not his destiny.
No, the point "doesn't remain". It's easy to see why your reasoning is flawed. Turning around a bad background means nothing for free will, because people can choose a path different from their parents simply because they've grown to not like or even despise such path. In any case, this feeling towards a particular path (following it or moving away from it) can be the result of previous experiences, NOT free will. Hezekiah might have had certain experiences with his father background that led him to reject it purely on the combination of an undefined number of elements from his past. What you're doing is ignoring the effect of this elements from his past and attributing the decision to free will. Why? Because in your mind: I assume free will is real >> This means choices are the result of free will >> Hezekiah made a choice >> Therefore free will is real. It's circular reasoning. Below another problem of your faulty logic.
I’ve yet to see any evidence of genes that contribute to alcoholism or promiscuous behavior
This is a complete misundertanding of what genes can and can't do. You're putting everything that could be a "background" in the same bag. Genes don't decide if someone becomes an alcoholic or promiscuos (as far as I can tell), but an unhappy childhood due to bad parenting (or any other negative background elements) can produce such behaviour. You're falsely implying that background = genes, and ignoring (perhaps deliberately to fit your worldview) the other vast number of elements of someone's background.
Traumatic events can be defining
You're admitting (again) that SOME things DO in fact affect choices in an unescapable way (that's what defining means), and therefore admit that free will is sometimes out of the equation. The fact you don't accept that EVERYTHING (and not just some things) have an effect on free will just shows your constant attempts to escape what otherwise makes sense rationally, but something you don't accept because it doesn't match your worldview. Another example of this below:
I think that the only time this ("early social interactions") would be relevant is if the child were bullied in school
This just speaks of your repetitive attempt to MINIMIZE someone's background and ignore the details attributing their effects to free will, when it's the details the ones that define who we are. You can't just consider "some part" of someone's past (just that part that might fit with your idea of free will) and ignore the rest conveniently. You must consider ALL of someone's past. That of course, if you're being unbiased. Are you?
...which is becoming a large problem today.
I don't know why you bring that up, we're not discussing problems in US school enviroments.
a thief is presumably aware that what he is doing is wrong
You mean that you think that sometimes a thief might now be aware of how bad stealing is? In that case, was free will taken out of the equation? I wonder how many times in your observation of the world you see free will being impared by external causes... I have a feeling that, if you sit and watch closely, ALL of the free will you see in the world might not actually be free will at all!
You also assume (wrongly) that Christians wish for people to be punished. Only if they’ve committed a serious crime.
That's the difference. I don't think someone should be "punished" for commiting a crime just because they deserve it. I might choose punishment only if it helps to accomplish one of these two things: 1-It prevents the person from commiting a crime again. 2-It prevents other people from commiting a crime, due to fear of receving the same punishment. Both things above make punishment a tool for making societies better, but not a tool for divine vengeance. Of course I'm referring to punishment inflicted by humans. I don't believe in divine punishment at all. I'm a simple human being and even I can forgive anyone for commiting a crime. I might think that punishment is necessary IF it helps make societies (and human life) better, but I'd never (rationally) choose to punish someone because they "deserve" it (emotions can make an angry person desire punishment for another person if that peron hurt them, but only religiously motivated people can rationally desire punishment of another human being only because they believe that person deserves it). For non-religious people, the word "deserve" doesn't have a real meaning because it's purely subjective.
What is also important to remember is that we aren’t isolated; whatever decisions we make do affect others, including our family and friends.
Again your own logic at fail here. If by "affecting others" you mean that our decisions can be considered as an external factor that might affect someone else's decisions, then YOU are implying that no one has free will because we're constantly affected by the decisions of others, starting from our leaders, to our bosses, to our coworkers, to people on the streets, to our friends and to our family members, and of course, the combination of the decisions of all those people. Oh and also that person who bumped at you on the street the other day and didn't choose to apologize because he was having a bad day. Now, if you want to counter this argument by saying that "affecting others" does NOT mean "affecting their decisions", then you have a problem. If you affect someone, but not their decisions (leaving aside how crazy that sounds), then you're affecting their enviroment. If you affect their enviroment, you're affecting how the feel. If you affect how they feel, then you affect the way they rationalize things. If the way they rationalize things changes, their decisions will also change, and so free will is false. If you now say that "affecting their enviroment" doesn't affect the way people feel (and therefore how they rationalize things), then feelings have no meaning because they can't affect free will. Is that what you believe? You see that the entire logic behind free will is a BIG question-begging position? It only makes sense if you bend and twist and maneuver around your observations to fit it, and even then it begs the question big time.Proton_{July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Actually the one ignoring stuff is you. You’re ignoring OTHER elements of someone’s past that could affect a decision. It’s easy to say “background is not the only thing that affects choices”, but that would be underestimating how infinitely complex someone’s background can be and it’s power to have an irreversible effect on someone’s future choices.
There are few things that are truly irreversible in one’s life. A birth defect would be one example. Growing up in a dysfunctional family, however, is not irreversible.
You’re claiming that people overcoming bad backgrounds proves free will exists, but not one single background equals another and there is a huge array of other extra elements present in every background that could have ended up having an effect on someone’s choice to escape such background, elements that you ignore and which effect on choices you attribute to free will.
As I pointed out before, free will (to me) is freedom of choice. Everyone is free to make choices every single day: what to eat, what to wear, whether or not to lie to someone else, etc.
I guess that all of this discussion revolves around of something that I’d like to call “the lazyness of the Christian”. What I mean by this is that the big difference I find between Christians and non-Christians is WHERE the thinking process stops when going backwards while trying to find the source of a choice.
The thinking process generally stops with the person making the choice.
A non-Christian believes that we can trace back the origin of a choice to as far as material causes can be found that could have an effect on that choice. This includes possible material interventions from a Creator, for example a specific event to triggers some decision. This means that a non-Christian believes that if we could be given the power to look at someone’s past and physiology in detail we would find, 100% of the time, that every single choice that person has ever made has a source on the person’s background, which depends on a vast and entremely complex array of variables acting simultaneously to produce that single choice, which includes:
So you’re continuing to ignore the education factor.
1) genes (personality traits, sexual orientation, underlaying health conditions, etc)
Genes tell us how tall we are and whether or not we have blue or brown eyes. I’ve yet to see any evidence of genes that contribute to alcoholism or promiscuous behavior. This is a non-entity as far as free will is concerned, unless you want to bring up the Christian perspective of imperfection.
2) family (who are the parents, are the parents adecuate for raising a child, who are the other close people involved in the development of the child, does the child have brothers and or sisters, was the child shown love and care or lack there of, what were the parents jobs, etc)
Family can be a defining factor in how a person lives their life; however, it is also possible for a child to overcome a bad home life and become a better person. I proved this point with my example of Hezekiah in my previous post. I think that whether or not a child is shown love from an early age has the greatest potential to determine what the child’s future life will be like.
3) money (was the child from a wealthy family, poor family, or anything in between? What is the childs personal relationship with money?)
The child’s personal relationship with money can be changed. You can grow up with parents who were irresponsible with money and yet be able to balance a checkbook.
4) early social interactions (who were the child’s first friends, how was the first school he/she went to, did the child have to change school and friends often, etc)
I think that the only time this would be relevant is if the child were bullied in school, which is becoming a large problem today.
5) culture (what are the social habits of people in the place the child grew up and what family values are given most importance) 6) religion (what is the religion of the parents, what religion was the child taught, was the child taught any religion at all, etc) 7) EVENTS (did a traumatic event happened to the child, did something made him develop a healthy or unhealthy relationship with brothers and sisters, did something embarrasing happened when he/she young that affected the way he/she feels when meeting new people, etc etc, this “events” part is huge on itself) 8) mental health (did the child have appropiate diet on his/her early years with all the nutrients he/she needed to develop a healthy brain and intelligence?) 9) And probably many other things, this is just a raw list of what could constitute a background and by no means an all-inclusive list.
Traumatic events can be defining but not necessarily. Culture would probably be the second in importance in this list.
So if a non-Christian gets asked to investigate the origin of a choice, she will look a the history of the person under investigation back in time from the exact moment that the choice was made, and would study all the things listed above (plus any other relevant thing I might have missed), simple because anything that’s part of someone’s life has an effect on that person’s personality, intelligence, and ability to make choices.
Why do you make the false assumption that a non-Christian is not lazy but a Christian is? Do you really think that Christians would ignore all aspects of a person’s background? If so, you need to get out more and meet some Christians.
As a non-Christian, I have no doubt that whatever choice any person makes, it can be traced back to the history of that person in full. And here lies the difference, and the reason I call it “lazyness” : A Christian wouldn’t attempt to find the source of a choice, she would stop almost instantly and assume free will did it. However that’s LAZY, because it ignores that person’s past and everything that made that person be who he/she is. Christians don’t care about the obscure and infinitely complex background and past of a person with it’s million variables all acting together to determine the person as he/she is right now, they just prefer to close their eyes to that and invoke free will as the explanation, and hence have an excuse to find a reason to blame that person for what he/she did and feel no remorse for wishing someone to be punished.
You assume (wrongly) that Christians are lazy. You assume (wrongly) that Christians blame individuals for what they do. It depends on what their actions are; a thief is presumably aware that what he is doing is wrong. A Christian might encourage him to “steal no more” but to live an honest life. Remember, Christians believe that all people are imperfect and in need of salvation. A person can choose to modify his or her behavior; this is free will. You also assume (wrongly) that Christians wish for people to be punished. Only if they’ve committed a serious crime. Your entire basis for belief in the lack of free will rests on wrong assumptions and logical fallacies.
I wonder if Christians put their loved ones in a special position… when a loved one makes a bad decision, do Christians try to convince themselves that some exterior cause affected their ability to make a choice and so pray God not to punish them?
No. “Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.” The Book of Galatians. Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions.
I would be inclined to think they do because it’s human nature to try to protect the ones we care about over the others, but it would make Christians hypocrites, because they would be believing that free will was “impaired” when their loved ones made the choice and so they shouldn’t be blamed, however they probably have no problem in blaming other people they don’t care about and attributing free will to them so that THEY can be blamed. I have a feeling that this is very true, and as a non-Christian I don’t blame them, but it makes them hypocrites and it should cast doubt on the validity behind the idea of “free will”.
It doesn’t cast doubt on anything, only on the spurious logic you used to come to such a position. Christians obviously want people they love to do the right thing, but that doesn’t always happen. As noted above, Christians are well aware that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. As much as we might want to stop them or help them, it isn’t always possible. That’s what free will is: the ability to make choices, whether good or bad. What is also important to remember is that we aren’t isolated; whatever decisions we make do affect others, including our family and friends.Barb_{July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

As a summary to my post above, I think that when you're attributing a choice to free will you're actually ignoring elements from yourself and your entire life that had an effect on that choice, but elements that are invisible to you because they're infinitely many, all acting together to produce that choice, and discovering and defining each of them is impossible, which produces a "gap" in your mind when trying to find the source of a choice, a gap you attribute to free will. Is our inability to find the conections between the vast number of elements involved in a choice (elements from a even larger pool of what constitues our background) what makes the source of a choice almost invisible to us, and therefore makes free will appear as true, when actually choices have a material cause that appears to be invisible or divine.Proton_{July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

I see we're getting somewhere here, and I'll focus on this thing below because it affects everything else. You say:
you are still ignoring the fact that people can and do choose to rise above a bad background to live happy lives
Actually the one ignoring stuff is you. You're ignoring OTHER elements of someone's past that could affect a decision. It's easy to say "background is not the only thing that affects choices", but that would be underestimating how infinitely complex someone's background can be and it's power to have an irreversible effect on someone's future choices. You're claiming that people overcoming bad backgrounds proves free will exists, but not one single background equals another and there is a huge array of other extra elements present in every background that could have ended up having an effect on someone's choice to escape such background, elements that you ignore and which effect on choices you attribute to free will. I guess that all of this discussion revolves around of something that I'd like to call "the lazyness of the Christian". What I mean by this is that the big difference I find between Christians and non-Christians is WHERE the thinking process stops when going backwards while trying to find the source of a choice. A non-Christian believes that we can trace back the origin of a choice to as far as material causes can be found that could have an effect on that choice. This includes possible material interventions from a Creator, for example a specific event to triggers some decision. This means that a non-Christian believes that if we could be given the power to look at someone's past and physiology in detail we would find, 100% of the time, that every single choice that person has ever made has a source on the person's background, which depends on a vast and entremely complex array of variables acting simultaneously to produce that single choice, which includes: 1) genes (personality traits, sexual orientation, underlaying health conditions, etc) 2) family (who are the parents, are the parents adecuate for raising a child, who are the other close people involved in the development of the child, does the child have brothers and or sisters, was the child shown love and care or lack there of, what were the parents jobs, etc) 3) money (was the child from a wealthy family, poor family, or anything in between? What is the childs personal relationship with money?) 4) early social interactions (who were the child's first friends, how was the first school he/she went to, did the child have to change school and friends often, etc) 5) culture (what are the social habits of people in the place the child grew up and what family values are given most importance) 6) religion (what is the religion of the parents, what religion was the child taught, was the child taught any religion at all, etc) 7) EVENTS (did a traumatic event happened to the child, did something made him develop a healthy or unhealthy relationship with brothers and sisters, did something embarrasing happened when he/she young that affected the way he/she feels when meeting new people, etc etc, this "events" part is huge on itself) 8) mental health (did the child have appropiate diet on his/her early years with all the nutrients he/she needed to develop a healthy brain and intelligence?) 9) And probably many other things, this is just a raw list of what could constitute a background and by no means an all-inclusive list. So if a non-Christian gets asked to investigate the origin of a choice, she will look a the history of the person under investigation back in time from the exact moment that the choice was made, and would study all the things listed above (plus any other relevant thing I might have missed), simple because anything that's part of someone's life has an effect on that person's personality, intelligence, and ability to make choices. As a non-Christian, I have no doubt that whatever choice any person makes, it can be traced back to the history of that person in full. And here lies the difference, and the reason I call it "lazyness" : A Christian wouldn't attempt to find the source of a choice, she would stop almost instantly and assume free will did it. However that's LAZY, because it ignores that person's past and everything that made that person be who he/she is. Christians don't care about the obscure and infinitely complex background and past of a person with it's million variables all acting together to determine the person as he/she is right now, they just prefer to close their eyes to that and invoke free will as the explanation, and hence have an excuse to find a reason to blame that person for what he/she did and feel no remorse for wishing someone to be punished. I wonder if Christians put their loved ones in a special position... when a loved one makes a bad decision, do Christians try to convince themselves that some exterior cause affected their ability to make a choice and so pray God not to punish them? I would be inclined to think they do because it's human nature to try to protect the ones we care about over the others, but it would make Christians hypocrites, because they would be believing that free will was "impaired" when their loved ones made the choice and so they shouldn't be blamed, however they probably have no problem in blaming other people they don't care about and attributing free will to them so that THEY can be blamed. I have a feeling that this is very true, and as a non-Christian I don't blame them, but it makes them hypocrites and it should cast doubt on the validity behind the idea of "free will". Looking forward for your thoughts on this.Proton_{July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

I’m starting to think that the problem here is the different meaning we give to the same words or concepts, which is messing everything up.
That’s possible. For clarity’s sake, here is my definition of free will: freedom of choice. This is not absolute freedom because we are bound by physical and moral laws. We are also held accountable for our actions.
I’m saying “you think free will exist only because the Bible says so” because I’m yet to find any argument from you that looks like it’s based only on observation of the world, and so I must conclude that the Bible is biasing you.
Did you notice any examples I gave you, like the one of Michael Vick in my previous post? How is that Bible-based and not based on real-world observation?
One of the main things popping up often in your arguments is the idea that because we’re conscious, and we make rational decisions, then free will exists, and determinism is false. That seems to be the main argument from you, and I disagree with that, but let’s see if we’re referring to the same thing.
Okay.
I don’t get it. You say that choices come from our brain. Our MATERIAL brain? If you’re talking about the material brain, then how can free will come from a deterministic system?
I state that our choices come from our brain because I view the entire person as being a soul, not that we have an immaterial soul from which our choices come. We can choose to express qualities such as justice, love, or wisdom, or we can choose not to. That is free will.
So free will only “kicks in” when we are faced with the choice of doing either good or bad (both as defined in the Bible), but it’s absent when we decide to do things that are outside of the clasification of good/bad (like choosing to pick something from the fridge)?
No, free will is freedom of choice. I explained this in a a previous post where I used the example of choosing whether or not to go to McDonald’s for lunch. You really should start reading what I post.
So while we’re doing things that have no inherent moral value our material-only brain is doing it’s materialistic determinist processes like it should but when a moral choice appears we’re “switched” to some sort of non-material brain that has the ability of free will? And God only judges us when we’re on this secondary non-material state of consciousness?
No. Again, my concept of free will is freedom of choice, which includes all choices and not just moral decisions.
Is this right or am I missing something? It sounds too convenient, and too forced.
I’m not sure what you mean by forced. We are conscious humans, we are not preprogrammed robots. Let me give you another example, a religious one, from a publication in the 1980s. The Jewish Conservative community in the United States published a “Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism,” in which they stated: “The existence of evil has always provided the most serious impediment to faith. Given the enormity of the horror represented by Auschwitz and Hiroshima, this dilemma has taken on a new, terrifying reality in our generation. The question of how a just and powerful God could allow the annihilation of so many innocent lives haunts the religious conscience and staggers the imagination.” The aforementioned Jewish publication gives a partial answer to the question, saying: “By creating human beings with free will, God, of necessity, limited His own future range of action. Without the real possibility of people making the wrong choice when confronted by good and evil, the entire concept of choice is meaningless. Endowing humankind with free will can be seen as an act of divine love which allows for our own integrity and growth, even if our decisions can also bring about great sorrow.”
I don’t think that our Designer would give life to intelligent beings (that didn’t ask for this life) and then give them the ability to send themselves to eternal suffering. That sounds preposterous to me and something so evil that I find extremely hard to believe that a Creator that took so much work fine-tuning all the material reality for life to exist, from physics to biology, would do so. Why create an innocent living creature and give it a 50-50 chance of eternal suffering? I find this a common sense conclusion that anyone not biased by the Bible would reach by themselves.
I should also explain that I don’t believe in the concept of “eternal suffering” as you put it. I am assuming that you mean hellfire. My religion does not teach that this concept is biblical. I believe that our Designer created us with the ability to choose for ourselves how our lives would go, and gave us the capacity to reflect compassion, love, justice, and wisdom. The Bible makes it clear that death is the end of consciousness (Ecclesiastes 9:10).
And that’s just a based on nothing but my personal view of how a Creator would/should behave regarding it’s creation. And it happens that that “emotional” view matches my own rational conclusion based on observation of the world, which is that people’s backgrounds have a inescapable effect on their decisions.
I don’t dispute that a person’s background (which includes genetics and social environment) can have a big influence on people, but you are still ignoring the fact that people can and do choose to rise above a bad background to live happy lives. Positive parental examples help children to flourish, but even bad parental examples do not preclude a person’s flourishing once he leaves home. Believe it or not, there are biblical examples of this. Hezekiah is one. Read 2 Kings 8:1-7 sometime. Hezekiah’s father Ahaz practiced human sacrifice. Hezekiah, however, began a program of spiritual reform that helped the nation. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say who influenced Hezekiah to do this, but the point remains: his course of life was markedly different from his father’s. His background was not his destiny. I mentioned this in another post, but what about education? Do you think that teachers have any influence over kids who come from bad backgrounds? Jamie Escalante comes to mind (ever seen the movie “Stand By Me”). Or the teacher from “Freedom Writers” (never saw the movie, but read the book). These are kids from very bad backgrounds who deliberately choose not to follow the example of their parents or their peers.
I also think that belief in free will (regardless of the existence of it) comes with an inherent capacity for evil particular to Christians, but that’s another topic.
I used to watch the show “Lost” (before it became too confusing) and, at one point, John Locke tells Walter “you can be light or you can be dark”. He was referring to a game of chess, but there’s a double meaning there as well. I don’t think that the capacity for evil is particular to Christians, although they acknowledge it . Believers and nonbelievers alike are capable of evil.Barb_{July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

@Barb I'm starting to think that the problem here is the different meaning we give to the same words or concepts, which is messing everything up.
I have yet to use one Bible scripture to make any point
I'm saying "you think free will exist only because the Bible says so" because I'm yet to find any argument from you that looks like it's based only on observation of the world, and so I must conclude that the Bible is biasing you. One of the main things popping up often in your arguments is the idea that because we're conscious, and we make rational decisions, then free will exists, and determinism is false. That seems to be the main argument from you, and I disagree with that, but let's see if we're referring to the same thing.
Rational decisions come from our brain. I agree with this. Rational decision-making involves free will. You disagree with this.
I don't get it. You say that choices come from our brain. Our MATERIAL brain? If you're talking about the material brain, then how can free will come from a deterministic system?
Free will exists whenever we chose to behave one way (good) or the other (bad).
So free will only "kicks in" when we are faced with the choice of doing either good or bad (both as defined in the Bible), but it's absent when we decide to do things that are outside of the clasification of good/bad (like choosing to pick something from the fridge)? So while we're doing things that have no inherent moral value our material-only brain is doing it's materialistic determinist processes like it should but when a moral choice appears we're "switched" to some sort of non-material brain that has the ability of free will? And God only judges us when we're on this secondary non-material state of consciousness? Is this right or am I missing something? It sounds too convenient, and too forced. Since you've been leaving some of your opinions on the matter even if they didn't help the argument, I'll leave my opinion too, just so you see what I think: I don't think that our Designer would give life to intelligent beings (that didn't ask for this life) and then give them the ability to send themselves to eternal suffering. That sounds preposterous to me and something so evil that I find extremely hard to believe that a Creator that took so much work fine-tuning all the material reality for life to exist, from physics to biology, would do so. Why create an innocent living creature and give it a 50-50 chance of eternal suffering? I find this a common sense conclusion that anyone not biased by the Bible would reach by themselves. And that's just a based on nothing but my personal view of how a Creator would/should behave regarding it's creation. And it happens that that "emotional" view matches my own rational conclusion based on observation of the world, which is that people's backgrounds have a inescapable effect on their decisions. I also think that belief in free will (regardless of the existence of it) comes with an inherent capacity for evil particular to Christians, but that's another topic.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Proton writes,
I didn’t mean to be pretentious. The only reason I brought up my IQ is because 1) I don’t think it’s really important at all in defining someone’s value, if I thought a better IQ makes me better, I wouldn’t have used it, and 2) Because is a good cause for curiosity, which was what I was trying to explain. I honestly don’t see any value on a higher IQ whatsoever.
Another good cause for curiosity is the desire to gain knowledge. You don’t necessarily have to have a higher than average IQ to be curious or to want to learn more.
Which leads to me think you’re confusing background = genes? Again, when I talk about the background, I refer to all these things together working at once: genes, early social interactions, family, personality traits, health conditions, culture, and so on. I thought I had made that clear, why are you trying to reduce it to genes? Is it easier to you?
A person’s background consists more of their early social interactions and environment as well as their culture than anything else. I don’t think genes play an important role in determining free will or any other behavior, for that matter. Researchers have been looking for genes for nearly everything for years now (alcoholism, violence, etc.) and have come up empty.
I think an atheist would think that, but as a theist it’s impossible to believe something like that. Computers are not conscious. Humans are.
If you are a theist, you believe in God. If you believe in God, why are you so adamant that free will doesn’t exist
That’s a VERY incomplete picture. You probably meant “robots without a purpose”. But I don’t think that at all. Also, if a robot is an unconscious automaton, then it’s no different from a rock. As I can tell, I’m conscious.
Robots do not create purposes for themselves; they only follow what’s been programmed into them. Yet that seemed to be the point you were making. You state that you are conscious (“I think, therefore I am”) but if you are conscious of yourself and your surroundings, how is it that you do not realize that you have (and make) choices each day—and that making choices is consistent with free will?
I know that. What I don’t understand is why you confuse rationality = free will. Rationality comes from the logic of the left hemisphere of our brain, and therefore rationality-based decisions come from our brain as well. The reason you want to think rational decisions come from someplace else is because you the Bible tells you it does.
Have I once used a Bible scripture to prove a point in this discussion? No? Okay then. You’re mistaken. Rational decisions come from our brain. I agree with this. Rational decision-making involves free will. You disagree with this.
Come on, I said “teenage thief” exactly to leave confusion aside. Adult theifs come in all ranges, but “wealthy teenage thiefs”? It’s obvious I was referring to those young thiefs from dark backgrounds. Why complicate it?
Because you are conveniently leaving out examples of people exercising their free will. This goes against your line of thinking. There are teenagers in ghettoes right now who are honest and hard-working individuals. They might have what you describe as “dark backgrounds” but they actively chose to rise above them. This evidence flies in the face of your assertion that free will does not exist.
You mean you admit that a people’s backgrounds DO affect their decisions… BUT where do you draw the line? Where do “background based decisions” end and “free will” starts?
Free will exists whenever we chose to behave one way (good) or the other (bad). This is in contrast to determinism, which some religions teach. Theological determinism states that a deity has planned out everyone’s life in advance; I don’t believe in this concept at all. One can choose to become a thief, or one can choose to live an honest life.
In fact, since backgrounds DO affect decisions, why not go all the way and admit that the background is actually the ONLY think that affects decisions?
Because that is faulty logic; correlation does not equal causation. This has been explained before. An example is Michael Vick, who spent time in prison for dogfighting. As I understand his case, his cultural upbringing involved dogfighting, and this was a normal pastime. He chose to participate in dogfighting despite the fact that it is illegal in the United States. He knew that it was illegal, and could have chosen not to participate. You completely ignore the influence education has on decision-making. Why is this? A person with a “dark background” might hear a teacher speak of how college helped him to focus on a particular subject. What if the person choose to go to college based on what the teacher states? That is free will in action; background is irrelevant.
What I continue to see is a forced attempt to put free will into the equation without any rational reason for it other than “because the Bible says so”.
Again, I have yet to use one Bible scripture to make any point. You are mistaken.Barb_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Wow:
You went from condescending to pretentious in about 15 seconds flat. My congratulations.
I didn't mean to be pretentious. The only reason I broght up my IQ is because 1) I don't think it's really important at all in defining someone's value, if I thought a better IQ makes me better, I wouldn't have used it, and 2) Because is a good cause for curiosity, which was what I was trying to explain. I honestly don't see any value on a higher IQ whatsoever. I said "I never said that genes are the ONLY thing that affects choice. " And you said:
Yet you chose to focus on one’s background as being the primary cause for one’s behavior.
Which leads to me think you're confusing background = genes? Again, when I talk about the background, I refer to all these things together working at once: genes, early social interactions, family, personality traits, health conditions, culture, and so on. I thought I had made that clear, why are you trying to reduce it to genes? Is it easier to you?
So you are nothing more than a computer made of meat.
I think an atheist would think that, but as a theist it's impossible to believe something like that. Computers are not conscious. Humans are.
If you consider the possibility of a designer, you’re suggesting that it created human robots who are programmed to do certain things without conscious thought.
That's a VERY incomplete picture. You probably meant "robots without a purpose". But I don't think that at all. Also, if a robot is an unconscious automaton, then it's no different from a rock. As I can tell, I'm conscious.
It flies in the face of the decisions people make every single day that involve rational thinking.
I know that. What I don't understand is why you confuse rationality = free will. Rationality comes from the logic of the left hemisphere of our brain, and therefore rationality-based decisions come from our brain as well. The reason you want to think rational decisions come from someplace else is because you the Bible tells you it does.
You’d also have to define the word “thief”
Come on, I said "teenage thief" exactly to leave confusion aside. Adult theifs come in all ranges, but "wealthy teenage thiefs"? It's obvious I was referring to those young thiefs from dark backgrounds. Why complicate it?
I don’t dispute that people living in poverty might rationalize stealing as a way of life. It doesn’t make stealing right, but I could understand their perspective.

Their background is only one factor in decision making.
You mean you admit that a people's backgrounds DO affect their decisions... BUT where do you draw the line? Where do "background based decisions" end and "free will" starts? In fact, since backgrounds DO affect decisions, why not go all the way and admit that the background is actually the ONLY think that affects decisions? What I continue to see is a forced attempt to put free will into the equation without any rational reason for it other than "because the Bible says so".Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Proton writes:
By the look of your arguments for free will, I can see that it’s existence is mostly a matter of desire more than rational thinking.
How condescending of you.
I never said that genes are the ONLY thing that affects choice. I cleary stated that genes, social interactions, family background, cultural influences and other material backgrounds affect choices.
Yet you chose to focus on one's background as being the primary cause for one's behavior.
And I did that because I’ve always been very curious about the world around me and people. And I’ve always been very curious because that’s normal for people with higher than average IQs (determined by genes) and thankfully my family encouraged my curiosity to be developed too, and we can trace my decision to make this posts back to my birth.
You went from condescending to pretentious in about 15 seconds flat. My congratulations. Wow. You have a higher than average IQ. Aren't you special?
My choices were determined from the start. I was bound to end up here.
So you are nothing more than a computer made of meat. You boot up your computer at home and you come here because your selfish genes compel you to. And which one of us has abandoned rational thinking again?
That doesn’t take away the possibility that the Designer put ID in my way on purpose because it knew I’d dive into it, but that can be right even if free will is false.
If you consider the possibility of a designer, you're suggesting that it created human robots who are programmed to do certain things without conscious thought. Interesting concept. Totally false, but interesting. It flies in the face of the decisions people make every single day that involve rational thinking. Such as whether or not to continue debating online with someone who believes that he/she/it is better than everyone else because he/she/it has a higher than average IQ.
That’s a very loose argument, because you imply that because people can choose, then free will exists. That doesn’t follow.
Yes, that is exactly how free will works. I can choose whether or not to eat at McDonald's today. I can choose whether or not to accept Christianity as being true. I can choose whether or not to read through the posts at UD. That is free will. That you don't understand a relatively simple concept makes me question your higher than average IQ.
I can as well say that choices are based on what we know and feel, and those things depend on our background, which makes far more sense because we can see this happening everywhere.
Our choices can also be made on the basis of instruction. I can choose not to eat at McDonald's because I've learned that fast food isn't healthy. This is possible even if my parents took me there all the time during my childhood.
“Correlation doesn’t imply causation” is used loosely by you just because I used the word in the first place. I could have said “background has an effect on choice” and what would you have said then?
It does have some effect, but you clearly implied that one's background is the primary reason behind people's behavior, which is false.
If you could make a research about all the teenagers that have ever been thiefs (as an example of a bad choice) and check those teenagers’ brackgrounds, you’d find that very few of them were good students from well-suported families, and you’d probably find that most of them have a reason to steal, probably because they lived in a poor background or simply had a very bad background.
You'd also have to define the word "thief". Do you really believe that wealthy people do not steal? Wall Street? Ponzi schemes? Bernie Madoff? Any of this ringing a bell for you? I don't dispute that people living in poverty might rationalize stealing as a way of life. It doesn't make stealing right, but I could understand their perspective.
Here you have an effect: Becoming a thief. And you have a probable cause: Poor background. If free will exists, then how do you explain this pattern?
How do you explain Bernie Madoff? Free will exists because these people made a choice to steal. You are conveniently ignoring the other poor people who chose to live honest lives. Do they not have free will also?
How do you explain that most theifs have a background that happens to support the choice of becoming a thief? If free will was real, then we would find NO PATTERN in the backgrounds of people who made similar bad or good choices. However we DO. How do you extrapolate the existence of free will from that?
Free will exists because people make choices: to steal or not to steal. You'd still have to explain the poor people who don't steal for your theory to be valid.
Unless of course, you’re not inferring the existence of free will from rational observations, but from the Bible, in which case, so much for expecting a good case for free will from you.
Bless your heart.
Not at all, I just don’t attribute that decision to free will, but to the person’s background. Everyone’s life and backgrounds are unique and therefore all decisions and choices are unique because everyone makes choices according to their own unique incredible complex backgrounds. Everything has an effect on everything else.
You are continuing to confuse correlation with causation. Everyone makes choices because everyone has free will to do so. You completely miss the point. Their background is only one factor in decision making.
All you said was what you want to believe. I don’t see an argument for free will in there, only a wish.
I don't see an argument from you either, just extremely tortured logic surrounded by arrogance. Please try again.Barb_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

@Barb By the look of your arguments for free will, I can see that it's existence is mostly a matter of desire more than rational thinking. Another mistake you make when interpreting what I say:
There is no gene for abusers. Again, you claim that one’s background is the be-all and end-all of one’s behavior.

Are you doing anything right now because your genes tell you, or because you want to?
I never said that genes are the ONLY thing that affects choice. I cleary stated that genes, social interactions, family background, cultural influences and other material backgrounds affect choices. I chose to start this discussion because I was curious about the validity of my own arguments and I thought UD was a good place to get some good answers because people here seem to know their craft pretty well (at least regarding ID). And I was curious because free will is something that I've been pondering about for years now. And I've been podering about free will for years because as years went by and I observed the world around me I started to see how people's backgrounds affects people choices. And I did that because I've always been very curious about the world around me and people. And I've always been very curious because that's normal for people with higher than average IQs (determined by genes) and thankfully my family encouraged my curiosity to be developed too, and we can trace my decision to make this posts back to my birth. My choices were determined from the start. I was bound to end up here. That doesn't take away the possibility that the Designer put ID in my way on purpose because it knew I'd dive into it, but that can be right even if free will is false.
Their choice is made, presumably, by their brains. They know that being abused is horrible and have chosen not to abuse others. If that is not free will, then what is it?
That's a very loose argument, because you imply that because people can choose, then free will exists. That doesn't follow. I can as well say that choices are based on what we know and feel, and those things depend on our background, which makes far more sense because we can see this happening everywhere. "Correlation doesn't imply causation" is used loosely by you just because I used the word in the first place. I could have said "background has an effect on choice" and what would you have said then? If you could make a research about all the teenagers that have ever been thiefs (as an example of a bad choice) and check those teenagers' brackgrounds, you'd find that very few of them were good students from well-suported families, and you'd probably find that most of them have a reason to steal, probably because they lived in a poor background or simply had a very bad background. Here you have an effect: Becoming a thief. And you have a probable cause: Poor background. If free will exists, then how do you explain this pattern? How do you explain that most theifs have a background that happens to support the choice of becoming a thief? If free will was real, then we would find NO PATTERN in the backgrounds of people who made similar bad or good choices. However we DO. How do you extrapolate the existence of free will from that? Unless of course, you're not inferring the existence of free will from rational observations, but from the Bible, in which case, so much for expecting a good case for free will from you.
The fact that people choose to rise above their backgrounds in poverty or abuse is lost on you, isn’t it?
Not at all, I just don't attribute that decision to free will, but to the person's background. Everyone's life and backgrounds are unique and therefore all decisions and choices are unique because everyone makes choices according to their own unique incredible complex backgrounds. Everything has an effect on everything else.
Everyone, believer or not, has choices to make with regards to behavior. And everyone is held accountable for their choices, good or bad. Actions (and ideas) have consequences.
All you said was what you want to believe. I don't see an argument for free will in there, only a wish.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Proton, perhaps it would be well for you to actually understand what they accomplished in the experiment I referenced before you comment on what you think they proved. "Physics is the only real science, everything else is stamp collecting" - Rutherford LT, I didn't know you were a NAZI!?! :)bornagain77_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

@LarTanner So if you don't believe in free will you're a Nazi or a serial killer? Or better put: If you're not a Christian then you're a Nazi or a serial killer? I thought only Darwinists had such a twisted/close-minded way of thinking, but it seems Christians can be guilty of such thinking too, if their religion is put to a test... Please let's stay on topic. I started this discussion because I was eager to see what Christians thought of my argument against the existence of free will, mainly because I personally wanted to see if my argument had some flaws, because if what I've thought all my life. Whether free will is good/useful for morality is a completely different topic.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Proton:
If that argument is THE argument for free will, then I’m feeling pretty confident about my belief that Christians are deluded.
You would be wrong, of course. You've already used logical fallacies in coming to the erroneous conclusion that free will doesn't exist. I have little hope of changing your mind.
You’re saying free will exists because that people made a CONCIOUS choice not to abuse others? And what determines the conciousness?
Your entire argument boils down to correlation equals causation, which is a logical error. Their choice is made, presumably, by their brains. They know that being abused is horrible and have chosen not to abuse others. If that is not free will, then what is it?
Well, given that a correlation exists between background and choice, then a rational person would conclude that conciousness (and therefore choice) depends on the genetic, social, family and cultural background (and any background that has a material base, even if the source is divine).
There is no gene for abusers. Again, you claim that one's background is the be-all and end-all of one's behavior. This is demonstrably false.
I’m not saying that there’s nothing divine about humans and their choices, I’m just saying that all we know from experience is that people’s backgrounds have an effect on the choices they make, it’s useless to deny that, and so free will is true only in the minds of people who want it to be true.
The fact that people choose to rise above their backgrounds in poverty or abuse is lost on you, isn't it? People's backgrounds do have an effect on the choices they make, but the fact that they are able to make choices indicates that they do have free will. If they didn't, there would be no choices to make! Which one of us is deluded again?
Since I’m not a Christian, a “choice” is nothing really important in a divine sense to me, only Christians put so much importance on human’s ability to choose between A and B and be held accountable for that choice.
Everyone, believer or not, has choices to make with regards to behavior. And everyone is held accountable for their choices, good or bad. Actions (and ideas) have consequences.
For non-Christian theists, I think the significance or purpose of life lies someplace else and so free will is not really important, though that’s not the reason to disregard it’s existence, as I explained before.
Disregarding the existence of free will is, to me, illogical. Are you doing anything right now because your genes tell you, or because you want to?Barb_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Proton,
Barb, you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said. Twice.
Yes, get used to that here. The UD agenda is quite strong. The reasoning and science are not. Within five comments your words will be quoted next to those of either a Nazi or a serial killer.LarTanner_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Barb, you've misrepresented what I've said. Twice. I never said that the correlation is perfect, and so I don't see where in my argument I'm making an "all or nothing" statement.
What about other people who are abused but who do not grow up to be abusers? This disproves the correlation that you mentioned earlier.
That dispoves nothing, because again I never said that exceptions don't exist, I said that "usually" (and there lies the correlation) abusive backgrounds fail to produce good/loving people. The correlation is not 1, but it's high. And that's why it's easy to see that free will does not follow.
This also proves that free will exists, because these people made a conscious choice not to abuse others.
If that argument is THE argument for free will, then I'm feeling pretty confident about my belief that Christians are deluded. You're saying free will exists because that people made a CONCIOUS choice not to abuse others? And what determines the conciousness? Well, given that a correlation exists between background and choice, then a rational person would conclude that conciousness (and therefore choice) depends on the genetic, social, family and cultural background (and any background that has a material base, even if the source is divine). I'm not saying that there's nothing divine about humans and their choices, I'm just saying that all we know from experience is that people's backgrounds have an effect on the choices they make, it's useless to deny that, and so free will is true only in the minds of people who want it to be true. Since I'm not a Christian, a "choice" is nothing really important in a divine sense to me, only Christians put so much importance on human's ability to choose between A and B and be held accountable for that choice. For non-Christian theists, I think the significance or purpose of life lies someplace else and so free will is not really important, though that's not the reason to disregard it's existence, as I explained before.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Proton, you're falling prey to the "all or nothing" logical fallacy, in addition to the correlation=causation logical fallacy. Some people who are abused grow up to become abusers themselves. Do you believe that they had no choice in the matter, that they are simply responding to the whims of their genes? What about other people who are abused but who do not grow up to be abusers? This disproves the correlation that you mentioned earlier. This also proves that free will exists, because these people made a conscious choice not to abuse others.Barb_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Barb:
One’s background is not one’s destiny.
I never said that. I know that SOME people are exceptions. But that's the keyword here, SOME. The correlation is not perfect, but it's big, and that's the whole point. If free will was real then this correlation should be unexistent, but that's not true. You implied it yourself with your words. You said "many people" when referring to how many people actually are the exception to the correlation I pointed out. You didn't use the word "most" or "all". Which means you accept that the correlation is the rule and not the exception. You blame me with lack of common sense but I'm failing to see the common sense behind your argument. It seems to me Christians bend their observations to fit their idea of free will. I'd be completely open to believing in free will, if it just fit the real world, which it fails to do.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

BA77, I don't see how quantum mechanics favors free will. If the mind is really separated from the brain, then that doesn't mean that the brain does not affect it, it just means that it doesn't affect it through a material mechanism. Implying that non-material conciousness = free will makes no sense, because we're obviously affected by the world we perceive through our material body. Free will is put into the equation by Christians for no apparent reason other than because the Bible says it exists. Would someone who didn't read the Bible even entertain the idea of free will? I think that free will is a concept that only exists in the mind of Christians and not something you can infer from observing the world, just like evolution for naturalists. I feel you're trying to escape the reality of the correlation I was talking about before. Do you deny the existence of this correlation? If you don't, then you must admit that a person's brackground affects the type of person he or she will become, and therefore free will is false. But if you do deny it, then I must conclude one of two things: 1-Christians have lost their observational abilities and ignore common sense to sustain their belief in free will (which I think is the case), or 2-My train of thought is flawed, in which case I kindly ask for someone to point out the flaws for me so I can understand their point of view. Please clarify it for me. Do you deny the correlation between a person's background and the type of person they become? I'd really like a Yes/No answer from a Christian to that question.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Proton writes, There’s a REAL correlation between someone’s background and the type of person they become. And this correlation is the biggest proof, for me, that free will is false. Correlation does not equal causation. There are many people born into dysfunctional families who grow up without becoming dysfunctional themselves. You're ignoring the fact that a person growing up in an abusive household cannot possibly be anything but an abuser himself. This is logically incorrect. Many people grow up in abusive households and go on to not be abusers themselves. This is partially due to their social environment (at school or work, as examples) where they learn and understand that abuse is wrong, and that they do have a choice of whether or not to continue the cycle of abuse that they're used to. One's background is not one's destiny. Anyone with a shred of common sense should be able to understand that.Barb_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Proton since quantum mechanics itself verifies the existence of free will, as I have referenced, and yet you maintain that it is illusion, then there is really nothing further to say. As far as the science itself is concerned the matter is settled in favor of the existence of free will. Now you can try to explain the experiment I referenced in terms of local realism so as to make it compatible with your preferred belief and that would resolve your dilemma (many before you have tried), but playing semantics above that brute level of experimentation really is of no value.bornagain77_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Sorry bornagain77, I don't know why I call you "BB77", maybe it should be "BA77"Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

BB77, you're missing my point I think. I know this argument of "if free will does not exists then there's no meaning or purpose on whatever you say or do", but I don't see how that adds up. Just to clarify, I'm an agnostic theist. I believe a Designer exists, but I think common sense points to the God of the Bible being false. And I've found myself surprised by the fact that so many IDs are Christians, because I thought rationality led to finding the idea of free will wrong. I'm eager to see if I'm failing to see something, or if I'm right and Christians are really deluded somehow. Now, there's a distinction here to make I think. Christians put the idea of free will on a pedestal, and say that the if free will doesn't exists, then there's no meaning in anything that people choose to do. I think that's wrong. I think that the problem here is defining WHAT is exactly meaningful for a Christian, and what is meaningful to non-Christian like me. It seems that in world where choices are just the result of chemical reactions, Christians find no meaning in life, but that's because your assuming that the Designer is God. But to non-Christians (whether theists or atheists) that's just not true. However, let's leave the definition of meaningul aside, and concentrate on what leads me to conclude that free will doesn't exist. My train of thought: 1) Everywhere around us we see how people’s decisions are affected by the place they were born, the health conditions under which they were born, the people that raised them, their early social interactions, their personalities, the school they went to, the friends they made, and overall their entire life experience, etc. In other words, their BACKGROUND. 2) Hence, for free will to exist, such things shouldn't ultimately affect a person's choice. 3) However we see EVERYWHERE that such a thing is FALSE: People who are born in poor, abusive and/or violent backgrounds do not usually become kind, loving people. On the other hand, people born in loving and caring backgounds usually become overall nice people. On the same way, people who are born in a family of atheists will most likely become atheists, and people who are born in a theistic family will most likely become theists too. And I can find more examples of this type of correlation, actually you can find it just by looking at anyone's life experience. 4) If free will was true, then someone's background shouldn't affect AT ALL what kind of person he/she becomes. However we see that OBVIOUSLY it does. There's a REAL correlation between someone's background and the type of person they become. And this correlation is the biggest proof, for me, that free will is false. If free will was true, then this correlation shouldn't exist. But it does. 5) Hence free will does not exist, and our choices (being a theist or atheist, doing overall good or bad things for others, etc.) are determined, or at least affected greatly, by our brackgrounds. Why did I say "or at least affected greatly"? Because I don't rule out free will completely, maybe because of my early years as a Christian, but leaving that aside, when I sit down to give free will some rational thought based on the world around me, I always conclude that it's false. I'd appreciate any Christians' views on my train of thought up there (nothing will convince me that free will is real as long as I'm shown my train of thought has flaws). I honestly think that rational observation of the world and it's people should convince anyone that free will is false.Proton_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

From the OP: "My impression is that most atheists are intellectuals." I have the exact opposite impression. This is unscientifically based on the various atheists I've dealt with on the Internet.Barb_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

semi related: What is The Euthyphro Dilemma? With William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgGB4Oxs5VUbornagain77_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Well Proton, seeing as I don't know what video you are talking about, neither do I hold Dr. Craig to be infallible as I hold Jesus Christ to be, I really can't comment on what you on what you think he may or may not have said. But as to you denying free will, well the insanity inherent in that whole proposition is self evident by the fact you are on this site trying to argue in favor of your position with the hope that you may persuade me that you are right and I am wrong! If there is truly no free will as you hold then what is the point proton?
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.html
Moreover proton you have the little issue of quantum mechanics itself refuting your position: in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?, Materialism simply has no coherent explanation as to how it can be possible. supplemental note:
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
bornagain77_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

BB77, I can't really take Dr Craig seriously when discussing free will, I've read his free will ideas on this site/blog and I can't help to think he's deluded like I think most Christians are. For example, in a video, which I can't find now (I think provided by you BB77), he was debating with some people about free will, and one of them asked him: "What if an old person has a brain condition that causes him to hate God" and Craig said something like "I think that God would ignore that person's new self and only consider the person as he was before the brain condition". What kind of argument is that? Where do you define the line where our brain affects our actions and where our actions are not affected by our brain? That's why Christians have to be deluded somehow into believing in free will, just like Darwinists are deluded into naturalism.Proton_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Axel, I just can't reconcile findings like this: "All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions. " — Craig Venter, Trinity College Dublin, July 12, 2012 With the atheist's claim that they are the rational ones for believing it was not designed. It is not even in the ballpark of 'analytical' thinking! :)bornagain77_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply