suffering and bikes

Originally posted by knightmeister
Total claptrap. Show me a website that shows this to be true that “ALL the research and evidence about the human mind predominantly shows that we ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATE the levels to which human beings will go to indulge in wishful thinking”. You appear here to be trying to misrepresenting science to support your own beliefs.

I would add that I have a man form doing this is a committment to truth and a lot of painful self knowledge. )

…Your first paragraph dismisses my point out of hand and sounds like a knee-jerk emotional reaction to me. ..…

It is an emotional reaction to claptrap -what do you expect? You misrepresent science and I obviously don’t like that. If I misrepresent what the Bible says, I am sure you would react emotionally to that. Would such a reaction be just a “knee-jerk emotional reaction” on your part? You still haven’t shown me a website showing that claptrap is true -this appears to confirm what I said.

…We often react emotionally when we are challenged on something we don't WANT to be..… (my emphasis)

What I WANT has nothing to do with it. I react emotionally to your unfounded insinuations -what do you expect?

…You agree with me that many humans do indulge in wishful thinking..…

Correct.

…I'm guessing that you believe that those people who hold beliefs which you disagree with are deluding themselves (eg theists) …

You insinuate here that I believe everybody that disagrees with me is delusional. That is false.

… whilst your beliefs are totally objective and devoid of bias. …

I don’t assume that is literally true all the time but I believe I have at least made this true almost all the time.
Do you believe that your beliefs are totally objective and devoid of bias?

… (BTW- You know as well as I do that human beings are very good at believing and seeing what they WANT to see for spurious reasons. You and I are no exception to this… (my emphasis)

Yes I am an “exception” to this -I generally don’t make myself see what I WANT to see. And I assume a very large proportion of the population are an “exception“ to this for I notice that many people that I know are not prone to seeing what they WANT to see. In fact I know of so many people are good at thinking objectively that I think it may in fact be generally true that MOST people think pretty much objectively most of the time and, if so, the word “exception” is the wrong word to use here.

… the only thing that prevents a man form doing this is a commitment to truth…

Are you referring here to faith in the Bible? If so, your statement here an extraordinary display of overconfidence in your own belief to refer to faith in the Bible as the belief in the “truth” -especially when you have claimed that everyone is incapable of thinking totally objectively and thus it must logically follow that you are incapable of thinking totally objectively in regards to your faith in the Bible.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Your first paragraph dismisses my point out of hand and sounds like a knee-jerk emotional reaction to me. ..…

It is an emotional reaction to claptrap -what do you expect? You misrepresent science and I obviously don’t like that. If I misrepresent what the Bible says, I am sure you would react emotionally to that. Would such a reaction be that you are incapable of thinking totally objectively in regards to your faith in the Bible.[/b]

In fact I know of so many people are good at thinking objectively that I think it may in fact be generally true that MOST people think pretty much objectively most of the time -----------hamilton ------------

How do you know they are thinking objectively , if they weren't would you be able to detect this? If so how? Remember that it's easily possible for someone to seem objective and rational on the outside but actually have unconscious biases.

Do you believe that your beliefs are totally objective and devoid of bias? --------------hammitlon---------------

No.


Are we getting off track here though..........?

Originally posted by knightmeister
In fact I know of so many people are good at thinking objectively that I think it may in fact be generally true that MOST people think pretty much objectively most of the time -----------hamilton ------------

How do you know they are thinking objectively , if they weren't would you be able to detect this? If so how? Remember that it's easily possibl ...[text shortened]... ---------hammitlon---------------

No.


Are we getting off track here though..........?

…How do you know they are thinking objectively , if they weren't would you be able to detect this? If so how? ..…

Because I talk to them. They explain their reasoning and I listen.

…Remember that it's easily possible for someone to SEEM objective and rational on the OUTSIDE but actually have unconscious biases. ..… (my emphasis)

I assume what you mean here by “OUTSIDE” here is their conscious reasoning that they articulate. For all I know that could be true because I cannot read other peoples minds let alone see into their “unconscious”. But, if they SEEM objective and rational on the outside than I take that as strong evidence that they ARE objective and rational on the outside. And, if that they ARE objective and rational on the outside, any “unconscious biases” they have on the inside obviously don’t account for much because it hasn’t apparently effected their conscious reasoning. I would say that saying somebody “IS objective and rational on the outside” is equivalent to simply saying somebody “IS objective and rational” -whether on the outside only or both outside and “inside” -makes no difference.

…Do you believe that your beliefs are totally objective and devoid of bias? --------------hammitlon---------------

No. ..…

That’s a relief 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…How do you know they are thinking objectively , if they weren't would you be able to detect this? If so how? ..…

Because I talk to them. They explain their reasoning and I listen.

…Remember that it's easily possible for someone to SEEM objective and rational on the OUTSIDE but actually have unconscious biases. ..… (my emphasis) ...[text shortened]... devoid of bias? --------------hammitlon---------------

No. ..…[/b]

That’s a relief 🙂[/b]

I would say that saying somebody “IS objective and rational on the outside” is equivalent to simply saying somebody “IS objective and rational” -whether on the outside only or both outside and “inside” -makes no difference.-------hamilton---------------

So you have never heard anyone make a seemingly objective and rational argument for a course of action that is ridiculous and false?

The premise for going to war with Iraq was very rationally and logically presented and full of what seemed at the time like good evidence for WMD . It turned out to be a huge intellectual justification for some good ol' yank ass kicking (except it hasn't quite worked) . Men will provide all kinds of rationale for all sorts of things that they want to do but are afraid to admit to themselves.

You also have forgotten that one man's sanity and rationality is another mans insanity and foolishness. For example , I think it foolish to suggest that God can create a being who has free will but can never go astray. To me that's nonsense , to you it's not. My rationality tells me something very diffferent from yours , so who is being "objective" ?

In any case , we do not know if the ultimate truths of the universe are accessible or undertsandable via science and rationality. To say that "rationality is the road to truth" is a statement of faith without any evidence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would say that saying somebody “IS objective and rational on the outside” is equivalent to simply saying somebody “IS objective and rational” -whether on the outside only or both outside and “inside” -makes no difference.-------hamilton---------------

So you have never heard anyone make a seemingly objective and rational argument for a course of a ...[text shortened]... that "rationality is the road to truth" is a statement of faith without any evidence.

What do you mean it hasn't worked?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would say that saying somebody “IS objective and rational on the outside” is equivalent to simply saying somebody “IS objective and rational” -whether on the outside only or both outside and “inside” -makes no difference.-------hamilton---------------

So you have never heard anyone make a seemingly objective and rational argument for a course of a that "rationality is the road to truth" is a statement of faith without any evidence.

…So you have never heard anyone make a seemingly objective and rational argument for a course of action that is ridiculous and false? ...…

I would say thinking rationally and objectively doesn’t guarantee that the resulting decision will prove to be the one with the most favourable outcome because the person that is thinking rationally may be given false data and, also, he hasn’t got the benefit of hindsight. Despite this, it is better than thinking irrationally or failing to think objectively. Would you suggest that we should think irrationally or not think objectively when making decisions?

…You also have forgotten that one man's sanity and rationality is another mans insanity and foolishness. For example , I think it foolish to suggest that God can create a being who has free will but can never go astray. To me that's nonsense , to you it's not. My rationality tells me something very different from yours , so who is being "objective" ?. ..…

To answer your question: I would say at most only ONE of can be objective here because I think see a logical contradiction in your belief that you don’t and only one of us can be correct about this here. We may disagree on which one of us is failing to be completely objective.

…In any case , we do not know if the ultimate truths of the universe are accessible or undertsandable via science and rationality. To say that "rationality is the road to truth" is a statement of FAITH WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE...… (my emphasis)

No. There is plenty of evidence: the more rational way of thinking has led to scientific method and science. If science and rationality was not “the road to truth” as you put it then quantum mechanics and the rest of science would be simply all wrong and thus computers, cars etc wouldn’t work. I take the fact that computers, cars etc works is evidence (without “faith&rdquo😉 that science and rationality is “the road to truth” as you put it.

I am surprised here that not only you appear to try and attack scientific method but you also appear to try and attack rationality itself!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you have never heard anyone make a seemingly objective and rational argument for a course of action that is ridiculous and false? ...…

I would say thinking rationally and objectively doesn’t guarantee that the resulting decision will prove to be the one with the most favourable outcome because the person that is thinking rationally may ...[text shortened]... ry and attack scientific method but you also appear to try and attack rationality itself![/b]

I am surprised here that not only you appear to try and attack scientific method but you also appear to try and attack rationality itself!-----------------hamilton---------------------

"Attack" is quite a loaded and emotional word to use (?) for someone so "objective". I am simply pointing out that we do not know whether the purely rational , scientific method is the way to find out the truth about life , universe and everything. We don't even know if it is penetrable to science. We don't know what the ultimate truth is or what it might look like , so any attempt to place any method above any other (eg science , mystcicism etc ) MUST by definition be an act of faith in that method.

