WWJD?

[ToddStark]

Hi Fred,

BTW Todd, an observation: I’ve read that Pinker became an “atheist” when he was 13 and has also said, somewhere, that he doesn’t think free will is a myth and believes in moral responsibility, noting that, “In cases where we can tell with certainty that an identifiable kind of actor is undeterrable by criminal sanctions, in fact we don't punish him -- that's why we don't punish children, animals, machines, or the truly insane”—and I think that you’d more or less agree with all that.

Yes.

Since atheism is ultimately inconsistent with free will and moral responsibility (as TomJ and Margaret seem to attest, I guess, more or less), it occurs to me that the similar spiritual backgrounds that you and Pinker share may have had more impact on how you both see things, perhaps beyond conscious awareness, and that that more or less helps explain the cognitive dissonance you both seem to share regarding your so-called “atheism” and concurrent belief in free will and moral responsibility.

Since we are so close to convergence here, I'll reiterate my perspective once more for comparison. I am a realist concerning agency, I think it is a real property of some kinds of systems including humans, and the human type is compatible with moral responsibility. I don't think philosopher's free will is neccessary for agency, nor am I a realist about it. It seems to me more like a thought experiment or useful fiction to simplify moral reasoning.

Of course as you know, after one of our marathon discussions on this issue, I‘ve already concluded that you actually seem to be closer to agnosticism anyway;

I'm not at all ambivalent about my committment to naturalism or my belief that the deity of Abrahamic religions is a construction without empirical referents. It is true though that I don't quite fit with most atheists in that I don't share their religious committment to opposing supernaturalism in all forms and contexts. I think it is part of our nature and benefits us in various ways as well as helping us hurt each other in the extremes of groupism and fanatical devotion it helps to make possible.

kind regards,

Todd

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by ToddStark

It is true though that I don't quite fit with most atheists in that I don't share their religious committment to opposing supernaturalism in all forms and contexts.

Interesting point. First, I would argue that my pov is different from religion since I don't take anything on faith. (Though, unable to have intimate knowledge about every subject I have to rely on opposing arguments from those who are to form my views.) So, if anything beyond what I 'know' is proven, then I would change my 'religion'.

Second, there's a big 'but' there. If something is 'proven', then, by definition, it is no longer supernatural. So, I look at it this way: something, (like telepathy, ghosts, god, clairevoyance, etc.) that's supernatural now could enter my 'religion' if it could pass tests.

So, you may say that not accepting anything on faith is a 'religion', but it's a mutable one. If any atheists say those things can't be true, then you're justified in your statement.

PS Before anyone says that I'm really 'agnostic' then you need to look up the definition because it doesn't mean one who believes there is no god but one who believes god is unknowable; quite a different meaning.

PPS dictionary.com has added a 1.b definition, no doubt because the 'common' usage has been incorrect for so long by so many that the dictionary has just followed along (so now we can be even MORE confused because I can call myself agnostic except to the literal atheists who rely on the original definition. Ahhh, life in the middle of the road is overly dangerous):

agnostic:
1.a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1.b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

atheism:
1.a Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1.b The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

[Fred H.]

Todd: I'm not at all ambivalent about my committment to naturalism or my belief that the deity of Abrahamic religions is a construction without empirical referents. It is true though that I don't quite fit with most atheists in that I don't share their religious committment to opposing supernaturalism in all forms and contexts.

Regarding “naturalism,” what’s “natural,” what’s “real?” We don’t truly understand what matter is—there’s the quantum world’s wave/particle duality, the “measurement problem,” etc. (Planck, the father of quantum mechanics, even said that “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force—we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind”) Additionally, is objective mathematical truth (e.g., infinite primes, Lagrange’s four-square theorem., etc. ) “natural?”—I’d say it’s an undeniable reality, that undoubtedly “exists,” that we humans somehow access with our consciousness, and that it is obviously beyond the so-called “material,” “natural” reality, and mental constructs, of the materialist’s/atheist’s all there ever was, is, will be, universe. And without objective mathematical truth, we humans could never hope to comprehend the reality of the natural world.

Regarding Abrahamic religions, my own view is that monotheism is certainly preferable to atheism, providing some sort of religious/spiritual values that generally serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior (although Islam admittedly has been a disappointment). The vacuum of atheism, OTOH, leaves us a moral relativism—humans that are merely animals with nothing more than evolved moral instincts, lacking free will and moral responsibility (and the unavoidable brutality that such a POV inevitably engenders as manifest in the various atheistic regimes of the 20th century . . . and the moral relativism/emptiness we see in some posts on this forum.)

“Supernaturalism” strikes me as a term that really isn’t all that useful or meaningful.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

We don’t truly understand what matter is—there’s the quantum world’s wave/particle duality, the “measurement problem,” etc.

We also didn't understand the 'miracle' of why the sun rose every morning 1000 years ago, have patience, Fred.

Originally Posted by Fred H.

my own view is that monotheism is certainly preferable to atheism

I'm not interested in your preferences, just your proofs. You can't prove there is any god, much less your own; the odds are very low. And you can't prove free-will except by parroting other people's 'beliefs'.

And I've proven that human will is not free. It depends at least on the state of ones brain and how many meds one has taken.

And there is no vacuum, societal instincts have evolved to keep our species alive so far...

[Fred H.]

TomJ: And I've proven that human will is not free.

That’s nice Tom. But then you’ve also asserted that, “choice is predetermined,” and that mass murderers are not morally responsible. So when you say of yourself (in the Pinker thread) that, “My brain would use my instincts to be honorable and likeable,” you might as well add that your shit doesn’t stink.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

you might as well add that your shit doesn’t stink.

As long as I remember to light the candle.

And, yes, I stand by my assertions.