• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Evolution is only a theory" stickers...

Mercutio said:
About the same as they can "get out of" any of the other daily or weekly routines of life. In practice, in my experience, what you are asking is whether they can "get out of" a chance to interact with their friends, in a positive environment, where they are respected and cherished by adults who have their welfare in interest. There were times when I wanted to sleep in, and some times when I did so successfully, but most times I looked forward to Sunday. Your question is, in the context of a well-functioning church community, the equivalent of asking whether they can "get out of" a trip to the ice cream store. The answer will always depend on the family dynamic (are you meeting grandma at the store? Then you cannot get out of it...), and does not really rely on official rules. You are imposing your view on theirs in simply asking the question. Could you "get out of" the TAM chocolate challenge? Sure, but why would you?
Click to expand...
Because I am free to make my own choices, regardless of religion?
 
CFLarsen said:
Because I am free to make my own choices, regardless of religion?
Click to expand...
As a good behaviorist, following the evidence, I would have to say that this feeling of yours is illusory. Recognising that you are subject to the contingencies of your environment, just as anyone else is, is the first step on the way to accepting our responsibility to make that environment the best we can. By acknowledging that we are not free, we can make life less aversive for more people. The irrational belief in free will prevents us from examining the real influences on our choices, and manipulating our environments to make life easier.

Your choices were and are shaped by your environment. Same as anyone brought up in a religious environment. You feel you make your choices freely; so do they.
 
Mercutio said:
The irrational belief in free will prevents us from examining the real influences on our choices, and manipulating our environments to make life easier.
Click to expand...
On the other appendage, lack of belief in free will can be used to excuse responsibility for even heinous actions.

My materialist leanings tend to lead me to believe that free will is an illusion, but it is probably best if we act as if it is real.
 
SixSixSix said:
On the other appendage, lack of belief in free will can be used to excuse responsibility for even heinous actions.

My materialist leanings tend to lead me to believe that free will is an illusion, but it is probably best if we act as if it is real.
Click to expand...
Belief in free will forces us to attend to the consequences of our actions rather than to the antecedents. As such, it amplifies "individual responsibility" at the cost of collective responsibility. Yes, it can be (improperly, IMO) used to excuse individual responsibility for actions. But the flip side of this, of course, is that "free will" absolves everybody else of their responsibility. If we have contributed to an environment which leads an individual to heinous actions, why should our responsibility be ignored? The illusion of free will allows us to shirk our blame and pin it on the individual scapegoat.

The trick is, the deterministic view does not absolve the individual of responsibility at all. It simply recognises the responsibility of the community as well. The difference here is that the community's influence can be brought to bear before the next heinous act, to prevent it rather than simply to punish someone after the fact. If we maintain our belief in free will, even celebrate it as a right to freedom of expression, we cannot (or at least, in practice, do not) intervene until after someone has gone too far. After all, we are not to blame; it was the individual's free choice to act that way.
 
Mercutio said:
As a good behaviorist, following the evidence, I would have to say that this feeling of yours is illusory. Recognising that you are subject to the contingencies of your environment, just as anyone else is, is the first step on the way to accepting our responsibility to make that environment the best we can. By acknowledging that we are not free, we can make life less aversive for more people. The irrational belief in free will prevents us from examining the real influences on our choices, and manipulating our environments to make life easier.

Your choices were and are shaped by your environment. Same as anyone brought up in a religious environment. You feel you make your choices freely; so do they.
Click to expand...
They are children, not adults. They can break out as little as any child being reared in a religious community can.
 
Mercutio said:
Belief in free will forces us to attend to the consequences of our actions rather than to the antecedents. As such, it amplifies "individual responsibility" at the cost of collective responsibility. Yes, it can be (improperly, IMO) used to excuse individual responsibility for actions. But the flip side of this, of course, is that "free will" absolves everybody else of their responsibility. If we have contributed to an environment which leads an individual to heinous actions, why should our responsibility be ignored? The illusion of free will allows us to shirk our blame and pin it on the individual scapegoat.
Click to expand...
(In danger of derailing here, but this is interesting).

My first blush at reading this is that you think you can have no belief in free will at the individual level, but that societies can have free will. I must confess this seems paradoxical to me, since societies are formed from individuals. Presumably this is a "whole is greater than sum of its parts" thing.

I am not of the opinion that environment has no influence on our behaviour. On the other hand, there is a danger to the idea that it is the only (or even major) factor. We see a symptom of this in the increasingly litigious society in which we live - many frivolous law suits come down to a basic lack of ability to admit fault. Insurance companies advise their clients never to admit fault in the case of a car accident. Defense attorneys usually advise their clients to plead not guilty.

One must strive for balance, of course. But I fear the pendulum has already swung a little too far in the "it's a fair cop, but society's to blame" direction. It should be OK to be wrong; it should be OK to admit when you screw up. It should definitely be OK to take responsibility and say, "That was my fault. Sorry."
 
SixSixSix said:
(In danger of derailing here, but this is interesting).

My first blush at reading this is that you think you can have no belief in free will at the individual level, but that societies can have free will. I must confess this seems paradoxical to me, since societies are formed from individuals. Presumably this is a "whole is greater than sum of its parts" thing.
Click to expand...
No, just a misunderstanding on your part. :D (I posted only a very abbreviated version, addressing a fairly narrow point, and so did not flesh out this part. My fault entirely; you are blameless...it was your environment.) Of course society, as an emergent property of individuals, is constrained by environment. (I was going to write more here, but instead I will refer you, conveniently enough, to a book your better half happens to own; take a look at Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism". My copy is at the office, or I'd tell you specifically what parts to read, but I am sure Kiless can help, or just read the whole thing.
I am not of the opinion that environment has no influence on our behaviour. On the other hand, there is a danger to the idea that it is the only (or even major) factor. We see a symptom of this in the increasingly litigious society in which we live - many frivolous law suits come down to a basic lack of ability to admit fault. Insurance companies advise their clients never to admit fault in the case of a car accident. Defense attorneys usually advise their clients to plead not guilty.
Click to expand...
Part of this, of course, is our focus on "fault" or "blame" rather than simply searching for causal or contributing factors. The assumption of free will is built into these social institutions. It is much easier to find "a cause" than to find several causes; an insurance company only needs to find one with deep pockets...life is more complex than that.
One must strive for balance, of course. But I fear the pendulum has already swung a little too far in the "it's a fair cop, but society's to blame" direction. It should be OK to be wrong; it should be OK to admit when you screw up. It should definitely be OK to take responsibility and say, "That was my fault. Sorry."
Click to expand...
I think you are right. But I must say, the stereotype of "if you blame society, you let the victim off the hook" is an unfair exaggeration of what behaviorism would recommend. (eta: sorry, computer died on me) Remember that we learn through exposure to our environmental contingencies--this cannot happen if we are not exposed to them. If we break the rule, the appropriate contingencies must be applied.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
No, just a misunderstanding on your part. :D (I posted only a very abbreviated version, addressing a fairly narrow point, and so did not flesh out this part. My fault entirely; you are blameless...it was your environment.) Of course society, as an emergent property of individuals, is constrained by environment. (I was going to write more here, but instead I will refer you, conveniently enough, to a book your better half happens to own; take a look at Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism". My copy is at the office, or I'd tell you specifically what parts to read, but I am sure Kiless can help, or just read the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Okey dokey, I'll edumacate meself and get back to you with some more well-reasoned arguments. :)

Stay tuned.
 
Mercutio said:
(I was going to write more here, but instead I will refer you, conveniently enough, to a book your better half happens to own; take a look at Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism". My copy is at the office, or I'd tell you specifically what parts to read, but I am sure Kiless can help, or just read the whole thing.
Click to expand...

666 - education bookcase, second landing, next to the book 'Consciousness : An Introduction'. Black cover, b/w photo, yellow title. You can also 'read' it on Amazon.com and use their search engine to seek out particular references; I did this for the term 'love' on another thread. If you don't see it, I'll dig it out tomorrow.

You might also want to look at the videos I got you to download from the 'Mind, Brain...' conference.

*ignore*
 
CFLarsen said:
Of course. But then, they are not Amish.

So, Amish children can't get out of being Amish.
Click to expand...

Nope. No more so than Catholic children can get out of being Catholic, or Mormon children can get out of being Mormon.

So what's your point?
 
Genesius said:
Nope. No more so than Catholic children can get out of being Catholic, or Mormon children can get out of being Mormon.

So what's your point?
Click to expand...
Or Danish children get out of being Danish. We need not limit our discussion to religious groups. The social rules are easier to see there, certainly (especially from the outside), but it is a difference of degree rather than kind, and a difference where there is substantial overlap in "amount of blatant indoctrination" between types of group.
 
CFLarsen said:
That there are no Amish children who don't live Amish...ish.
Click to expand...
Which means no Nintendo, no PlayStation, not even any Xbox.

Frankly, I'm surprised the UN hasn't flagged this as a human rights violation.

Won't somebody please think of the children?
 
CFLarsen said:
That there are no Amish children who don't live Amish...ish.
Click to expand...

I'm sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out why it took multiple posts to make this point. They're children of Amish parents, living in Amish communities - wouldn't you expect them to live "Amish...ish"?;)

Seriously, is there something I'm missing here?
 
OK. I don't know why, but I had a feeling you were working up to calling the Amish a cult.

Guess that shows why I haven't applied for the million, huh? My mind-reading skills leave much to be desired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom