Religion - Future discussion

[omega]

I know the difference between right and wrong, and I have been on both sides. But I don't need to belong to a religion or to believe in a higher being to know the difference. I can live by my own morals and figure out how to live my life the best way I can.
Think for your self

Help me to understand how everyone thinking for themselves can ensure that we will all respect others. I mean, if right and wrong is so personal, what if my sense of right and wrong conflicts with yours? In other words I might think there is nothing wrong with taking your money because I personally believe that there is no such thing as individual ownership.

Now every illustration stands on only three legs. I know that there are laws about this in the USA and most every country. But I hope you get my point. When morals clash with each other, who is right and who is wrong if everyone is just thinking for themselves?

BTW I do agree that people need to think for themselves. Religion should not be mind control. As a pastor I have no desire at all to control people.

(hey q: notice I use just one BTW per message. 😉 )

 

[quinn65]

Omega...

There are many things one could hold as inviolate to sustain a common set of morals. Choosing among those many things doesn't even have to result in practical conflict: same end, different means.

Ascribing to religious doctrine is one choice. I believe many take that as an easier path, where the rules are clearly defined and ready to be adopted with little questioning. Others take it as a very difficult path, exploring and quesitoning every step of the way. St. Thomas Aquinas held that there was truer faith in honest doubt than unquestioned belief; maybe he had this in mind.

Ascribing to an individualistic doctrine is another choice. It is "Natural Law" that "each person owns their life and can do with it as they please, so long as they don't initiate force against another." This view is also supported by coherent philosophy, just not necessarily theistic in origin. In my opinion Ayn Rand articulated it best.

I think that everyone thinking for themselves is the *only way* to *ensure* that we will all respect others, but then I come from that latter group...

 

[qjakal]

BTW...I like initials!

IMO, one BTW is not enough for a post. To effectively wander aimlessly and blur the posts meaning beyond all hope of comprehension, you need 2 or 3 minimum.

Anyway, I have definitely labeled quinn as having a "Rand" fixation now...which lets me put him into a cubbyhole and allows me to understand him completely and totally! There'll be no more surprises from him! Hah! Well, it at least gives me insight into his frame of reference (same thing), as my older sister has this affliction also. She spent the last 3 years of high school in her room worshipping..err..reading the books over and over and over. They mailed her the exams, and because she's a snotty little genius she graduated and scored 1580 (yeah, she argued about the one she got wrong...sigh)on her SATs and went to Johns Hopkins. Don't spread that advertisement for higher education around to your kids though, unless you want to go through a similar experience.

The philosophy of owning ones life until it intersects with anothers has been bandied about in many forms for quite some time now. It's certainly a goal to shoot for, but I don't think we can ever attain that level of cooperative socialization. I refer you to Spider man #1 for the definitive example of power vs. responsibility and how we cannot escape the fact that we are NOT all equal and won't ever be until genetic engineering is perfected next century! Yes, I know, you quote the Bible and other such authoritative works and I trump you with the literary classic of all time...tough, I thought of it first! I'll let someone else use the Fantastic Four to illustrate our points about evil and the ramifications of unchecked behavior...can't get greedy.

Everybody up to a frothy(is that a word?)discussion on the validity of free will vs. dogma of divine descent? Let's go.... Q

 

[quinn65]

Aw hell, I've been cubbyholed. 😉

Actually, before you write me off, I'll have you know that I think Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (a-la his aforementioned books and the link I gave Strel -- was that this thread?) trumps anyone else's subject-object metaphysics, including Ms. Rand's. If your sister's a true card-carrying Objectivist, Pirsig would drive her crazy.

No fair pulling Spiderman into this. I could never argue with ol' Spidey.

The MoQ solves free will vs. determinism quite nicely, if you're really interested...?

 

[qjakal]

Solves???

Oh, I am interested, but in what quinn thinks, not Pirsig or Rand or Aristotle or Doubting Thomas...lol. They've had their say, and I've read 'em, but I always feel thats just the jumping off point of any good thought process. I treat Spidey as seriously as Socrates, because the message is more important than the medium. You have a facet or two to add, and with a twist, or I've misread you, which of course couldn't be possible with my shattering intellect....or was that shattered? Either way, you KNOW it's not solved, and soon you'll spill the beans! Q

 

[Strelnikov]

Determinism vs. Free Will

One of the better treatments of the question was in Heinlein's "Podkayne of Mars." Podkayne, given the problem as a high school assignment, set it up as an exercise in game theory and solved it mathematically. It's really a trivial exercise, needs only a 2 x 2 matrix that can be solved by inspection.

Strelnikov

 

[TummyDragon]

It is commonly recognized by people who have studied the Bible, the of the four gosples (the four books of the New Testement that speak of Jesus' life), Paul's is the most accurate. Here's the problem though, Paul lived a good 75 years after Jesus died.

