| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2006 01:58:16 AM |
| Object: |
Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that America is drowning in religion
-- and that faith needs to be analyzed with the tools of science.
By Gordy Slack
Feb. 8, 2006 | Daniel C. Dennett is a big man with a big appetite for
intellectual fights. A celebrated philosophy professor and the
director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, he
is best known for his arguments that human consciousness and free will
boil down to physical processes. When theologians, New Agers and other
philosophers and scientists complain about scientific reductionism --
the effort to reduce everything, including human behavior and
spirituality, to material properties -- they are complaining about
Dennett. To which he retorts: "'Reductionism' has become a meaningless
code word for 'I don't like that theory.'"
In 1995, with "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," Dennett provoked a firestorm
of controversy for insisting that Darwin's ideas are a "universal
acid" that "eats through just about every traditional concept and
leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view." Dennett exposed his
own worldview in 2003, when he outed himself in the New York Times as
a "bright," a fancy new term for atheist. "We brights don't believe in
ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny -- or God," he wrote.
In his new book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon," Dennett provokes readers to examine religion as a product
of evolution rather than a transcendental force. Research into
religion, he says, should be "based on empirical studies with all the
controls in place, just like in medicine," and draw from biology,
psychology, history and art. "I appreciate that many readers will be
profoundly distrustful of the tack I am taking here," he writes. "They
will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them
out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that
-- that's what I am, and that's exactly what I am trying to do."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/02/08/dennett/
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "FiveLongYears" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 02:37:41 AM |
|
|
It took about 2 minutes for me to read this, and order the book.
Sounds good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob D" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 02:55:53 AM |
|
|
FiveLongYears wrote:
It took about 2 minutes for me to read this, and order the book.
Sounds good.
Not published in the UK until early March, unfortunately.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erwin Moller" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 07:54:30 AM |
|
|
Bob D wrote:
FiveLongYears wrote:
It took about 2 minutes for me to read this, and order the book.
Sounds good.
Not published in the UK until early March, unfortunately.
Or order it at amazon. :P
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003472X/sr=1-1/qid=1139406814/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2393391-8904156?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Regards,
Erwin Moller
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 02:11:47 PM |
|
|
On 8 Feb 2006 00:55:53 -0800, "Bob D" <ju.ding@btopenworld.com> wrote:
FiveLongYears wrote:
It took about 2 minutes for me to read this, and order the book.
Sounds good.
Not published in the UK until early March, unfortunately.
I don't know if you were watching TV over the last couple months, but
Jonathan Miller did a very good series called "A Rough History of
Disbelief", and then it was followed up by a series of interviews he
did, one of them was with Daniel Dennett. Poke around, you might be
able to find it, the whole series was excellent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
15 Feb 2006 02:02:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:11:47 GMT, Brian Henderson
<BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
- Refer: <udjku19vqgmh7olca6krfoftgd6g95taog@4ax.com>
On 8 Feb 2006 00:55:53 -0800, "Bob D" <ju.ding@btopenworld.com> wrote:
FiveLongYears wrote:
It took about 2 minutes for me to read this, and order the book.
Sounds good.
Not published in the UK until early March, unfortunately.
I don't know if you were watching TV over the last couple months, but
Jonathan Miller did a very good series called "A Rough History of
Disbelief", and then it was followed up by a series of interviews he
did, one of them was with Daniel Dennett. Poke around, you might be
able to find it, the whole series was excellent.
On a related topic:
I have Daniel Dennett's interview with Johnathan Miller, on his
"Atheist Tapes" series, on one of my websites.
(Audio only, compressed and normalized, mp3)
http://tinyurl.com/7kf3a
"Daniel Dennett interviewed by Johnathan Miller (Adjusted).mp3"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Vaughan" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 08:02:21 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:109ju1506cm7c7s8e2bu74f0fcogir1490@4ax.com:
Subject: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God
sounds difficult...pinning god down ain't so easy, ya know
....and if the rumors have any credence, he's way to big to
fit into a normal dissecting pan anyway ;^D
--
Mark Vaughan
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
09 Feb 2006 06:31:15 AM |
|
|
Mark Vaughan wrote:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:109ju1506cm7c7s8e2bu74f0fcogir1490@4ax.com:
Subject: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God
sounds difficult...pinning god down ain't so easy, ya know
...and if the rumors have any credence, he's way to big to
fit into a normal dissecting pan anyway ;^D
Not that hard...
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
09 Feb 2006 07:08:04 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
More specifically, he has a good nature that never does evil.
Logic exercises like this always break down into little definition
games.
Imagine a world where the 9/11 hijackers were prevented from carrying
out their act. How would this prevention occur? Would God kill them?
Would he prevent them from being born? Would he go into their minds
and pluck out the evil thoughts? Now descend down the slippery slope.
Would you want God invading your mind and removing any thought that
begins "I hate..."? Would you want God preventing your birth, and
indeed the birth of everyone who doesn't behave robotically?
The free will defense quite easily solves the problem of the existence
of man-made evil. More problematic is the existence of evil not made
by man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
11 Feb 2006 12:06:40 AM |
|
|
In <1139490484.831535.192000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
More specifically, he has a good nature that never does evil.
Logic exercises like this always break down into little definition
games.
Imagine a world where the 9/11 hijackers were prevented from carrying
out their act. How would this prevention occur? Would God kill them?
Would he prevent them from being born? Would he go into their minds
and pluck out the evil thoughts?
I think your remark about definition games applies here. The question
is not how a god could prevent evil acts in the world that we see. It
is rather, why is the world as we see it and not different?
What prevented God from making a world where every moral choice is
obvious and simple? In which all humans always agreed on what
constituted the correct action? In which there were never a case of
choosing the lesser of two evils? Personally I have a hard time
imagining such a world, but believers in an omnipotent god assure me
that my imagination does not limit God's abilities.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
11 Feb 2006 04:58:21 AM |
|
|
Jack Dominey wrote:
What prevented God from making a world where every moral choice is
obvious and simple? In which all humans always agreed on what
constituted the correct action?
These discussions get strange because God gets to say what is evil and
what is not. Even in this world, God could easily define "evil" to be
obvious things that people would never do. Does God's choice to define
"evil" to be things that are more difficult for us to avoid contradict
his benevolence?
Suppose that I got to define what evil is. I am in a sense "incapable"
of doing evil, yet I have free will. But if _you_ were incapable of
doing what I decided is evil, you would _not_ have free will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neverbetter" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
11 Feb 2006 05:27:49 AM |
|
|
Here's my problem with God giving us free will.
Let's imagine that we're under the aegis of a very powerful tyrant. He
wants to appear an enlightened ruler and emphasizes that all his
subjects have free will, even though he's got absolute power over them.
He says that we may eat either apples or pears. If we eat apples, we
will be rewarded very handsomely (we will be built homes, hospitals,
schools and roads and he will finance cultural and scientific projects,
provide us with employment and all will be heavenly). If we eat pears,
we face a life-sentence with no parole in a top security prison where
prisoner rights aren't a priority, our houses will be bulldozed and our
children will end up in local orphanages (which we haven't seen but are
told are a hell on earth).
Now, do we have a free will to choose between apples or pears? Or are
we making a choice under duress?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
11 Feb 2006 03:54:29 PM |
|
|
neverbetter wrote:
Here's my problem with God giving us free will.
Let's imagine that we're under the aegis of a very powerful tyrant. He
wants to appear an enlightened ruler and emphasizes that all his
subjects have free will, even though he's got absolute power over them.
He says that we may eat either apples or pears. If we eat apples, we
will be rewarded very handsomely (we will be built homes, hospitals,
schools and roads and he will finance cultural and scientific projects,
provide us with employment and all will be heavenly). If we eat pears,
we face a life-sentence with no parole in a top security prison where
prisoner rights aren't a priority, our houses will be bulldozed and our
children will end up in local orphanages (which we haven't seen but are
told are a hell on earth).
Now, do we have a free will to choose between apples or pears? Or are
we making a choice under duress?
It gets worse....
If you posit there is a god that creates all and is
omniscient, there is no free will possible. No
omniscience, no prophecy. So its hard for religion
to dump that. Or the claim god creates all.
Not that in many places in the bible free will is
denied anyway. Romans 8 - 11,
all is predetermined.
Exodus 7-12, god hardens phaoraoh's heart
repeatedly, Joshua 11 god hardens the Canaanite's
hearts, deuteronomy 2, god harden's King Sihon's
heart.
God doesn't care about free will anyway.
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
***********************************************************
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
12 Feb 2006 06:56:31 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
You're doing well up to here. God could have defined evil such that
murder is not evil. Instead, by his personal choice, murder is evil.
According to you, defining murder as evil is not belevolent. That's
ridiculous.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Nonsense. If you had a time machine, you could predict what anyone
would say or do at any moment. But you would not infringe on anyone's
free will. Also understand that God can choose to limit his own power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
13 Feb 2006 07:34:05 PM |
|
|
In <1139748991.923055.228530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
You're doing well up to here. God could have defined evil such that
murder is not evil. Instead, by his personal choice, murder is evil.
According to you, defining murder as evil is not belevolent. That's
ridiculous.
Re-read what wbarwell wrote. Could god have made choices such that
evil did not exist?
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Nonsense. If you had a time machine, you could predict what anyone
would say or do at any moment. But you would not infringe on anyone's
free will.
You're getting contradictory here. If absolutely accurate prediction
is possible, then the universe is deterministic. What you see as free
will is no more real than the choices made by characters in a movie.
Play it over as many times as you like, their 'choices' don't change.
Further, as several of us have tried to point out to Jim Spaza in the
"funny creationist" thread, no one really knows if there is such a
thing as free will.
Also understand that God can choose to limit his own power.
I understand that's another discussion altogether.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
15 Feb 2006 01:13:12 PM |
|
|
Jack Dominey wrote:
If absolutely accurate prediction
is possible, then the universe is deterministic. What you see as free
will is no more real than the choices made by characters in a movie.
Play it over as many times as you like, their 'choices' don't change.
I'm just not getting this. What if I were psychic and started saying
whatever you say a few seconds before you do? Would my ability affect
you in any way? What if we were 500 miles apart and you never knew I
was alive?
Can't God watch our "movie" while choosing not to write the script,
even rewinding and fast-forwarding as much as he wanted? Of course God
_could_ force any decision on us, but isn't it conceivable on a
philosophical level that he could simply decide not to?
Further, as several of us have tried to point out to Jim Spaza in the
"funny creationist" thread, no one really knows if there is such a
thing as free will.
I didn't look at that other thread, but I'm betting that this
uncertainty is a "no absolute proof" sort of thing. But nobody
actually _lives_ as if there were no free will, so we must be sure
enough. If there weren't any free will, I'd just lie inert and wait
for my "decider" to get me going. (Well, I actually do that, but I
turn the TV on first.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
18 Feb 2006 03:46:06 PM |
|
|
In <1140030792.393169.123810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
If absolutely accurate prediction
is possible, then the universe is deterministic. What you see as free
will is no more real than the choices made by characters in a movie.
Play it over as many times as you like, their 'choices' don't change.
I'm just not getting this. What if I were psychic and started saying
whatever you say a few seconds before you do? Would my ability affect
you in any way? What if we were 500 miles apart and you never knew I
was alive?
Doesn't matter. Neither one of us would be exercising "free will".
We'd both be in a deterministic universe. Everything we did would be
as inevitable as water flowing downhill. Everything.
Can't God watch our "movie" while choosing not to write the script,
even rewinding and fast-forwarding as much as he wanted?
This is the God who created the "movie", right? Is something going to
take place in this "movie" that is, from God's perspective, not
already known?
Of course God
_could_ force any decision on us, but isn't it conceivable on a
philosophical level that he could simply decide not to?
Your phrasing, "force any decision on us," indicates you are imagining
God acting within the universe - intervening in a process the same way
you or I would extend a hand to catch a falling object. That isn't
the kind of thing I'm talking about at all. For the omniscient and
omnipotent creator of a deterministic universe, every moment, every
action, every change of any sort is the inevitable outcome of the
creation. You can't have this god saying He didn't intend for things
to be the way they are. Nothing exists, no action takes place except
by his intent.
Further, as several of us have tried to point out to Jim Spaza in the
"funny creationist" thread, no one really knows if there is such a
thing as free will.
I didn't look at that other thread, but I'm betting that this
uncertainty is a "no absolute proof" sort of thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm just saying that we don't know enough
about ourselves and the universe (and may never know) to tell if we're
"free" or just really, really complicated and hard to understand.
But nobody
actually _lives_ as if there were no free will, so we must be sure
enough. If there weren't any free will, I'd just lie inert and wait
for my "decider" to get me going. (Well, I actually do that, but I
turn the TV on first.)
No you're not going to act that way. You can't. There's no "decider"
except the universe, of which you are a part.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
18 Feb 2006 11:42:32 PM |
|
|
Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1140030792.393169.123810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
If absolutely accurate prediction
is possible, then the universe is deterministic. What you see as
free will is no more real than the choices made by characters in a
movie. Play it over as many times as you like, their 'choices' don't
change.
I'm just not getting this. What if I were psychic and started saying
whatever you say a few seconds before you do? Would my ability affect
you in any way? What if we were 500 miles apart and you never knew I
was alive?
Doesn't matter. Neither one of us would be exercising "free will".
We'd both be in a deterministic universe. Everything we did would be
as inevitable as water flowing downhill. Everything.
If the world is perfectly determined such as the
state of the Universe S2 in the future could be
calculated from the current states, S1, there is
no free will.
How does god supposedly forsee the future?
is he outside of time and sees all creation at once as a Big Now?
Or does he use the determinancy of the Universe to calculate S2
from S1?
What is the mechanism?
Which one does god use?
How do you know?
Can't God watch our "movie" while choosing not to write the script,
even rewinding and fast-forwarding as much as he wanted?
This is the God who created the "movie", right? Is something going to
take place in this "movie" that is, from God's perspective, not
already known?
Yes, this iswhat is known as incompatiblism.
If god created the Universe with a future he would know,
we have no free will. Most theologians waggle their ears,
wave their hands and roll their eyes here.
Compatibilists say free will and god's foreknowledge
are compatible.
Its not. If god knows the future of his creation,
we have no will, each thing that actually happens god
forsaw, understood and made a decision on, "Do I allow
this to happen?"
Of course God
_could_ force any decision on us, but isn't it conceivable on a
philosophical level that he could simply decide not to?
Your phrasing, "force any decision on us," indicates you are imagining
God acting within the universe - intervening in a process the same way
you or I would extend a hand to catch a falling object. That isn't
the kind of thing I'm talking about at all. For the omniscient and
omnipotent creator of a deterministic universe, every moment, every
action, every change of any sort is the inevitable outcome of the
creation. You can't have this god saying He didn't intend for things
to be the way they are. Nothing exists, no action takes place except
by his intent.
If god forsees all and has to make a decision,
then no free will can exist.
If one claims god is not omniscient to avoid
these sorts of problems prophecy is impossible.
Process theology makes such claims.
If you say god forsees the future, one is
obligated to show us which of several possible
mechanisms god uses.
And explain away the problems of the one chosen.
If god sees time as one big now or uses the determined
Universe to forsee the futuure, we have no free will.
Or we could not really exist except as fantasies of god
in god's mind, in which case, we have no free will,
we are merely god's little imaginary playthings.
Further, as several of us have tried to point out to Jim Spaza in the
"funny creationist" thread, no one really knows if there is such a
thing as free will.
I didn't look at that other thread, but I'm betting that this
uncertainty is a "no absolute proof" sort of thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm just saying that we don't know enough
about ourselves and the universe (and may never know) to tell if we're
"free" or just really, really complicated and hard to understand.
Free as in there is no determined Universe, Laplace's
demon is dead.
But nobody
actually _lives_ as if there were no free will, so we must be sure
enough. If there weren't any free will, I'd just lie inert and wait
for my "decider" to get me going. (Well, I actually do that, but I
turn the TV on first.)
No you're not going to act that way. You can't. There's no "decider"
except the universe, of which you are a part.
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
12 Feb 2006 04:28:56 PM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
You're doing well up to here. God could have defined evil such that
murder is not evil. Instead, by his personal choice, murder is evil.
According to you, defining murder as evil is not belevolent. That's
ridiculous.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
Nonsense. If you had a time machine, you could predict what anyone
would say or do at any moment. But you would not infringe on anyone's
free will. Also understand that God can choose to limit his own power.
You didn't read it did you?
It is a matter of god having to confront the future of his
creation and making a choice to allow that or not.
All exists as it does based on good's initial creation,
which if he is omniscient, he knows even before creation
actually begins.
Since each action is his choice only ,since all you do is
chosen for you personally by god in all matters, you have
no free will you are only a puppet.
Its not a matter of time machines but gods's knowledge and
necessity to confront his choices and decide personally on every
bit of the future in space an time to the smallest possible details.
We decide absolutely nothing at all.
Thus only god can do evil, all evil is god's doing.
But being defined as good, if there is evil, the
attributes, assertions, claims for god's goodness are false.
--
To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous
quality in the captain and a positive crime in a statesman.
- George Santayana
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "SRNissen" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
12 Feb 2006 04:38:32 PM |
|
|
Labelling God "Omniscient" is a mistake. God knows all, except the
intentions of man. That was rather the point. This is rather the point
of the myth of the fall.
Of course, God *did* know in advance that the snake was going to entice
Eve, and still created a universen in which that happened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
13 Feb 2006 06:45:01 AM |
|
|
SRNissen wrote:
Labelling God "Omniscient" is a mistake. God knows all, except the
intentions of man. That was rather the point. This is rather the point
of the myth of the fall.
Of course, God *did* know in advance that the snake was going to entice
Eve, and still created a universen in which that happened.
Omniscience is a pre-requisite for
A. Prophecy
B. Omnipotence
No omniscience, no prophecy.
A problem for orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
13 Feb 2006 10:17:03 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Its not a matter of time machines but gods's knowledge and
necessity to confront his choices and decide personally on every
bit of the future in space an time to the smallest possible details.
Suppose you are a parent, and one day you acquire God-like powers. You
only want what's best for your child, but that doesn't mean that you
will veto every suboptimal decision that they make. Even
non-omniscient parents will allow their kids to make a knowingly bad
choice, in the interest of giving the kid their space and hoping that
they'll learn from it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Aaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
13 Feb 2006 11:56:25 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Its not a matter of time machines but gods's knowledge and
necessity to confront his choices and decide personally on every
bit of the future in space an time to the smallest possible details.
Suppose you are a parent, and one day you acquire God-like powers. You
only want what's best for your child, but that doesn't mean that you
will veto every suboptimal decision that they make. Even
non-omniscient parents will allow their kids to make a knowingly bad
choice, in the interest of giving the kid their space and hoping that
they'll learn from it.
I think you've seriously short-changed the definition of "omniscient".
With true "omniscience" you would know how to make your children learn
the lessons required without any bad experiences. I suspect that
the physical limits of the universe would be only minor impediments to
any omniscient being, if they were impediments at all.
Ken Aaker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "neverbetter" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
13 Feb 2006 10:46:39 AM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Its not a matter of time machines but gods's knowledge and
necessity to confront his choices and decide personally on every
bit of the future in space an time to the smallest possible details.
Suppose you are a parent, and one day you acquire God-like powers. You
only want what's best for your child, but that doesn't mean that you
will veto every suboptimal decision that they make. Even
non-omniscient parents will allow their kids to make a knowingly bad
choice, in the interest of giving the kid their space and hoping that
they'll learn from it.
Yeah but usually only if there is an optimistic expectation that
there's a chance it's going to turn out okay in the end. What would
people do if they were omniscient and knew that it's definitely going
to end very badly? Even now when they're not omniscient, most loving
parents would do quite a lot to stop their children from making a bad
choice if they know or believe that it will definitely lead to
something they deem too bad, like their child's death or long-term
suffering.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
11 Feb 2006 07:36:19 AM |
|
|
neverbetter wrote:
Now, do we have a free will to choose between apples or pears? Or are
we making a choice under duress?
Though your analogy would be supported by many Christians, I disagree
with it.
Suppose our benevolent tyrant merely says "Do what I say or I'm kicking
you out of my country." Many people choose to leave, and they start
their own country. But their country descends into anarchy, and there
is much violence, gang wars, burnings, etc.
Now you come along and the tyrant tells you, "Do what I say or I'm
kicking you out of my country, and let me warn you that the other
country really sucks." I contend that the tyrant is acting justly and
is not imposing on your free will.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
13 Feb 2006 07:33:58 PM |
|
|
In <1139655501.141018.39550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "thissteve"
<thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
What prevented God from making a world where every moral choice is
obvious and simple? In which all humans always agreed on what
constituted the correct action?
These discussions get strange because God gets to say what is evil and
what is not. Even in this world, God could easily define "evil" to be
obvious things that people would never do. Does God's choice to define
"evil" to be things that are more difficult for us to avoid contradict
his benevolence?
That sounds as if God defined "evil" after he created humans. Turn
the question around: Does God's choice to create humans so that evil
is difficult for us to avoid contradict his benevolence?
Suppose that I got to define what evil is. I am in a sense "incapable"
of doing evil, yet I have free will. But if _you_ were incapable of
doing what I decided is evil, you would _not_ have free will.
Not necessarily. If it were evil for humans to fly without any
equipment, would that be a limit on our free will?
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
15 Feb 2006 12:56:15 PM |
|
|
Jack Dominey wrote:
Turn
the question around: Does God's choice to create humans so that evil
is difficult for us to avoid contradict his benevolence?
God's choice was made with a motive. Philosophers tell me that since
it's impossible to enumerate the possible motives, it's impossible to
assert that they all contradict benevolence. That's not a very
satisfying answer, but I guess it will have to do.
God could have made people with instant healing powers such that murder
is no longer possible. But I might get shot in the face ten times
every day in such a world. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to
say that there can be a benevolent motive for God's decision.
If it were evil for humans to fly without any
equipment, would that be a limit on our free will?
No, because physical structure is not a component of free will. What
are the components of free will? I'm not the person to ask.
Your post has me wondering if it's possible for God to create free
humans without the ability to lie. That question is making my head
hurt. I have a vague sense that such people can still make decisions
and prefer a choice A over a choice B, but I still see a gate barring
too many of their other choices.
I see why people need college degrees to deal with this stuff. Thanks
for making me think a little more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Dominey" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
18 Feb 2006 09:12:54 PM |
|
|
In <1140029775.086231.55460@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "thissteve"
<thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your post has me wondering if it's possible for God to create free
humans without the ability to lie. That question is making my head
hurt. I have a vague sense that such people can still make decisions
and prefer a choice A over a choice B, but I still see a gate barring
too many of their other choices.
I see why people need college degrees to deal with this stuff. Thanks
for making me think a little more.
That's the best outcome I hope for from these discussions.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
11 Feb 2006 05:03:38 AM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2006 02:58:21 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Jack Dominey wrote:
What prevented God from making a world where every moral choice is
obvious and simple? In which all humans always agreed on what
constituted the correct action?
These discussions get strange because God gets to say what is evil and
what is not. Even in this world, God could easily define "evil" to be
obvious things that people would never do. Does God's choice to define
"evil" to be things that are more difficult for us to avoid contradict
his benevolence?
Suppose that I got to define what evil is. I am in a sense "incapable"
of doing evil, yet I have free will. But if _you_ were incapable of
doing what I decided is evil, you would _not_ have free will.
But one can be *capable* of doing something and still wonder why
anyone in his right mind would want to. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Martinez" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 06:20:40 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that America is drowning in religion
-- and that faith needs to be analyzed with the tools of science.
By Gordy Slack
Feb. 8, 2006 | Daniel C. Dennett is a big man with a big appetite for
intellectual fights. A celebrated philosophy professor and the
director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, he
is best known for his arguments that human consciousness and free will
boil down to physical processes. When theologians, New Agers and other
philosophers and scientists complain about scientific reductionism --
the effort to reduce everything, including human behavior and
spirituality, to material properties -- they are complaining about
Dennett. To which he retorts: "'Reductionism' has become a meaningless
code word for 'I don't like that theory.'"
In 1995, with "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," Dennett provoked a firestorm
of controversy for insisting that Darwin's ideas are a "universal
acid" that "eats through just about every traditional concept and
leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view." Dennett exposed his
own worldview in 2003, when he outed himself in the New York Times as
a "bright," a fancy new term for atheist. "We brights don't believe in
ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny -- or God," he wrote.
In his new book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon," Dennett provokes readers to examine religion as a product
of evolution rather than a transcendental force. Research into
religion, he says, should be "based on empirical studies with all the
controls in place, just like in medicine," and draw from biology,
psychology, history and art. "I appreciate that many readers will be
profoundly distrustful of the tack I am taking here," he writes. "They
will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them
out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that
-- that's what I am, and that's exactly what I am trying to do."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/02/08/dennett/
Dennett is the quintessential example of a blinded by God atheist
arguing the philosophy of Darwinism under the pretext of Science.
Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God |
08 Feb 2006 06:29:50 PM |
|
|
Ray Martinez wrote:
Dennett is the quintessential example of a blinded by God atheist
arguing the philosophy of Darwinism under the pretext of Science.
Dennet'ts positions on evolution are definsible. What I find interesting
is how testy he has become about religion of late. Nothing he says is
going to get rid of it. The best we can do is keep religious fanatics
away from policy making positions and keep them from infringing our
rights. There will always be religious folks. Why? Because we are all
alone in the night, and that is kind of scary. Some of us need comfort
and assurances. Religion is a crutch that lame folks need to hobble about.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
