"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, poptart said:

You've had to have seen more than your share of white and delightsome, entitled upper class members who judged the poorer, newer members who were struggling. 

You still stick by the pragmatic line? 

1. Nope. Never seen that at all. I am not from Utah.

2. Yep. Read the Rorty quote in my siggy below.

Don't know what to say about the videos.

The guy with a beard and the Hat obviously thinks quite well of himself, but I'm not sure why.

I first read the allegory of the cave 50 years ago so it's not new to me. Was it supposed to be? 

 Thank God we have 2500 years of philosophy since then.

 And I am a continual convert that is still struggling.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/18/2018 at 10:05 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you never read how Osama Bin Ladin justified 9/11? It was absolutely done in terms of well-being. The west had perpetuated and support attacks on Muslims around the world in their eyes. It was an act to protect the well-being of God's people. Is this twisted? Yes. About well-being? Absolutely.  If someone attempts to harm your well-being are you not allowed to defend yourself?

Sorry, morality only rationally exists in the presence of an all powerful creator. 

Can you think of a single definition of morality that does not ultimately boil down to well-being?

And of course it brought about a war against his people. Not exactly promoting their well-being I would guess. 

"If you punch me then I'll bleed all over you and you'll be sorry.!!"

Odd logic.

Kind of like leftists advocating Civil War and gun control at the same time.

You need to read some John Stuart Mill if you think morality rationally only exists with the presence of belief in God. 

morality is purely utilitarian. Without its Society could not exist. And yet all kinds of societies have existed well like the Japanese and Chinese without any personal God

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Edited September 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thank God we have 2500 years of philosophy since then.

Newer isn't always better. Plato had some good points, ya know  

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Newer isn't always better. Plato had some good points, ya know  

Name 17. 

I honestly think he messed up Western Civilization and we are still paying the price. Clearly Heraclitus had the right idea.

Definitely mo' bettah.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Name 17. 

I honestly think he messed up Western Civilization and we are still paying the price. Clearly Heraclitus had the right idea.

Definitely mo' bettah.

Ha, yeah, those pre-Socratics had some fun views.

But... at least Plato gave us the questions to think about? Or... was he the closest thing to the devil incarnate to so screw up our worldview?  

[SteveO]

4 hours ago, poptart said:

I'll be honest, this just screams of entitlement to me, that your special, that some diety in the sky will hand you everything you want. 

Also, Anyway, I'll admit I had a bad experience with many LDS and yeah, the entitlement was there. 

There’s always this theme with your posts: everyone else is terrible and rotten.  You ever think that maybe it’s not everyone else and maybe it’s just...you know...you?

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, poptart said:

As someone who's a huge Tolkein fan and at my core an ardent pagan I am genuinly curious. 

You do know that Tolkien was a faithful and fervent Catholic, right? He would be aghast if you took anything he wrote to support paganism. It hurt him so that C.S. Lewis became an Anglican instead of a Catholic, because of their deep friendship and love. 

Tolkien was so much a traditional Catholic that when the Mass introduced the vernacular (English, etc), Tolkien still loudly made the responses in Latin. He was old school Catholic and that's what he put into his books.

ETA: maybe if you like Tolkien so much you should look into traditional Catholicism... 

Edited September 22, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Can you elaborate on the bold part? 

I don't know. It's not like I have any choice in the matter of whether I am capable of saying I can or can't elaborate, as you surely must agree.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

In what sense does Carroll think free-will exists?  As illusion, or as reality? 

Saying something exists "as an illusion" is a self-contradiction.

Carroll would say there are different ways of describing reality that are useful and even accurate within different domains, yet contradict each other across domains. He would say that in terms of reductionism to the underlying physics, free will doesn't exist. But, he would say that within the "domain of applicability" of human behavior, it does exist. Not as an illusion, but in a real sense.

If you'd like to fully appreciate what he means by "domain of applicability" you really ought to read his book. Of course you don't think you have any real choice about whether you read the book or not. Nevertheless, your decision about whether or not you choose to read the book is accurately described as a choice.

All that notwithstanding, I doubt Harris would take isssue with Carroll on the point. But don't blame me for saying that. I had no choice regarding whether I said it or not.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course it brought about a war against his people. Not exactly promoting their well-being I would guess. 

"If you punch me then I'll bleed all over you and you'll be sorry.!!"

Odd logic.

I agree. 

Quote

You need to read some John Stuart Mill if you think morality rationally only exists with the presence of belief in God. 

The comment was tough to read in context, but I was quoting Pogi’s belief. That is Pogi believes that all rational atheists must ultimately reject morality. 

Edited September 22, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't know. It's not like I have any choice in the matter of whether I am capable of saying I can or can't elaborate, as you surely must agree.

Saying something exists "as an illusion" is a self-contradiction.

Carroll would say there are different ways of describing reality that are useful and even accurate within different domains, yet contradict each other across domains. He would say that in terms of reductionism to the underlying physics, free will doesn't exist. But, he would say that within the "domain of applicability" of human behavior, it does exist. Not as an illusion, but in a real sense.

If you'd like to fully appreciate what he means by "domain of applicability" you really ought to read his book. Of course you don't think you have any real choice about whether you read the book or not. Nevertheless, your decision about whether or not you choose to read the book is accurately described as a choice.

All that notwithstanding, I doubt Harris would take isssue with Carroll on the point. But don't blame me for saying that. I had no choice regarding whether I said it or not.

I think you sum up his view nicely. The two discuss the issue here:

 

[Analytics]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think you sum up his view nicely. The two discuss the issue here:

 

Holly. Cow! 

The two guys actually talked about this specific issue! And you found the clip!

I am a fan of both of these guys. I was thinking about creating a thread about everyone's four "Standard Works." 2 of my 4 would have been "The Moral Landscape" and "The Big Picture" (with the other two being "Enlightenment Now" and "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind"). Both of these guys are way smarter than me, but at least I'm smart enough to know that when they debate each other, the smart money is on Sean Carroll.

[poptart]

11 hours ago, SteveO said:

There’s always this theme with your posts: everyone else is terrible and rotten.  You ever think that maybe it’s not everyone else and maybe it’s just...you know...you?

Lol yeah I have a bunch of em.  Who wants to deal with a depressed lunatic?  Still, the entitlement was there.  The Bishop was still cool though. 

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You do know that Tolkien was a faithful and fervent Catholic, right? He would be aghast if you took anything he wrote to support paganism. It hurt him so that C.S. Lewis became an Anglican instead of a Catholic, because of their deep friendship and love. 

Tolkien was so much a traditional Catholic that when the Mass introduced the vernacular (English, etc), Tolkien still loudly made the responses in Latin. He was old school Catholic and that's what he put into his books.

ETA: maybe if you like Tolkien so much you should look into traditional Catholicism... 

I know he was a very devout Catholic, more power to him.  I bet he would be totally aghast over me using his literature to support paganism but hey, the pagan elements are there so hey, I'm using them.  The elves aren't quite like the ones who live in Alfheim but hey, the dwarves sure remind me of the ones you'd read about in the Viking/Germanic Sagas.  Also the magical runes, gee that's pretty pagan to me. 

I've considered it at one time but geez, those guys are dedicated.  I love the Latin mass but in the back of my head, for some reason this comes to mind.  Fast forward to 5:24, this nice guy helped bring Christianity (A flavor of it anyway) to the Germans...

 

PS: Oh! Unrelated, at 10:48 they discuss the ulfbhert swords!  Wow leave it to German TV to always give you some of the neatest updates.  I just noticed this!  Ulfbhert weapons = the HKs of the day FYI

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ha, yeah, those pre-Socratics had some fun views.

But... at least Plato gave us the questions to think about? Or... was he the closest thing to the devil incarnate to so screw up our worldview?  

Aha! An interesting hypothesis that cursed Western Civilization with a belief in an invisible reality unknowable, or perhaps only knowable to Philosopher Kings who are still ordained "Doctor of Philosophy" in..... Whatever.

Thereby making them philosopher-kings.! The high priest of knowledge to whom we must go for all Truth!

That idea would make Wittgenstein chuckle in his grave!

There we go! I have a new theology to create with Play-Doh as Satan.

( text to speech made that mistake but boy I love it!) 🤣🤣😉😜

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You do know that Tolkien was a faithful and fervent Catholic, right? He would be aghast if you took anything he wrote to support paganism. It hurt him so that C.S. Lewis became an Anglican instead of a Catholic, because of their deep friendship and love. 

Tolkien was so much a traditional Catholic that when the Mass introduced the vernacular (English, etc), Tolkien still loudly made the responses in Latin. He was old school Catholic and that's what he put into his books.

ETA: maybe if you like Tolkien so much you should look into traditional Catholicism... 

Dang.

I FELT like doing that, but I was just a kid.

 Looking back I think that was actually kind of a pivotal moment.

 I had to justify in my mind the reason that church was still true after all those changes. That got me thinking about what constitutes true beliefs in a religious context.

And I am still doing it. Thanks for that insight into my own strange brain.

And that actually started the disconnect in my mind between religious language and religious belief.

Which Wittgenstein explains perfectly.

Wow. 

So thanks for that.

 

[pogi]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is Pogi believes that all rational atheists must ultimately reject morality. 

Actually, I don't believe all atheists must ultimately rationally reject morality, just those who accept the presupposition that the universe is deterministic and indifferent.  Morality would be an illusion in such a universe. I don't think the Chinese and Japanese built their empires on those presuppositions.  

Nice find with the Harris/Carrol debate!

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don't know. It's not like I have any choice in the matter of whether I am capable of saying I can or can't elaborate, as you surely must agree.

Saying something exists "as an illusion" is a self-contradiction.

Carroll would say there are different ways of describing reality that are useful and even accurate within different domains, yet contradict each other across domains. He would say that in terms of reductionism to the underlying physics, free will doesn't exist. But, he would say that within the "domain of applicability" of human behavior, it does exist. Not as an illusion, but in a real sense.

If you'd like to fully appreciate what he means by "domain of applicability" you really ought to read his book. Of course you don't think you have any real choice about whether you read the book or not. Nevertheless, your decision about whether or not you choose to read the book is accurately described as a choice.

All that notwithstanding, I doubt Harris would take isssue with Carroll on the point. But don't blame me for saying that. I had no choice regarding whether I said it or not.

Personally, I believe that you do have agency.  I accept the presupposition that there is a God and a spiritual realm which allows for agency. 

I don't see it as a self-contradiction to say that illusions exist. They demonstrably do exist.   Just as hallucinations exist.  These are real phenomenon.  That is not to say that what people think they are seeing in illusions or hallucinations is real.  Again it is like talking about magic.  The only real magic, is not real magic, yet magic exists. 

Sam Harris actually does take issue with Carroll's point, as demonstrated by the video provided by seeking understanding. Harris agrees with William James and Immanuel Kant that compatibilism is nothing more than a "quagmire of evasion" (James), and a 'wretched subterfuge and word jugglery" (Kant). 

The problem with compatibilism is that it only exists, according to Carroll, because that's the only language we have to describe human behavior - even if that human behavior is fundamentally not authored by or caused by us.  Carroll concludes, in that debate, "everything could have been predicted, but could not have been predicted by me."  In other words, 'I have no choice, but it seems like I do.'  That is not free-will in any any recognizable way to me.  That is illusion. It is a "sense" of free-will only.  Even Carroll states, "I don't like using the term free-will.  As a compatibilist, I am regretful that 'free-will' is the label we give the thing we argue about, because none of us think that there is some magical spark that lets us overcome the laws of physics."  It seems that even he accepts that "free-will" is probably not what he believes in. It is not the right word.  Compatibilism is something other than free-will as we know it.  Carroll and Harris both agree ultimately that they are puppets of the universe. 

Compatibilism is indeed a quagmire of evasion and word jugglery.  

Edited September 23, 2018 by pogi

[poptart]

On 9/21/2018 at 8:56 PM, mfbukowski said:

1. Nope. Never seen that at all. I am not from Utah.

2. Yep. Read the Rorty quote in my siggy below.

Don't know what to say about the videos.

The guy with a beard and the Hat obviously thinks quite well of himself, but I'm not sure why.

I first read the allegory of the cave 50 years ago so it's not new to me. Was it supposed to be? 

 Thank God we have 2500 years of philosophy since then.

 And I am a continual convert that is still struggling.

Good for you, sticking to your guns like that.  I've always liked the whole cave analogy, great philosophy opener for the neophyte.  Ah, that would be Varg, a hero to many.  He's made a few videos on Americans that are very interesting.  I used to hear stories growing up on the various immigrant waves that came here, among them Nords, Swedes and what not.  Europe pretty much emptied their poor houses/assylums and sent em here via one way boat ticket.  (Those that could afford to scrape together the funds for it anyway). 

Even the LDS, big suprise a good chunk of your first people were Englishmen and Danes, look at what was going on.  My understanding was during the 1800's England had things like bread taxes and not enough work, even for master craftsman.  Then, the LDS church came along.  Hmm, lets see, if I'm a young guy down on his luck and some American comes over with a new set of beliefs and an invitation to settle in a new land overflowing with opportunities, well gee ya know what?  I'm going to do whatever he tells me too, esp. considering they were having trouble with France and just about everywhere else within and without the British Empire (When there was one).  Granted, Varg hasn't mentioned you guys yet but he did mention the likes of me (Immigrant wise) so hey I took notice.  See, this is why I'll say things like entitled because, well hey it's true.  Some entitled American from the burbs deep down has probably never experienced the struggles the lowest person on the socioeconomic totem pole has, and if he believes in the prosperity gospel may go so far as to think they're better than the poor.  Some of the saints I knew in WA had family in the LDS church from the beginning, yet never stopped to wonder about how much work and clever scouting for talent the church had when temple square was built.  The Mormon tabernacle choir is an amazing place, a pin can drop and you can hear it.  What, not one wooden nail was used?  Have any idea how hard it was to find good craftsmen in the old west?  Yet the LDS church engineered a miracle in the middle of the desert.  The fact that entitled people from the burbs never stop to ponder on that to me is astonishing.  Not saying they're all like that, just most of the ones I met were.  Then again, who wants to dirty their hands with a poor person with mental issues?  It's far more productive to associate with the successful, after all they're doing something right to be so well off, God must favor them more...*Sarcasm lol

I've always been a Marcus Aurelius fan, once I get the time will finally start with Hagel.  Most of my favorites tend to come from the secular or pagan world.  I like Kent but considering my free time isn't what it used to be I have to pick and choose.  Aurelius gets bonus points for being a ruler who was not only a scholar, but also found a way to condense it all, run an empire and constantly strove not to be degenerate garbage, all while maintaining an empire and fighting off those pesky barbarians. 

I never got the continual convert thing, heard it before.  Always made more sense to see yourself as part of a system, while the powers that be may have had a hand in you ultimately they have better things to worry about than you.  Great expression, if it's to be it's up to me. 

On 9/21/2018 at 9:40 PM, MiserereNobis said:

You do know that Tolkien was a faithful and fervent Catholic, right? He would be aghast if you took anything he wrote to support paganism. It hurt him so that C.S. Lewis became an Anglican instead of a Catholic, because of their deep friendship and love. 

Tolkien was so much a traditional Catholic that when the Mass introduced the vernacular (English, etc), Tolkien still loudly made the responses in Latin. He was old school Catholic and that's what he put into his books.

ETA: maybe if you like Tolkien so much you should look into traditional Catholicism... 

Forgot to add, problem I have with religion, atleast over here is the lack of accountability.  Religion doesn't help promote morality like it used to.  When I see clergy enforcing charity, humility, real family values return as well as putting their foot down on contemporary degeneracy i'll take notice. Going to sound like a shock considering I condemn the LDS church and the others who participated in Prop 8.  Don't care, your beliefs may condemn someone who wants to marry their same sex partner, but when you don't consider the financial ramifications, well you deserve it when they show up ready to tear your holy place of worship down.  Sure the LAPD loved it when they had to have their people there keeping a vigilant eye out.  This is where the charity comes in, like how the Catholic Church in Germany delt with it, they simply stay out of civil marriages, in order to get married in the church however, well the rules still apply.  That would have been a wonderful opportunity to show Christ like love!  Instead the memory many of us have of the whole fiasco was bigotry, religious intolorance and well, all the more reason why many young people like the last generation before them have sworn off religion.  The Church is supposed to set the standard, and sadly many have fallen short of the mark.  Even Rome is having it's share of trials and tribulations with the sex scandals.  Yet another reason why I would not get involved, not sure what happened but the Church right now is a hornets nest, no way would I want to be anyways near it even if it's a couple ghossipy parishoners being me in the pew, people are too apt to backstab eachother nowadays and religion is no different, sadly. 

 

TL:DR : Christianity as a rule needs to clean itself up a bit, if Christ was to appear in every church in the USA, gee probably in the world looking like he did in the Gospels (A homeless beggar)  I wonder how many would call the cops on him?  The whole people aren't perfect, the church is line won't cut it with me.  They need reform, the whole lot of em.  Some form of accountability before I would ever consider taking them serious again.  Maybe a new Martin Luther, a council of Trent here, a 30 years war there, see what I'm saying?  Not the wisest thing to tell someone like me to consider a branch of Catholicism thats the most radical, esp. considering the politics behind them.  Hear about CMRI?  They're kind of it here in the states.  They're in constant drama, they just let I don't know how many sisters from their convent in Spokane go over politics concerning the current Pope.  Real Christlike there, makes me sick TBH, I knew a few nuns who went back and forth from there and Western WA to teach at parish schools, honestly wondering if one of em was let go.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2007/jun/21/nuns-pushed-out-of-convent/

[Calm]

Thought this might interest some here, a friend just pointed me towards it:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/there-are-9-fewer-atheists-in-foxholes

Quote

At one time, discussion of how people respond to the proximity of death might have been reserved for philosophers. But now we have data—lots and lots of data, terabytes more every day, it seems—so social scientists can have their say, too.

In this case, Cesur, Freidman and Sabia use two sets of data. One is a national survey studying “adolescent to adult health” that has been following a cohort of high school students since 1994-95 and which now includes a “military module” of people who served in the armed forces. The other is a 2008 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense on “health and related behaviors” that also asks questions about combat experience, including being shot at and witnessing death. As always, each data set has shortcomings that make it less than perfectly ideal for the problem under study, but on balance the two sets allow for an investigation of the effects of combat, either or actual or potential, on people’s religious feelings and behaviour.

Let’s cut to the chase. The researchers find that “servicemen assigned to combat zones are 8.9 percentage points more likely to attend weekly religious services than their counterparts in non-combat zones.” As it happens, they’re also 8.9 percentage points “more likely to engage in private prayer… and 4.3 percentage points more likely to report religion as important to them.” How big are 8.9- and a 4.3-percentage point changes? Both pretty big and not so big. The relevant baselines are that “15.4 per cent of active duty deployed servicemen attend religious services weekly” so an 8.9 percentage-point jump is actually pretty big. At the same time, 51.1 per cent say religion “is an important aspect of their lives” so a combat-related 8.9-point jump in that share isn’t quite so big, while fully 75.1 per cent “report praying outside their house of worship” so a 4.3-point increase in that number isn’t very big at all.

 

[poptart]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Thought this might interest some here, a friend just pointed me towards it:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/there-are-9-fewer-atheists-in-foxholes

 

I wear rune pendants with me, sometimes my miljoner.  Not so much the later, it's going to my best friend in a few months.  My hope is if I ever die in the woods it's quick and glorious.  I'd die at my peak, not in physical frailty.  I'd much prefer to get hit by a shaft of lighting like I almost have a few times and die then suffer in weakness and mental infirmity.  I totally agree, there are no athiests in foxholes, or atleast not a whole lot of em. 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by poptart

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:06 PM, The Nehor said:

I think it depends on how much you need meaning.

 

Nihilism can be incredibly freeing.

It must be true then if it makes us free.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

It must be true then if it makes us free.

The truth will set you free but that does not mean only the truth can set you free.

[Analytics]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 5:21 PM, pogi said:

Personally, I believe that you do have agency.  I accept the presupposition that there is a God and a spiritual realm which allows for agency. 

I don't see it as a self-contradiction to say that illusions exist. They demonstrably do exist.   Just as hallucinations exist.  These are real phenomenon.  That is not to say that what people think they are seeing in illusions or hallucinations is real.  Again it is like talking about magic.  The only real magic, is not real magic, yet magic exists. 

Sam Harris actually does take issue with Carroll's point, as demonstrated by the video provided by seeking understanding. Harris agrees with William James and Immanuel Kant that compatibilism is nothing more than a "quagmire of evasion" (James), and a 'wretched subterfuge and word jugglery" (Kant). 

The problem with compatibilism is that it only exists, according to Carroll, because that's the only language we have to describe human behavior - even if that human behavior is fundamentally not authored by or caused by us.  Carroll concludes, in that debate, "everything could have been predicted, but could not have been predicted by me."  In other words, 'I have no choice, but it seems like I do.'  That is not free-will in any any recognizable way to me.  That is illusion. It is a "sense" of free-will only.  Even Carroll states, "I don't like using the term free-will.  As a compatibilist, I am regretful that 'free-will' is the label we give the thing we argue about, because none of us think that there is some magical spark that lets us overcome the laws of physics."  It seems that even he accepts that "free-will" is probably not what he believes in. It is not the right word.  Compatibilism is something other than free-will as we know it.  Carroll and Harris both agree ultimately that they are puppets of the universe. 

Compatibilism is indeed a quagmire of evasion and word jugglery.  

"Puppets of the universe" is an odd phrase. It implies there is a puppet-master who is deliberately, consciously, calling the shots. Of course that isn't what they believe.

Your interpretation of what Carroll said about Laplace's demon and its implication is a bit ironic. If Laplace's demon being able to predict Carroll's decisions implies that Carroll doesn't have free will, doesn't an omniscient God's ability to predict your decisions mean that you don't have free will? The difference here, of course, is that while Carroll doesn't believe Laplace's demon is real, many people believe that an omniscient God is real. If a hypothetical omniscient being precludes free-will in the natural world, than surely a real omniscient being precludes free-will in the supernatural world.

From my perspective, naturalists believe the natural world is in fact all there is. Further, they believe that consciousness emerges through natural processes, and part of that is out limited ability to make decisions. The ability of humans to make decisions in the natural world might not be metaphysically the same thing as what you imagine free-will to be in your supernatural paradigm, but that doesn't mean that it is an illusion.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

"Puppets of the universe" is an odd phrase. It implies there is a puppet-master who is deliberately, consciously, calling the shots. Of course that isn't what they believe.

It only implies that if you believe the universe is deliberate and consciously calling the shots.  The presupposition is that it is not deliberate or conscious, but that it (as a comprehensive whole) is calling the shots - hence nihilism.  What it implies is that you are deterministically caused by the universe.  It is the cause, and you are the effect.  I find it to be a perfect phrase to describe determinism.  Determinism implies you are tied to the universe via the laws of cause and effect.  Compatibilism doesn't really cut those strings.  The non-deliberate, unconscious, uncaring universe is the cause, and everything you do is the effect.  That is determinism in all its forms.  Compatibilism cannot break free of the strings of physics, nor does it try to.  All compatibilism does is water down free-will into something that is not really free-will.  

Sam Harris is the one who used the phrase "puppet of the universe" in debunking compatibilism.  He said this in describing what compatibilism believes, "A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings."  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Your interpretation of what Carroll said about Laplace's demon and its implication is a bit ironic. If Laplace's demon being able to predict Carroll's decisions implies that Carroll doesn't have free will, doesn't an omniscient God's ability to predict your decisions mean that you don't have free will? The difference here, of course, is that while Carroll doesn't believe Laplace's demon is real, many people believe that an omniscient God is real. If a hypothetical omniscient being precludes free-will in the natural world, than surely a real omniscient being precludes free-will in the supernatural world.

I have already addressed the issue of God's foreknowledge in previous posts on this thread with seekingunderstanding.  For a better idea of where I stand there, you can revisit that.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

From my perspective, naturalists believe the natural world is in fact all there is. Further, they believe that consciousness emerges through natural processes, and part of that is out limited ability to make decisions. The ability of humans to make decisions in the natural world might not be metaphysically the same thing as what you imagine free-will to be in your supernatural paradigm, but that doesn't mean that it is an illusion.

"You can do what you decide to do, but you cannot decide what you decide to do. "  Sam Harris.  I think Carroll would not disagree with that quote.  

Edited September 24, 2018 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The truth will set you free but that does not mean only the truth can set you free.

Having Bruce Willis around helps. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It only implies that if you believe the universe is deliberate and consciously calling the shots.  The presupposition is that it is not deliberate or conscious, but that it (as a comprehensive whole) is calling the shots - hence nihilism.  What it implies is that you are deterministically caused by the universe.  It is the cause, and you are the effect.  I find it to be a perfect phrase to describe determinism.  Determinism implies you are tied to the universe via the laws of cause and effect.  Compatibilism doesn't really cut those strings.

If I am deterministically caused by the universe, that means the universe is the cause and I am the effect. That doesn't mean my free will isn't also part of the effect. Yes, I am tied to the universe. So is my free will. No, compatibilism doesn't really "cut those strings", but that isn't the point. The point isn't to deal with the abstract academic philosophical issue that you happen to be hung up on--it is to deal with reality. And in reality, there is a real sense in which I do in fact have free will.

 

Quote

I have already addressed the issue of God's foreknowledge in previous posts on this thread with seekingunderstanding.  For a better idea of where I stand there, you can revisit that.

Right. You said earlier, "Foreknowledge is not the same as precausation." But you didn't explain why that is true when it is God that has the foreknowledge but is false when it is Laplace's hypothetical demon that has the hypothetical foreknowledge. Remember that it was your argument that "everything could have been predicted [by Laplace's demon], but could not have been predicted by me" implies free will doesn't exist.

 

Quote

"You can do what you decide to do, but you cannot decide what you decide to do. "  Sam Harris.  I think Carroll would not disagree with that quote.  

The point is closely tied to what I quoted Carroll as saying: "There's a sense in which you do have free will. There's also a sense in which you don't."

Edited September 24, 2018 by Analytics