I believe you probably meant the gospel of Mark here.. Paul (formerly Saul) was an add on apostle and wrote many letters, but did not actually pen any of the four gospels.

But then again, maybe someone has decided through ethereal insight that Paul and Mark are the same person (afterall, no one has ever seen a picture of Paul and Mark together...hmmmm how suspicious!)

As for myself, I'm actually a Frisbeterian... we firmly believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

 

[omega]

First Frisbeterian Church of the TMF

I believe you probably meant the gospel of Mark here.. Paul (formerly Saul) was an add on apostle and wrote many letters, but did not actually pen any of the four gospels.

But then again, maybe someone has decided through ethereal insight that Paul and Mark are the same person (afterall, no one has ever seen a picture of Paul and Mark together...hmmmm how suspicious!)

As for myself, I'm actually a Frisbeterian... we firmly believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

You are right Tummy, He probably did mean Mark, who was a contemporary of Jesus and may have been the first to write his gospel.

BTW I was really frized out when my State Farm agent said my insurance covered falling of the roof . . . it just did not cover hitting the ground 😱

 

[qjakal]

Hopping!

Aye carumba! This thread is hopping! Welcome to Tummy Dragon, heckuva entrance! Frisbetarians are welcome here, as everywhere, as long as you stay away from the dogs..( bad things CAN happen to good frisbees). As for who wrote what, don't do it, cause someones going to jump in here and rant about the whole book being ghost written and hearsay and we'll have a big 'ol mess. I want to explore frisbetarism to its fullest before we move on..😉 ! Do you have actual buildings that are held sacred and reserved for your "best" people? Is it just the roof, or do the gutters come into play if you've been bad? Is there some form of stratification and money removal involved in your worshipping? And what DO you do when a puppy wanders by and threatens the entire congregation with drooling for eternity? So many questions... Q

 

[quinn65]

FW vs D - Step 1: Forget Everything You Know

Holy deliberation, Batman, look at all these threads! Where the heck did that other RtG thread on Medgudjorge or whatever (sorry, no offense, but the voice in my head just says "my drudgery" when I see it) come from? That boy's got some serious time on his hands.

Nice to see Omega's drawing fire in the Guilt and Religion thread (and doing nicely, btw -- I think I'd attend one of his sermons if I could) while qjakal's got me off solving free will vs. determinism in this one... 😉 I'm not even *reading* the rekindled Mydrudgery thread. Life's too frickin' short.

So I think I'll live in this thread a while and work on y'alls subject-object / cause-effect orientations to the world. We have to do that first before you realize that the answer to free will vs. determinism is: you're asking the wrong question. There is a reconciliation, but we need to approach it slowly and carefully.

Based on the either-or way we typically approach this question, we're really stuck from a common sense perspective. If you believe in determinism, you're adhering to the logical scientific method of understanding the world, but abandoning the concept of morality (how can choice matter if all is predetermined?). If you believe in free will, you're embracing individual morality but abandoning a purely logical, scientific approach to understanding reality.

But common sense tells us that reality *does* behave according to some fixed and understandable principles, and also that individuals *should* be responsible for their decisions. If we accept those notions as true based on observation, we've reached a paradox with the conclusion we get through logical reasoning. And whenever sound reasoning leads you to a paradox, or whenever observed and predicted behavior vary wildly, it's time to start checking premises.

That's why I say that the entire orientation of thought that led to this question being asked this way in the first place has something wrong with it way down at a root level. Start tracing it back and it doesn't take you long to reach the primary metaphysical distinction that Aristotle gave us as a basis of Western thought: subjects and objects engaging in cause and effect.

I write my own stuff, qjakal, but I hope you'll grant me a little latitude using reference material here since I'm tangling with no less a personage than Aristotle. I'm pretty sure he'd kick my ass in a closed-book test. 😉 And I don't know how much appetite folks have for this sort of debate, so I'll just take it a step at a time and see what happens.

So this is Step 1. We ought to kick it around a little before moving on. Thanks for listening...

Pax,
quinn

 

[qjakal]

Sigh..a step backwards!

Darn it...now we don't even have the question! Aargh, at this rate I'll never become enlightened in time to challenge the Gods and find my answer! I certainly won't jump on ya for refrencing scholars, Sir Quinn (especially seeing you are a fellow "Q"), but it IS nice to let ourselves wander from the giants of the past and stumble along semi-blindly. The facts are eminently clear, although we try to be independent free thinkers, it's impossible not to stand on the backs of those who have preceeded us, either philisophically or technologically.

I'm loving having Omega in the religion thread, and I will master his "judo" debating tactic yet!

As for reality...aha! What if (ala the Matrix), I refuse to accept that your assumption that reality behaves according to consistent principles is correct? That we all don't fly because we're taught we can't,etc etc.... It's certainly more interesting that way, and would solve a LOT of problems if applied correctly. Cause and effect would be interchangeable phenoms that were under your discretionary control, asuming you decided to recognize them as even being valid terms. It gets QUITE confusing quickly though when you try to establish that sort of spiral reasoning, and makes your head hurt unless you have a lot of coffee nearby. Aristotle had only a few years of recorded history and a relatively short lifespan to work with, as well as the problem of "distortion" of events to contend with (ever play telephone at a party....you get the idea)...therefore I MUST weigh his findings carefully and measure them twice, as should all logical seekers armed with both common sense and hindsight!

Paradox! I loooove paradoxes! Whether they be of the classic time travel, killing your own grandfather variety or why decaf coffee cools off faster than regular, it's ALL just a wondrous interesting thought provoking, wake ya up in the middle of the night set of situations that you just KNOW can be solved if only you had (fill in the blank) time, energy, intellect, alien transcripts....whatever! The fact that we even try to solve paradoxes can be considered one in itself!!

Aaaack...out of coffee... Q

 

[guitman69]

Ooops! I'm sorry

I should probably check my facts before I post next time. Thank you for the correction. My bad

 

[Haltickling]

I've got another paradoxon for you, the 2 Q's from StarTrek's "Q-continuum" 😉 :

The law of cause and effect is not entirely consistent with quantum mechanics (another Q!). Light particles (photons) behave against all common sense sometimes, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows several examples for reversed cause and effect chains. The theory about 'Schroedinger's Cat' shows clearly that the only thing we can be sure about is the fact that we can't be sure about anything (now, who the hell said THAT?).

Now please don't nail me to a quantum cross. I don't pretend to understand half of quantum mechanics. These are just conclusions about the parts I *THINK* I understood.

So what if there is a natural law that determines our existence to be undeterminable? That we therefore are fully responsible for our actions even though our lives are predetermined, because of the same natural law?

Could somebody e-mail me an aspirin, please... 😀

 

[qjakal]

Long time no...see?

If thats what we're ACTUALLY doing..., that's why you need to lay in a big supply of coffee for these threads. Hi Hal!! Haven't heard from you in a while, hope all is well on your side of the ocean.

Quantam laws are an oxymoronic set of baloney that only 4 guys understand anyway, and I think they're having fun with us half the time. We Q tend to make up our own dynamic phases of matter and energy as we go, and it's much simpler that way. Dave2112 calls it "The Force", other groups have different handles for it, but we're all talking about those undefined or undiscovered "laws" that are hanging around on the fringes of our consciousness, driving us crazy with their proximity and complexity!

If your closing statement was correct, then I guess it was predetermined to type that it's correct....although I almost didn't just to see what would have happened, but then again that decision was probably ALSO predetermined...oooh, destiny is a cruel master indeed!

Can we get back to whether or not it's evil to use baby oil to tickle someone with? It has to be simpler....


Q the coffeeless

 

[quinn65]

The Matrix, Aristotle, and Quantum Physics

Gotta be quick here but might get a chance to come back later.

Ok, one at a time...

It's important in The Matrix that behind the perceived reality there was still an "actual" reality -- that place where the unplugged folks woke up. Now, you could say *that* reality was also programmed and had another behind it, and another behind it, and another ad nauseum, but ultimately you reach the one where they're doing the plugging.

Think of Aristotle in terms of his predecessors and his successors rather than his brief time in the mortal coil. Remember, Socrates taught Plato taught Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. AtG was no philosopher himself, but he did embed Hellenic ideology in conquered lands throughout Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, Samarcand, Bactria, and the Punjab. Further, Aristotle came along at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced a philosopher arguably his equal. His authority over that time grew to be almost as unquestioned as that of the Church. Through military and intellectual influence, with Aristotle as its last great voice, Hellenism spread to literally shape the way you and I and everyone else on this board thinks.

It's so cool that Hal picked up on the vagaries of quantum physics as a hole in detrminism's armor. Science keeps trying to redefine a set of laws based on subject-object cause-and-effect to explain the behaviors observed through QM, but it's in fact just another example of the measured world diverting from the predicted one under our current assumptions. It's another paradox, and as much as qjakal likes them 😉, nature abhors them. It makes more sense to *redefine* those basic assumptions to include subjects, objects, causes and effects in one context, and that context is Quality.

Ok that wasn't as quick as I thought. Now I *really* have to go. Y'all can pick away at this stuff a while. Later...

Pax,
quinn

 

[quinn65]

Matrix redux

Ok qj I missed your point on the Matrix thing.

We share (but have trouble defining) a common reality based on massively observeable empirical data. If we all didn't hold similar a priori concepts about "substance" in the world, we wouldn't even be capable of engaging in this communication, much less inventing or implementing the technology that supports it.

Life would be a never ending Memento movie, but our notes to ourselves would be meaningless.

If all else fails -- and I really have to get back downstairs to our company now -- the fallback is that if we each experienced a distinct and unique reality there would be no basis to argue about anything, and this whole discussion is moot. (Memory: SNL's Jesse Jackson skits with "the point is moot" in response to every question).

Ok really really really have to go now.

 

[qjakal]

Groundhog Day

I love this movie, because it works on soooo many levels, depending on what you happen to be thinking about. Anyone not familiar with it and the concepts it portrays before we launch into it?

*dramatic pause while they peruse the net and read the script*

Okay, let's use the main character as our everyday person for the first example. Life is literally revolving around him as he goes through a series of evolutionary phases and development that is only visible to us, as the godlike observer, and to himself if he examines his behavior, correct? Eventually he reaches a state of "redemption" whereupon he rejoins the "common reality" that quinn spoke of in the previous post. Pretty straightforward path and resolution, cause and effect in essence.....right?

Now, I turn it over to the assembled lurkers and other posters....give me the "world view" from the POV of the OTHER characters in the movie...the mayor, the TV cameraman, his love interest and so forth. What and where would the reality of those people be different than what we currently perceive as our own? How would you know if you are a bit player or the star of the show? Would you care? Could you care? And finally....aaah...Does It Matter?

More coffee!! No, not that decaf crap...I'm gonna be rolling this around for a day or two, and they'll be pelting me with theories and rebuttals....gonna be ugly and complicated soon!! NEED REGULAR COFFEE!!

 

[quinn65]

GD + 1

The day after Groundhog Day they'd all remember the previous day's events from the "final loop" where Bill Murray redeemed himself. They'd have forgotten each day's "failed loop" when the next attempt started since it would have never occurred for them. Presumably, based on other players' behavior, whatever power was looping Murray's day was doing it for his perception/benefit alone.

Speaking of coffee, we'll be talking about hot stoves soon. Right now it's sack time. Later...

Pax,
quinn

p.s. Could we all be in such a loop right now and not know it? Is this the eleventy-seventh time I've lived this day while some reporter pursues redemption? Maybe, but when it's over my time flow will resume, and my reality will remain the same.

 

[Strelnikov]

Game Theory

Is an analytical method of maximizing gain and/or minimizing loss in the presence of uncertainty. The problem is set up as a matrix, with your strategies on one axis and your opponent's (in this case, the Universe) on the other. Values are assigned to each combination of strategies. Here's how the free will argument works out as a zero-sum game:

Your strategies:
A. Live your life as if you have free will.
B. Drift along with whatever comes your way.

The Universe's strategies:
1. Free will exists.
2. Life is predestined.

Here's the matrix:

A1 - You are the captain of your soul. Value = +1.
A2 - You only think you have free will. Value = 0.
B1 - You've wasted your potential. Value = -1.
B2 - You never had any potential anyway. Value = 0.

By inspection, the way to bet is Strategy A. Regardless of which strategy the Universe plays, you're guaranteed to at least break even.

Strelnikov

 

[qjakal]

Interesting Strel...

Yup, but what if the universe cheats? I have concerns about the moral fiber of God/s, and now you bring the universe, his or hers right hand man into the equation? These omnipotent beings and their henchman are too uppity for my limited perception, and I intend to get a reckoning from them eventually! So, if you hear a giant *Splattt* noise coming from this direction, you'll know I succeeded.

As for quinns reply, it's as good a theory as any other, but what about all the good/evil that these people may have done in that period? Counts, doesn't count....mulligan? And if we are looping (ever read Replay? ...good book), then our actual lifespans are nearly infinite, unbeknownst to us! I might be even older than I think, and I may have tickled Madonna and Sharon Stone half crazy yesterday and NOT remember it! And who decides when it's time for someone else to "go"? We can all use some redeeming and upgrading, from what I've seen....when is it my turn, and why? No objection to being a bit player as long as I get a turn eventually, and perhaps that is what heaven and hell are truly about...hell might be being aware of your status as a looping bystander with no purpose other than to be a foil for the entity that is in the process of being redeemed, and heaven would of course be in the eyes of the repeater.

Hal...get your quantum self in here and get me out of this loop...it appears to be getting tighter and smaller....*urk*.. Q

 

[Haltickling]

Q, my quantum self is on vacation in a parallel universe presently. He left after my recent post, and Heisenberg's theory states that the time of his return is somewhat uncertain... 😀

 

[qjakal]

Nope....

Actually according to that Theory, you never left and are already back. 😉 Q

 

[Haltickling]

Q, are you sure? Damn, where am I? And what the heck am I doing in this thread anyway... 😀