Why I am an athiest

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

From Newsweek/Washington Post.

Quote:
The fact that “true” beliefs are not casual and disconnected opinions points to the necessity that they must fit into belief systems. Belief systems are comprehensive. They are inherently logical. They are sufficient to answer any question whether personal or political or economic or religious. They have a reassuring, even comforting, quality. They are absent of mystery. Whatever is yet unknown can be known by the principles of its own philosophy, and its own science.

Not sure what to do with this. Why is it relevant? Have I claimed that all beliefs are wrong or that having beliefs is somehow wrong?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Where did I claim to believe what the neuroscientists say?

Please refer to post # 5,327,940, where you gave us a couple of links to neuroscience articles, as if the helped prove your point. Certainly you must give some credence to what they say...

Another point is, as I tried to explain many times now, neuroscience itself is a product of neuronal activity. Any statement made by neurologists about free will applies to them and to their theories too.

A scientist saying: "real, independent, free thought does not exist" is also saying: "science does not exist". For the upteenth time, there is a paradox here, like where the Cretan says "all Cretans are liars".

This is pure logic, and not a matter of opinion or belief. I am surprised it's so hard to understand. Maybe I should quote some neuronal scientist or another.

2 Replies

@FBM,

No wonder you have problems with the understanding of "belief."
The article is pretty straight forward, and easy to comprehend - for those who don't have a hangup about belief and believing.

Simply stated, it's LOGICAL.

Your belief about neuroscience is a BELIEF!

Your belief in it was through FREE WILL.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

A scientist saying: "real, independent, free thought does not exist" is also saying: "science does not exist". For the upteenth time, there is a paradox here, like where the Cretan says "all Cretans are liars".

It goes like this (wiki):

"Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."[1]

The Epimenides paradox however can be solved, meaning that the statement can be assigned truth-value in a way that is not self-contradicting. Namely, if the statement "all Cretans are liars" (stated by Epimenides, himself a Cretan) is true, then Epimenides, being a Cretean, would be a liar; since liars only make false statements, the statement should be false. So assuming the statement is true leads us to conclude that the statement is false. However, if we assume the stament is false, then its negation, "there exists a Cretan that is honest", is true. This does not lead to contradiction, since it is not required that this Cretan be Epimenides

In our case this solution translates into: at least SOME human knowledge is "free" from material determinism.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

And I explained that the only reason I linked to their work was to show that it is logically consistent and reasonable to doubt free will. I never claimed to believe in the validity of science or the truth/falsity of their findings. You seem to be extrapolating from your own mental habits.

Similarly, neuroscientists have worked out the physiology of how the brain produces the sense of agency/self. If I link (again) to their work, it doesn't mean that I believe anything. All I'm doing is pointing at something.

2 Replies

@FBM,

The so-called "physiology" is a straw man argument when talking about "belief." We're talking about process, not biology. It doesn't matter how it's the agent; without which all animal forms would not exist. The brain functions within the biology and environment.

We determine belief through experience, perception, and knowledge. Without the biology of the brain, our ability at communication would not exist.

Here, again.

Quote:

be·lief
/biˈlēf/
Noun
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Based on your opinions about this subject, you have shown "belief." Otherwise, you would have no opinion.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You're pointing at a logical paradox that has only one logical solution: free will may exists. Keep pointing.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What are my opinions/beliefs on this subject? Is reporting first-hand experience a belief? I related to you that I have read something that is allegedly from neuroscientists, but I have not said that I believe or disbelieve any of that. It seems that animals' nervous systems function quite well without beliefs. At least, I'm not aware of any evidence to show that other animals have beliefs. If every other animal on the planet can live normally without beliefs, why can't humans?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

That's all I said. Free will may or may not exist. Then I pointed at how it is being investigated by scientists. What's the problem?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Animal behavior are genetic and responsive to their environment.

2 Replies

@FBM,

You wrote,

Quote:

Is reporting first-hand experience a belief?

It was belief that allowed you to choose "that" experience. For whatever reason you chose to be at that place at that time was based on your belief of whatever reasons you decided that it best met your "needs."

Your typing on your computer was based on your belief that it would provide you with what you believed to be worth the time - over all the other choices/options.

Belief.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Animal behavior are genetic and responsive to their environment.

And human behavior isn't?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Now you're just throwing the word 'belief' at everything I write. Since you seem to be antagonistic to what I say, I will end with the suggestion that you look closely at Pyrrhonism. Thanks for sharing your ideas. Smile

1 Reply

@FBM,

That's correct! That's because without a sense of belief, you couldn't possibly have any opinion about anything.

That's the reason I posted the definition for "belief" a couple of times; it's self-explanatory.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Of course, but you were the one who mentioned animals.

You wrote,

Quote:

At least, I'm not aware of any evidence to show that other animals have beliefs.

Have you ever owned a dog? They respond to "beliefs."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You seem determined to label just about anything a belief if it helps you win this internet argument. Does the possibility that someone could live without beliefs threaten your own belief system? Are you assuming that I'm claiming that the only right way to live is without beliefs? The school of Pyrrhonism is said to have lasted for a few centuries. Do you think that none of those philosophers ever achieved total suspension of judgement on non-evident metaphysical matters?

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

That's all I said. Free will may or may not exist. Then I pointed at how it is being investigated by scientists. What's the problem?

I am saying a little more: that if logic is any worth, free will must exist, for the hypothesis of its inexistence leads to a paradox.

But if scientific knowledge doesn't weigh anything, why quote scientits rather than artists, poets or priests?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Animal behavior are genetic and responsive to their environment.

Easier said than proven... Why would a dog or a squid not have free will?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Explain the logical necessity of your paradox, please.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

A scientist saying: "real, independent, free thought does not exist" is also saying: "science does not exist".

Why? Please explain this premise.

Quote:

For the upteenth time, there is a paradox here, like where the Cretan says "all Cretans are liars".

How do you justify this analogy?

1 Reply

Why I am an athiest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know