Why are you religious? Please give your reasons.

A 'choice' only pans out one way. 'What ifs' are neither here nor there.
In retrospect, determinism is clear. Freewill would require foreknowledge of an indeterminate future(a paradox itself) for any sort of verification.
In my mind this makes the whole idea of 'freewill' completely useless.

Dok, why is it that freewill "would require foreknowledge of an indeterminate futhre...for any sort of verification"? I agree wlith you that (in a sense) "I don't 'make' choice, I am a conduit for the experience of choice." That experience is a Cosmic experience (an expression of Nature). Of course, the experience of having freewill of making choices based on available information is only an attempt to influence the future by means of the "rational" use of an inevitablly limited amount of information. It's like placing bets.
Freewill is "useless" as you say, but that is to say that it is philosophically useless, but psychologically essential. I think William James said that he chose to believe in free-will, not because he can demonstrate that it exists but because he needs to believe it does, or to operate "as if" it did.
As I said before, I do not believe in freewill because I do not believe in an ego-self that makes choices; to me the choices are expressions of nature (that portion of nature expressed in my being/process), and Nature is what is "free." And I do not believe in a determinism in terms of being constrained by Reality. I AM that reality.
Thus I believe in neither an ego-based freedom nor determinism. The "issue" is a false one.

This links in quite a bit but I've thought along similar lines with regard to the football team I've supported all my life. Where I come from there are 2 major clubs to support, Liverpool and Everton, I was brought up in a family of Liverpool supporters, I am a Liverpool supporter.

The spread of supporters throughout the city of Liverpool is very, very even but it's interesting because based upon what it is to support a football club, I would never, even if my team did very badly for a prolonged period, change teams and support someone else. However I've known a few people who have changed teams regardless of their families inclinations. Now the reasons for such a change and the time when they might happen are numerous.

For starters why is it that I would never have considered changing teams but other people have done. The need to support "my" team is so strong that I wouldn't feel "right" changing allegiance, it would be against my conception of football support/fandom? Why then have others been capable of the leap?

Also, changes between support appear far easier when at a younger age. Again, why? Having said that, some people support a different club every other month, changing support based upon which way the wind blows. What constitutes their support for their club, how does it differ to my support for example? The difference between supporting a club to fit in and being indoctrinated (as it were) into a group maybe?

Now to tie all this in with Religion I'm sure you can see the comparisons, some people don't get sports but the people who do really, really feel a strong, almost indescribable connection and bond with "their" club, team etc. I feel many, if not all, of the questions above can be carried over to this discussion.

For starters, do we go through a period when the balance is right between knowledge/understanding and individuality/freedom/expression to, if we've been brought up in a religion, question said religion. Is it harder for people who've known nothing else for such a long time to start taking some leaps? Some may say, clearly, but still, in others a change in lifestyle and thinking no matter how old can be like taking the proverbial wool from their eyes.

*cough* Sport and Faith eh *cough* :wink:

And, of course, all this talk about determinism/constraint and freedom/choice reflects our human perspective, applying, that is to say, only to our level of nature. Nature, at the larger level--at the level we may refer to as The Cosmos--does not operate in terms of such notions, only we do.

There you go again, JL. What in tarnation are you carrying on about? Can you explain what you mean? I really want to understand.

JL,

In order to prove the existance of freewill, it must be proven that 'choice' (of the type implied by freewill) exists. The only way I can see to verify this would be evidence only available in the future;ie evidence that a choice could turn out differently than it does.
As this would require evidence from two possible futures, this is very problematic.

I have asserted on many occasions that I make a distinction between 'freewill' and 'the illusion of freewill'

Causality is observable and measurable. Denying it's existance seems rather fruitless.
The 'ego' is also ultimately an illusion, but one critical, as is 'freewill' by extention, to our sanity.

Ashers, I recall that as a child I was fanatical about the Los Angeles Rams. Its players were the equivalents of Catholic saints. Then they left Los Angeles for St. Louis. My faith collapsed, as it might have for many Catholics if the Church relocated to a Mars colony.

Indeed. Actually trying to imagine my team re-locating to another area in the country is near impossible as it is. How did those circumstances come about? Support is supposed to be worldwide now though, it's a global market don'tcha know

Echi, essentially (sorry that's all I got) I think JL is considering the lack of individuality and instead embracing the cosmos,nature, the whole as all there really is. So when we make a "choice", we are simply expressing nature itself or rather we are expressions of nature. Expansion may be needed....

Very good, Ashers. Why didn't I say that?
One qualification: I'm not talking about individuality or individualism. Those are socially loaded terms, loaded with "virtue" in our culture. I'm referring to the illusion of a separate self, separate from our environment and the entire Cosmos, whether or not we are collectivists, individualists or whatever.

But what does "expression of Nature" mean? What is a "Cosmic gesture"?

Dok, as Hume demonstrated, we do not see causes; we think causes. I've said many times elsewhere that the ego has been essential for our species' survival, but that, despite its usefulness, it is an illusion. One cannot imagine a society functioning without egos and the notion of individual responsibility. But zen masters I've known note that while they cannot relate to others without acknowledging the myth of the self, it is very beneficial spiritually to "see" (to have, echi, an intuitive grasp) of its illusory (ontological) status.
Useful fictions are better than useless truths.

Fiction meaning in the Latin origins "to shape or fashion." Fiction often tells more believable truths than reality.

I see nothing here to disagree with.

Again, agreed.

How am I suposed to argue with you if you keep posting ideas I am in accord with?

JL--

Aren't you just replacing one myth with another that's more to your liking?

I think I'm mything something here.

The one fingered salute?

Good point, Kev; it's in agreement with my stated position. The ego, like the point or line, does not have any concrete material reality; but it is (like the point and line) a valuable abstraction.

I explored so much only for you.. I may explain what I write to you also the words.. and something more...

''For example, an endless light without darkness may not be known or perceived. But if a line of real or imaginary darkness is drawn, then it becomes known.'' that is key...

By the way, echi, perhaps, but I don't think so.

Thanks, Kev.