This is not an attack on rationality . I think rationality is a very useful tool for exploring the world , I regard it highly , but it is not my "god". I have no reason to believe that rationality is the complete answer. It may be , it may not. Personally I believe that the ultimate truth is beyond rational enquiry (whether cars work or not) you will no doubt disagree. I have my faith , you have yours.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am surprised here that not only you appear to try and attack scientific method but you also appear to try and attack rationality itself!-----------------hamilton---------------------

"Attack" is quite a loaded and emotional word to use (?) for someone so "objective". I am simply pointing out that we do not know whether the purely rational , scient (whether cars work or not) you will no doubt disagree. I have my faith , you have yours.

…"Attack" is quite a loaded and emotional word to use (?)..…

Not for me in this context.

…I am simply pointing out that we do not know whether the PURELY RATIONAL, scientific method is THE WAY to find out the truth about life , universe and everything.… (my emphasis)

What do you mean by “THE WAY” in the above? Do you mean the “most rational way“? -if so, then as you have already implied (I think) by the words “PURELY RATIONAL” in the above, it is the “most rational way“ -this seems to me to be a logical contradiction -unless you mean something else?

…We don't know what the ULTIMATE TRUTH is or what it might look like… (my emphasis)

What are you referring to by “ULTIMATE TRUTH” in the above? Whatever it is that you are referring to, I have never heard of anyone claiming that “scientific method will find the ultimate truth” -whatever that is supposed to mean. I am uncertain but I don’t think I have implied whatever it is you are suggesting here but you will have to explain exactly what you mean before I can be absolutely sure of this.

…so any attempt to place any method above any other (eg science , mysticism etc ) MUST by DEFINITION be an act of faith in that method. ...… (my emphasis)

What is used to infer something rationally, by definition of “rationally”, is reason and NOT faith. Reason is not the same thing as faith.

…I have my faith , you have yours.…

No I don’t. Like virtually all atheists, I use reason, not faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
you should be able to derive a logical contradiction (P and not-P) from the conjunction of the following propositions: 1. God helps the human race build some cars; 2. Said cars go "really fast"; 3. Said cars never crash. So, let's see it, KM. ------------------lemon-------------


Living in God's will = happiness (H)
Not living in God's will = unh ...[text shortened]... ed H in a ptre-programmed way , but then we wouldn't be having this debate then would we?

Uhm, how is any of that supposed to show that a logical contradiction follows from your fast car scenario?

My point is that God could have created a universe where we weren't properly sentient and choosing and and we all followed H in a ptre-programmed way

Where "properly sentient and choosing" is supposed to be whatever accords with your libertarian sympathies?

Originally posted by knightmeister
And, you're really just missing the point as it relates to this thread. I simply don't need to show that god could have created an entirely-suffering-free universe while still providing for human freedom. ----------------------lemon--------------------------------------

Yes you do if you want to uphold your claim that my position is false. The over ...[text shortened]... s of this one. I do not have to evidence anything , the universe itself is my evidence.

Yes you do if you want to uphold your claim that my position is false.

Boy, you really just cannot follow discussions very well. Other than how you continually mangle what it means for some state of affairs to be "logically impossible", I already said that I would agree with your main point in this thread (and, geez, I even outlined an argument for it): that the potential for suffering should be expected to attend human freedom, according to your libertarian conception.

But, that's got next to nothing to do with resolving the problem of actual suffering in the world, for all the reasons I keep citing (and you keep ignoring).

Originally posted by LemonJello
Uhm, how is any of that supposed to show that a logical contradiction follows from your fast car scenario?

[b]My point is that God could have created a universe where we weren't properly sentient and choosing and and we all followed H in a ptre-programmed way

Where "properly sentient and choosing" is supposed to be whatever accords with your libertarian sympathies?[/b]

Where "properly sentient and choosing" is supposed to be whatever accords with your libertarian sympathies?
-lemon---------------------

Are you able to describe a comptabilist universe that is free of suffering and risk?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Yes you do if you want to uphold your claim that my position is false.

Boy, you really just cannot follow discussions very well. Other than how you continually mangle what it means for some state of affairs to be "logically impossible", I already said that I would agree with your main point in this thread (and, geez, I even outlined an argument of actual suffering in the world, for all the reasons I keep citing (and you keep ignoring).[/b]

I already said that I would agree with your main point in this thread (and, geez, I even outlined an argument for it): that the potential for suffering should be expected to attend human freedom, according to your libertarian conception. ----------------lemon-------------------

That's fine then , you agree with me in principle and you tend to disgree with hamilton , in that a sanitised 100% risk free universe is contrary to the idea of human free will. You do not think (as I do not think either) that God could have created a world where humans were free to go their own way AND at the same time eliminate all suffering.

I really don't understand your frustration. I do not claim this as a be all and end all explanation of suffering ands have not said it was. I am merely trying to get people to see the connection.

God was in the business of trying to bring about a certain type of sentience and freedom of will in humans. This entailed some consequences.

Courage for example cannot exist in a world where humans have no real choices and there is no such thing as fear. The thing that makes real courage (as we undertsand it ) possible is for a person to have the capacity to make a hard choice in the face of real fear and for that choice to be a real one (ie - they could easily give in to the fear but choose not to).

Similarly , if humans are to make real , meaningful moral choices between good and bad then the real potential for bad choices must exist. It really is so simple when you think about it. Compatabilism just doesn't offer these choices in a real and meaningful way. There is no edge or reality to these choices because when the choice is made the alternative was never there anyway. It's a bit like playing playstation , we make "play" choices , but the game is just not alive. We can never own those choices as our own because we were always destined to make them and ultimately had no choice in the matter , we just felt the illusion of choice.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I already said that I would agree with your main point in this thread (and, geez, I even outlined an argument for it): that the potential for suffering should be expected to attend human freedom, according to your libertarian conception. ----------------lemon-------------------

That's fine then , you agree with me in principle and you tend to disgre ...[text shortened]... ake them and ultimately had no choice in the matter , we just felt the illusion of choice.

you agree with me in principle and you tend to disgree with hamilton , in that a sanitised 100% risk free universe is contrary to the idea of human free will. You do not think (as I do not think either) that God could have created a world where humans were free to go their own way AND at the same time eliminate all suffering.

No, I don't agree with any of that, and none of that follows from what I said. I said that I agree that the potential for suffering should attend your libertarian conception of freedom (this was your claim, after all, as far as I can tell). Now, I find this result to be totally inconsequential to anything about our world because your libertarian freedom simply doesn't exist in our world -- and if it did, it wouldn't be freedom, properly speaking.

Compatabilism just doesn't offer these choices in a real and meaningful way

Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take you seriously when you say such things. You've repeatedly shown an inability to support such statements.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you able to describe a comptabilist universe that is free of suffering and risk?

Yeah, and I don't like repeating myself over and over. See page 2 for the basic idea. As far as I can tell, there is nothing about compatibilist freedom that necessarily entails suffering. Do you have some argument to the contrary?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]you agree with me in principle and you tend to disgree with hamilton , in that a sanitised 100% risk free universe is contrary to the idea of human free will. You do not think (as I do not think either) that God could have created a world where humans were free to go their own way AND at the same time eliminate all suffering.

No, I don't agree w en you say such things. You've repeatedly shown an inability to support such statements.[/b]

Compatabilism just doesn't offer these choices in a real and meaningful way --------------------KM

Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take you seriously when you say such things. You've repeatedly shown an inability to support such statements.-----------------------Lemon---------------------

The only support this needs is basic simple logic. A determined agent that is destined to make only one choice has no options but to follow that course of action. A free agent is free to choose between 2 choices.

So ...erhem.....a choice by definition involves a choice between two options and NOT (and I can't believe I have to explain this!!! LOL) one option. If I have a choice between lemonade and lemonade , it's not actually a choice (LOL). Even if I am under the illusion of a free choice , it is still not real freedom because choice needs two real options.

A choice between lemonade and beer is a choice. If beer is not a real option (because lemonade is pre-destined) then I can hardly be said to be free to choose beer can I? I can't break it down any further than that . We are down to the bare bones of basic logic.

I accept that free will has associated problems with it. Can you also accept that compatabilism also has problems in that no real (only illusionary) freedom can be provided by it. Compatabilism can provide the illusion of freedom but that's all.