Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

Thermal said:
Did you get a gander on which subforum you're in, brah?

Eta: and the innnie v outie debate is on That Thread.
Click to expand...
I get it. People talk about these things. Usually after smoking a bowl, eating psilocybin mushrooms or dropping acid.

It's like the term "philosophy." Which means the love of knowledge. Which I very much do. And yet I tend to think that a lot of "philosophy" is generally useless. Whereas 'logic' being a branch of philosophy is in my view is extremely useful and the core of the scientific method.
 
Poem said:
Sure creationist do that. I'm not a creationist though.
Click to expand...
Could have fooled me. Your constant use of terms like "Neo-Darwinism" and "modern synthesis" rather than simply "biology" is creationist language.
Poem said:
Not at all - and you know that because I quoted from a pro-evolutionary website.
Click to expand...
Trust me when I say that creationists cherry pick from "pro-evolutionary" (aka. reality-based) websites all the time when they can find a soundbite that when taken out of context appears to support their ideas.
 
Thermal said:
<Wanted to address this one separately >

Seems you have developed the world's first working model of how the thought/choice process works. Outstanding! Please tell me all about what exactly the 'genes' are doing and how they are doing it. Without, of course, convenient personifications and other literary devices that gloss over that annoying "I don't have the foggiest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea how any of this works" thingy that keeps popping up in such explanations. .
Click to expand...
Why don't I also get three PhDs and write a book while I'm at it. Thankfully, this isn't really my model, but is paraphrased from some of my reading on the matter. A book I mentioned somewhere in this thread, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert Sapolsky, does a very good job of presenting an extensive overview of the reasearch and arguments.

As for what the genes are doing, it feels like you want me to describe exactly how the womb, one's childhood, one's culture etc. affects specific genes to encode an amygdala and a prefrontal cortex that will, to use an example from the above book, make a person racist. Which is a bit much, and you should probably read the book for a more detailed overview of that.

All I can offer is the basic idea: there is an uninterrupted line from one's conception to every decision one makes. The genes determine how the body develops in a specific environment, like making certain neurons more or less excitable. The environment is everything from the nutrients in the womb to the culture one grows up in, and it even includes every decision one makes in a sort of feedback loop.

And then you have a baby acting and developing based on its brain and leaving that brain to the child, and the child acting and developing based on the brain the baby has made, etc. Then the adult gets the brain the adolescent has made. Then the adult uses a racial slur because their prefrontal cortex didn't shut down their amygdala, because the baby was given a brain that made decisions which resulted in more decisions which eventually resulted in a prefrontal cortex that wouldn't stop the amygdala's xenophobic fear and agression response.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
Why don't I also get three PhDs and write a book while I'm at it. Thankfully, this isn't really my model, but is paraphrased from some of my reading on the matter. A book I mentioned somewhere in this thread, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert Sapolsky, does a very good job of presenting an extensive overview of the reasearch and arguments.

As for what the genes are doing, it feels like you want me to describe exactly how the womb, one's childhood, one's culture etc. affects specific genes to encode an amygdala and a prefrontal cortex that will, to use an example from the above book, make a person racist. Which is a bit much, and you should probably read the book for a more detailed overview of that.

All I can offer is the basic idea: there is an uninterrupted line from one's conception to every decision one makes. The genes determine how the body develops in a specific environment, like making certain neurons more or less excitable. The environment is everything from the nutrients in the womb to the culture one grows up in, and it even includes every decision one makes in a sort of feedback loop.

And then you have a baby acting and developing based on its brain and leaving that brain to the child, and the child acting and developing based on the brain the baby has made, etc. Then the adult gets the brain the adolescent has made. Then the adult uses a racial slur because their prefrontal cortex didn't shut down their amygdala, because the baby was given a brain that made decisions which resulted in more decisions which eventually resulted in a prefrontal cortex that wouldn't stop the amygdala's xenophobic fear and agression response.
Click to expand...
This is where I don't care how many PHDs one might have. Seems to me that regardless of how smart and educated one might be, determining whether anyone does or doesn't have free will requires at some point non-sequitors or some other fallacy.

Yes, each of us is a product of genetics and the environment/circumstances involved in our lives. But the argument that we don't make conscious choices, ie; have free will in dealing with them seems false.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
This is where I don't care how many PHDs one might have. Seems to me that regardless of how smart and educated one might be, determining whether anyone does or doesn't have free will requires at some point non-sequitors or some other fallacy.

Yes, each of us is a product of genetics and the environment/circumstances involved in our lives. But the argument that we don't make conscious choices, ie; have free will in dealing with them seems false.
Click to expand...

It's just as false as claiming that we actually have free will.

As I asked above, how can you tell the difference between apparent free will and actual free will? How can you tell if your decisions are actually freely made and not merely the consequence of some unknown determining factor?

I don't have to claim that everything is determined to say that claims we have free will are baseless.
 
acbytesla said:
This is where I don't care how many PHDs one might have. Seems to me that regardless of how smart and educated one might be, determining whether anyone does or doesn't have free will requires at some point non-sequitors or some other fallacy.

Yes, each of us is a product of genetics and the environment/circumstances involved in our lives. But the argument that we don't make conscious choices, ie; have free will in dealing with them seems false.
Click to expand...
It doesn't require anything of the sort, it's just an issue that spans many different disciplines from genetics to neuroscience, and detractors are the ones trying to find free will in every crack.

Research can show that the prefrontal cortex simply doesn't activate in racist people. The detractors will say that it doesn't activate because they are racist, and that they are at fault. They will claim that these people have free will.

Research can also show that a damaged prefrontal cortex won't activate, and that such a person will become racist. In this case, people will say that they aren't at fault that it became damaged, so they don't have free will.

But in both cases the result is the same: the prefrontal cortex won't shut down the amygdala. And there is no moral difference between a prefrontal cortex that has been made inactive by life, and a prefrontal cortex that has been made inactive by a sudden injury. Who do you blame for the life? The genes? The womb? The baby?
 
Last edited:
Ah, the free will question. I simplify it thusly:

It's a point-of-view question.

If you're trying to determine the consequences of an action, then it makes perfect sense to assume that others don't have free will, since you can't really adjust for it, and it certainly won't return any statistical data.

But if you are considering how to respond to -- well literally anything -- then it only makes sense to assume that you are capable of responding in any way in which you see fit. Asking whether the results of THAT was predetermined is completely pointless. You can quite easily see that you had a choice and made one. There's no reason to suggest that the whole process was predetermined -- at that point, you're just playing with meaningless words, running around in circles of everlasting nonsense.

Thus, free will. You can't deny it without warping the very meaning of what people use the term for.

But with all the math that sciency types like to do... it's simpler to assume that it doesn't exist. Indeed, it won't exist in statistical data, which means that there's no place for it in rational analysis. I'll freely admit that "free will" doesn't exist in math. That's not where you find it. It can never be quantized into statistical data.

So basically, it is probability which makes many scientists completely unable to see that having a choice is a real thing. That would be completely contrary to their method of calculation. To the rest of us, it's pretty freaking obvious and no amount of calculus is going to turn that into an illusion. Math denies that it exists before you even start to calculate... which boils down to assuming the conclusion before you even ask the question.

Quite simply: Math doesn't have free will. That much is clear. We wouldn't get reliable results from it otherwise.
 
Last edited:
If I only had free will, I would note that we have all jumped on the Rule 11 Express for AAH town. But alas, like everyone else here, I can't chose to type or post.
 
Olmstead said:
Why don't I also get three PhDs and write a book while I'm at it.
Click to expand...
Twasn't I who made the extraordinary claim, yo.
Olmstead said:
Thankfully, this isn't really my model, but is paraphrased from some of my reading on the matter. A book I mentioned somewhere in this thread, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert Sapolsky, does a very good job of presenting an extensive overview of the reasearch and arguments.

As for what the genes are doing, it feels like you want me to describe exactly how the womb, one's childhood, one's culture etc. affects specific genes to encode an amygdala and a prefrontal cortex that will, to use an example from the above book, make a person racist. Which is a bit much, and you should probably read the book for a more detailed overview of that.

All I can offer is the basic idea: there is an uninterrupted line from one's conception to every decision one makes. The genes determine how the body develops in a specific environment, like making certain neurons more or less excitable. The environment is everything from the nutrients in the womb to the culture one grows up in, and it even includes every decision one makes in a sort of feedback loop.

And then you have a baby acting and developing based on its brain and leaving that brain to the child, and the child acting and developing based on the brain the baby has made, etc. Then the adult gets the brain the adolescent has made. Then the adult uses a racial slur because their prefrontal cortex didn't shut down their amygdala, because the baby was given a brain that made decisions which resulted in more decisions which eventually resulted in a prefrontal cortex that wouldn't stop the amygdala's xenophobic fear and agression response.
Click to expand...
I'm well acquainted with the argument, and have been for many years. I simply find it horse ◊◊◊◊.

Elements of it are sound, buy they don't wind into a cohesive theory. You mentioned the prefrontal cortex. Did you know you can willfully alter its functioning? Relatively easily, even (actual damage aside)? And it controls much more than empathy. It controls a lot of executive functioning, much of which works just fine with our hypothetical racist baby.

Your physiology can definitely predispose you in different directions, no doubt. But that's not what I was arguing. I'm sure we can find the appropriate thread for all this, though. Pretty sure this one isn't it.
 
Poem said:
You know it's a shame I'm not a Christian - we could have a very interesting conversation. ....

Come on CY, in the interest of productive communication - just accept that you are wrong on this.
Click to expand...
*Sigh* I see we're playing that same childish game again. There are multiple lines of argument in this thread, Poem: it is possible to follow one without demanding responses for one of the others. Apparently not for you, though. Petulant sulking and a one-track mind are more your thing, it seems.
Fine. If you can only deal with one thing at a time, let's deal with this one.
"Accept I'm wrong"? Why? You have given me no reason at all to believe I'm wrong.
Consider the evidence:
On the side of "Poem is a secret Christian", we have your obvious familiarity with the Bible- not just the verses, but the interpretations and applications of the verses. Then there's your use of Christian terminology, such as "Darwinist", "onanism" and, most recently "evolutionist". Add to that, statements like "I am interested in Jesus Christ" (something only a Christian would say), and Paul "going against scripture". Your arguments regarding atheism also display the traits of Christian preachers. You keep talking about how "Hitchens says this" and "Dawkins says that", as if these figures were the leaders of some kind of atheist movement, whose words atheists are expected to study and accept: many Christians simply cannot fathom that atheism is not a movement, and that there are no preachers or leaders or teachings to follow. Whilst the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins may be prominent atheists and sceptics, no other atheist or sceptic is under any obligation whatsoever to follow or accept what they say. This misapprehension is a common trait among evangelicals, and one that you share. Top that off with your puritanical moral code, and your choice of thread topics (morality and Christianity featuring strongly among them), and we have a strong sense of where you're coming from.

On the side of "Poem is not a secret Christian", we have "Nuh-uh!" That's it.
So, applying scepticism in the proper manner, what am I to conclude? The weight of evidence is in favour of you being a Christian. Note, too, how I'm not the only one here who has reached this conclusion.
If you want to add some counterbalance to this, then how about saying what your beliefs actually are, and also explaining how it is that you talk like an evangelical?
Or just come clean, and admit you're here undercover, concealing your faith for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I have it down even simpler:

Even if we do not have free will, it makes sense to think and behave in all ways as if we do.
Click to expand...
I suppose my "simplest" version should have been something like:

Math and science are explicitly designed to prevent arbitrary choices. If you have to take free will out of the equation before you can calculate (and you do), then of course you won't find any.

You could prove free will by fudging the data. It wouldn't be invalidated. The fact that you broke the rules is legitimate evidence for free will.
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem for free will is physics. You need a spirit or soul to have that free will, and nothing in physics indicates that this exists. You would need an unidentified force that intermediates between the spirit and the brain - and only brains. And you would need to identify what makes a brain special.

I am not saying the existence of free will and spirits is impossible, but it seems very unlikely to me. Physics have charted out everything that works at human energy levels and scales. The uncertainties of physics lies in the biggest scales, and the smallest scales, and the biggest energy levels, and the tiniest energy levels.
 
arthwollipot said:
Could have fooled me. Your constant use of terms like "Neo-Darwinism" and "modern synthesis" rather than simply "biology" is creationist language.
Click to expand...
I also quoted noted evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould using the term...and after he said that 'Neo-Darwinism was effectively dead' he remained an evolutionary biologist.
arthwollipot said:
Trust me when I say that creationists cherry pick from "pro-evolutionary" (aka. reality-based) websites all the time when they can find a soundbite that when taken out of context appears to support their ideas.
Click to expand...
They do.

You didn't respond to all of my post.
 
steenkh said:
The biggest problem for free will is physics. You need a spirit or soul to have that free will, and nothing in physics indicates that this exists. You would need an unidentified force that intermediates between the spirit and the brain - and only brains. And you would need to identify what makes a brain special.

I am not saying the existence of free will and spirits is impossible, but it seems very unlikely to me. Physics have charted out everything that works at human energy levels and scales. The uncertainties of physics lies in the biggest scales, and the smallest scales, and the biggest energy levels, and the tiniest energy levels.
Click to expand...
Well, lucky for us, we do have direct evidence of free will -- specifically, that we know that we can make a choice. We often even stand frozen wondering which way to go for some time before making that choice. Every single human has evidence for free will in their own experience.

Physics can bemoan the lack of a mechanic all they want. That proves precisely nothing other than the shortcomings of physics.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Well, lucky for us, we do have direct evidence of free will -- specifically, that we know that we can make a choice. We often even stand frozen wondering which way to go for some time before making that choice. Every single human has evidence for free will in their own experience.

Physics can bemoan the lack of a mechanic all they want. Until you can prove causation of each action all the way back to the beginning of time, pointing to the lack of a known mechanism proves nothing.
Click to expand...
We certainly do believe we have the magical type of free will, but we also believe we have a soul, that there is god looking over us, that crystals can heal us, that water retains memory and like cures like at unimaginable dilutions. What we believe is real does not make something real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom