tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post8533939445646295775..comments2015-05-11T03:25:31.076-07:00Comments on Fool of Psalms: God, Free Will and Bunny RabbitsBen Doubletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-23432491257570065962011-01-23T09:30:13.311-08:002011-01-23T09:30:13.311-08:00Well thank you back for the response and an intere...Well thank you back for the response and an interesting blog.<br /> And of course it would be more interesting to hear an answer from someone who supports the notion of an omnipotent being. <br />Can't help but feeling that if all statements of that existence were true and considering my question, I would feel more like an ant in an ant farm than blessed by his grace. <br />Thanks again and no answer required as not to dilute the thread anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-59810505822679816192011-01-23T07:35:26.191-08:002011-01-23T07:35:26.191-08:00@Anonymous, that is a very good question. The typ...@Anonymous, that is a very good question. The typical response from the apologist is that god created the universe and us for OUR benefit, not his, although this is an obviously unsatisfying explanation. Thanks for reading!Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-16363899672626869072011-01-23T05:31:21.961-08:002011-01-23T05:31:21.961-08:00The level of the discussions here is pretty high a...The level of the discussions here is pretty high and even though I can follow most of them I'm not sure if I can contribute to them. There is one thing I have been wondering about though.<br /><br />If god is all knowing (omniscient?)and thus would know all actions by all humans and all events on earth, why would he need to create it in the first place? To him it would be like creating a duplicate experiment of events that he would know would happen, just adding the suffering of sentient beings. <br /><br />Are we as a human race here on earth, starving, killing each other and committing suicides just for god to sit in the heavenly lazy chair and watch a rerun?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-32114082821980561772011-01-18T17:57:23.785-08:002011-01-18T17:57:23.785-08:00Not at all, although I will let you know that Evol...Not at all, although I will let you know that Evolutionary Psychology is not my field, so I probably am not the best person to explain it to you. <br /><br />The basic premise is that natural selection breeds for not only physically beneficial traits, but mentally beneficial traits. So an early human with the ability to work through his or her grief over the loss of a mate, for instance, will be more likely to survive and pass on that trait than one who would be crippled by grief, because the depression felt by the grieving human would result in symptoms like a lack of energy, a weaker immune system, etc. associated with depression--all of which are detrimental to survival. <br /><br />Likewise, an early human plagued by the anxiety of his or her upcoming death will be less likely to survive for a long time and reproduce than one who has a technique to overcome that anxiety and the detrimental symptoms that come with anxiety. <br /><br />The brains of early humans with more developed senses of humor would produce more serotonin, which has many beneficial effects to health and therefore survival. <br /><br />It is still a long way from being a widely accepted method of understanding human behavior, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless. Here's a brief video from the PBS series on evolution that summarizes EP probably better than I have:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEmX8Rim-hs<br /><br />As I have said, though, I am not a proponent of the idea, nor have I studied it in any great depth. I am just familiar with it.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-20701575267562986382011-01-18T14:18:42.122-08:002011-01-18T14:18:42.122-08:00I hope you will allow me the latitude to pursue yo...I hope you will allow me the latitude to pursue your point on anxiety further, even if it is going on a tangent from your original post on free will. Perhaps I am a purist, but I still cannot see how ancillary traits could have evolved through natural selection to overcome anxiety. How could addressing the anxiety experienced when one predicts their own death lead to an increase in survival and reproductive success of that individual (and thus the propagation of the genes giving rise to these ancillary traits)? Wouldn't anxiety at this point be a bit late to result in a positive selection force? How could paranormal and supernatural hallucinations in people close to death lead to their eventual survival? <br /><br />Is anxiety only experienced by humans? Why don't zebras and gazelles have a sense of humor? They certainly must experience quite a lot of anxiety living in the savannah, with the constant threat of predation. How about rabbits? I haven't heard them laugh lately either.eosimiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04284629306670045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-86631710365163376842011-01-18T07:26:27.122-08:002011-01-18T07:26:27.122-08:00Well, other methods for reducing anxiety have been...Well, other methods for reducing anxiety have been positive selection pressures. This is why we have developed, for instance, a sense of humor. Nothing is objectively funny or humorous, so we can say that humor is an illusion created in human minds by natural selection. <br /><br />Dr. Michael Persinger at Laurentian University has also hypothesized that the anxiety caused by the ability to prognosticate their own deaths was one of the selection pressures for the development of the mesiobasal structures within the right temporal lobe--the part of the brain that has been demonstrated to cause paranormal and supernatural hallucinations. <br /><br />So in general I don't think it would be accurate to say that the alleviation of anxiety cannot act as a selection pressure--evolutionary psychology has shown several instances where it does. However, in this instance I believe you are right; natural selection created actual free will, not an illusion of it.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-10861786972873781352011-01-18T03:36:26.532-08:002011-01-18T03:36:26.532-08:00Although I sense that you will agree with me, I am...Although I sense that you will agree with me, I am compelled to continue your theoretical line of reasoning further. I cannot see how anxiety created by the recognition that our actions may be outside our control would affect survival and/or reproductive success in individuals. If our actions were somehow truly predestined, then natural selection would work upon that fact. Anxiety caused by this fact would unlikely become a negative selective pressure. It would just be a fact of reality, like gravity. If we jump we fall back down whether we like it or not. We have not developed an anxiety from our wish to be able to fly, but cannot. The fact that we can make choices over which actions we take and which we do not take is compelling evidence that free will is not an illusion, but a fact.eosimiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04284629306670045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-84369358974955442642011-01-17T19:24:49.036-08:002011-01-17T19:24:49.036-08:00That is a very good point eosimias. I postulated ...That is a very good point eosimias. I postulated the possibility that natural selection could have produced an illusion of free will as an Eddington Concession, but it is not my position that that is the case. A selection pressure might be the anxiety felt by an animal with a high level of cognitive awareness of its actions but no ability to control them, however I do not find that idea very plausible. I am in agreement with you that natural selection imbued animals with higher functioning cognitive capacities with actual free will.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-77863975236791662712011-01-17T17:13:44.270-08:002011-01-17T17:13:44.270-08:00I am a bit confused about the notion that free wil...I am a bit confused about the notion that free will could have been a useful illusion bred into our brains through natural selection. What would have been the positive selective pressure behind this? I can see that seeing colors might have had a selective pressure (i.e. being able to detect ripe fruits, etc.). But what is the positive selection pressure that would result in the "illusion" for free will? It would seem to me more plausible that free will (i.e. the ability to choose an action from many possible actions) allows humans (and indeed many if not most vertebrates) the ability to decide when and whether to act. Behaviors that are based purely on instinct, perhaps the way ants or bees act, lacks the same level of free will. Vertebrates, with their higher cognitive capacities, are more able to decide upon their actions and this has had a strong selective pressure during natural evolution, as it allows us to modify our behavior depending on the circumstances that we encounter (lemings jumping off of cliffs, not withstanding... :) ). Thus I do think that free will exists, but it certainly does not follow from that that god must exist as well.eosimiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04284629306670045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-47171113181061343722011-01-17T08:04:18.640-08:002011-01-17T08:04:18.640-08:00A very funny comment I received regarding this pos...A very funny comment I received regarding this post on Facebook:<br /><br />Free will is difficult to reconcile with an omniscient deity -- if your deity knows precisely what you are going to do tomorrow, it is hard to argue that your actions were anything but pre-determined.<br /><br />The Gospel of the FSM gives us insight a...s to how we can, in fact, have both. Our God frequently drinks heavily from the beer volcano in heaven and gets extremely drunk -- so much so that during the creation of Earth, he actually created "land" twice, because he forgot that he had created it the first time.<br /><br />These frequent bouts of inebriation often leave the FSM's vision into the future a bit blurry, thus providing significant leeway for our free will to express itself.<br /><br />Our ability to reconcile free will with our God's existence is just one more piece of evidence that the Pastafarian world view is the correct one and that others are mistaken.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-81095486585112179492011-01-16T21:31:55.244-08:002011-01-16T21:31:55.244-08:00Psalms 90 seems to imply that god does experience ...Psalms 90 seems to imply that god does experience some sensation of time, but at a different rate than we do, so I'm not sure I can accept the notion that god exists completely outside of all time. <br /><br />But even if he did, any instance where god would interact with humans would require him to enter time as well as space, and therefore at that point have knowledge of events before they happened, which would also mean having knowledge of choices before they are made (bringing it back around to the point I made previously.) So even if a god existing outside of space and time having knowledge of what choices are made does not violate free will, the second that god enters space and time and communicates the results of those choices to some humans before those choices are made by others, free will is violated. <br /><br />Your argument regarding the unreliability of reason still rests upon a slippery slope fallacy, therefore it is not valid. It simply does not follow that human reason is entirely unreliable from human reason is not perfect.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-31601560477813325992011-01-16T21:10:34.916-08:002011-01-16T21:10:34.916-08:00Who says God experiences time so that he can know ...Who says God experiences time so that he can know things "before?" Some A theorists like William Lane Craig believe that God does bring Himself into time with us when He creates the universe, but I'm not sold on this view. It is just as plausible if not more so to say that God is still completely outside of time, so He does not experience "before." In any case, I still don't see how God taking in knowledge about what we do limits us. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one...<br /><br />I suppose you could call this a slippery slope argument, but it's still a reality that the atheist must face. What reason do you have for believing your senses and reason are to any degree trustworthy? They weren't meant to be. If they are even a little bit trustworthy, it's because natural selection worked through genetic mutation at odds so high I'm not sure they could be calculated. You admit that natural selection could have created an illusion of free will in us. What other illusions could it have created? The truth of the matter is that the atheist accepts that his reason and experience are trustworthy on blind faith. They cannot be demonstrated to be trustworthy through reason, and even if they could, this would be circular-- it's reason we're not sure about to begin with. You can call these beliefs properly basic and that's fine. I agree. But this still doesn't let you off the hook if your atheistic dogma makes these properly basic beliefs so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. It's almost as if you presupposed solipsism and then called a belief in other minds incorrigible. You're right that it's incorrigible, but that doesn't change the fact that it is inconsistent with your presupposition.Cody Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14950752954807801161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-29701103040404656402011-01-16T20:46:28.948-08:002011-01-16T20:46:28.948-08:00". If that's the case, the thoughts in ou...". If that's the case, the thoughts in our brains are not only completely untrustworthy (who knows what other false ideas the process of evolution has put into our brains since it "cares" not for giving us the ability to know truth), they really are just meaningless chemical reactions. We cannot test them for truth or try to do better, because all we can do is what we were programmed to do from the beginning, and we have no guarantee of arriving anywhere near the truth. In other words, it does not follow from the fact that you perceive ANYTHING that it exists in reality."<br /><br />Well, this is obviously slippery slope logic. Since we may have reason to distrust our instinctual thoughts some of the time does not mean we have no reason to trust our thoughts any of the time. The extreme position does not follow from the moderate position. <br /><br />"If God knows you're going to do it because He can see the choices you make, how does this destroy freewill?"<br /><br />If he has knowledge of my choices before I make them, then my choices are made before I make them. Therefore, the process I go through of making choices is illusory--I am simply following through with a set of predetermined actions.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-16054088546481093972011-01-16T20:13:39.425-08:002011-01-16T20:13:39.425-08:00"It is entirely possible that free will is ju..."It is entirely possible that free will is just a useful illusion, bred into our brains by the process of evolution by natural selection... It does not follow from the fact that human reason—a faulty data processing program—perceives something that that thing exists in reality. The author of the argument, essentially, does not satisfactorily demonstrate the truth of this premise."<br /><br />Interesting idea. Evolution has created the illusion of choice in beings that can't actually make choices. If that's the case, the thoughts in our brains are not only completely untrustworthy (who knows what other false ideas the process of evolution has put into our brains since it "cares" not for giving us the ability to know truth), they really are just meaningless chemical reactions. We cannot test them for truth or try to do better, because all we can do is what we were programmed to do from the beginning, and we have no guarantee of arriving anywhere near the truth. In other words, it does not follow from the fact that you perceive ANYTHING that it exists in reality. When you examine the Christian faith, you aren't actually logically thinking through it, you're just reacting to stimuli in a way you have no control over. Furthermore, we are incapable of making moral choices because everything we do was predetermined. This is a much more consistent atheism. Meaningless, moral-less, choiceless, mindless.<br /><br /><br />"At the quantum level, there is chaos and randomness. Therefore, the claim that a purely physical universe is deterministic can be said to be conclusively debunked by modern science."<br /><br />Not so. There are over ten models of quantum mechanics and most of them are thoroughly deterministic. The debate is over whether the "randomness" is epistemological (we simply don't know what will happen) or ontic (in the thing itself).<br /><br /><br />"If a being exists that has a plan for all of us and has told us exactly how that plan will unfold in the Book of Revelations, then any possibility of free will humans have goes out the window. Think about it. If god believes that I will post this piece to my blog at 8pm on January 15th, would I be able to decide not to do so and post it to my blog at noon on the 16th instead? If the answer is yes, then god is not in possession of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. If the answer is no, then I am not in possession of free will."<br /><br />I've never quite understood this argument. Does God know you're going to post this blog because you make a choice to do it and He can perceive all events throughout time, or do you post it because He has decreed it? If God knows you're going to do it because He can see the choices you make, how does this destroy freewill? If I know Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address because of my unique vantage point, does my knowledge of him giving it mean he had no choice in the matter? Of course not. God is capable of BOTH decreeing things to come to pass in ways that could limit our freedom as well as giving us free choices and knowing what these choices are. In any case, His knowledge alone does not determine our choices. Both His AND our choices determine His knowledge.Cody Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14950752954807801161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-66906758848782150692011-01-16T19:11:54.106-08:002011-01-16T19:11:54.106-08:00Hi A.Person! I hope to encourage dialogue amongst...Hi A.Person! I hope to encourage dialogue amongst believers and nonbelievers who normally stay isolated in separate spheres of communication. I would also like to provide a resource for both believers who may be reconsidering their faith and nonbelievers who engage in discussions with believers that demonstrates the fallacious reasoning or false premises of all arguments given for the existence of a god. <br /><br />I address this topic in greater detail at the end of my first post in December of 2010, the one entitled Inaugural Post. Thanks for the great question!Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-34981102772639473362011-01-16T18:50:27.045-08:002011-01-16T18:50:27.045-08:00What do you hope to achieve from posting this blog...What do you hope to achieve from posting this blog?A.Personhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07558754884856723187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-6764962111824545872011-01-16T18:24:08.199-08:002011-01-16T18:24:08.199-08:00Hi Ruben! Thank you so much! I would be honored ...Hi Ruben! Thank you so much! I would be honored if you featured my post on your site. Richard Dawkins is a personal hero of mine. Please just make sure you include my name and a link back to the main page of this blog--http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com. <br /><br />Thanks again!!Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-75295591994634604962011-01-16T17:35:08.139-08:002011-01-16T17:35:08.139-08:00Hi Ben. Interesting article. I wondered if I could...Hi Ben. Interesting article. I wondered if I could use it on my site http://www.richard-dawkins.com ? Thanks in advance for your reply.Rubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11964700670701608809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-21910663222834651122011-01-16T09:25:12.860-08:002011-01-16T09:25:12.860-08:00@BAC, thanks for the input. I will probably be do...@BAC, thanks for the input. I will probably be doing a post in the next couple of weeks about religion in public life (schools, politics, on our money, etc.) I try to do these posts, responses to arguments for the existence of god, to demonstrate to people that there is no good reason to believe a god exists. I have previously addressed the Moral Argument, and I am working on pieces addressing the Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments.Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-12550152882549209262011-01-16T07:29:47.871-08:002011-01-16T07:29:47.871-08:00It seems you've put a lot of effort in to try ...It seems you've put a lot of effort in to try and prove just one point. But actually, even from the very beginning, everything existing in the universe may have innumerable multiple choices/possibilities available, and random events or chance, brings about the universe that we see today, including us. Multiple choice, and the random behaviour of everything living, plus coincidence, plays a huge part in everyones life, and in the universe. It doesn't change the fact that religious believers have had much of their free will removed by other believers before they can learn the ability to reason out problems logically for themselves.You are probably better off putting more effort into persuading governments to stop allowing religious propaganda in schools. That's the only way to stop mind manipulation and brainwashing, and to allow free will to eventually become rightfully available to everyone again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-3317644793916165942011-01-15T23:48:10.023-08:002011-01-15T23:48:10.023-08:00Thank you very much for your kind words, Cameron, ...Thank you very much for your kind words, Cameron, I really appreciate it! Please help me spread the word about the blog if you enjoyed it!Ben Doubletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269194589712364467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-919651755851617393.post-54142422825610183052011-01-15T23:39:00.468-08:002011-01-15T23:39:00.468-08:00This is an excellent article Ben. Unfortunately it...This is an excellent article Ben. Unfortunately it will go over the heads of most xtians.<br /><br />Nevertheless, some xtians are smart enough to read and understand it.<br /><br />It your article manages to open just one such mind, your effort has been worth while.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086450581780252290noreply@blogger.com