Dispensing with the illusion of Free Will

[No Excuses]

some of us study neurobiology too. As did one of my seminary professors.

http://www.amazon.com/What-About-Soul-Joel-Green/dp/0687023459/ref=sr_1_29?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336418519&sr=1-29

Just out of curiosity, did he actually study Neuroscience at an academic level or did he simply write a book about it? I'm reading his wikipedia page and it seems like his work is exclusively in Christian theology.

Plus I have no idea idea where he gets this from:

Nor is it possible from the scientific point of view to biologically distinguish humans from animals.

[Destino]

Anyway, in this matter as with so many other regarding man's nature, while our knowledge is increasing dramatically and exponentially, I think we're still in the earliest stages of an advanced (advancing) scientific-based learning curve vs the millennium philosophy and theology have had to refine their explanations of man's nature. Philosophy can still be added to, but in Christianity, outside of some leeway with interpretation of scripture (and change there, is tricky of course and is increasingly more difficult with passing time) we pretty much have some fairly cut and dried ("there is no argument on this matter") positions.

I understand the appeal of "we can make it ourselves" to men that count religion amongst their enemies and ego's large enough to think themselves qualified. What I don't however understand is the idea that religion is cut and dry and entirely unchanging. Also interpretation isn't so cut and dry.... it's the difference between the creation story being the story OF evolution and an argument against it.

[China]

I can't find the illusion in this video.

[Destino]

Plus I have no idea idea where he gets this from:

I don't think that quote means we can't tell what cells come from what. I think it means scientifically humans are simply one species amongst many others. Religions often view man as special and "higher" than animals.

[DeaconTheVillain]

1) Religion is true

2) We need religion

3) Atheism is a cult.

Gonna put you down for #3.

I have often wondered about, and do agree, that for a species with a higher developed brain (cerebral cortex allowing higher thought) if religion/god is a big man made need to solve the age long question of "why are we here." This thought of "god" and something greater than us, or a creator, if you will is certainly in all cultures and spreads across time. I often wonder if religion and god are simply there to comfort us in things we don't understand. Animals have no concept of "God" nor can they comprehend such a thing. My dog is smart, but not that smart.

God is an easy eplanation. And while its very comforting to think that some supreme being created all of this (much less loves us all) it doesn't necessarily make it true. I can say that I believe in the power of prayer, and generally find those who have "god" in their life tend to be more happy than those who don't.

I am not good at putting my thoughts into words, but I hope this at least made some sense.

[alexey]

Not all, but when he starts by saying "I'm pretty doped up on cold medicine, so if I do anything crazy like convert to Christianity.....:ols:" he's then pretty much hitched his trailer to those who would rather laugh at people of faith rather than enter dialogue with them, in other words he's in the same car that Hitchens drove for a number of years. BTW, not all Christians are your garden variety idiots...some of us study neurobiology too. As did one of my seminary professors.

http://www.amazon.com/What-About-Soul-Joel-Green/dp/0687023459/ref=sr_1_29?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336418519&sr=1-29

Good point. Looks like his cold medicine did make him do something crazy - make an ill-advised joke that alienated reasonable Christians

[Corcaigh]

reasonable Christians

:pokeye:

[No Excuses]

I don't think that quote means we can't tell what cells come from what. I think it means scientifically humans are simply one species amongst many others. Religions often view man as special and "higher" than animals.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that's the point he was trying to make because this sentence:

Nor is it possible from the scientific point of view to biologically distinguish humans from animals.

is about as poorly phrased as it can possibly be. Even then, at least in my opinion, he's still wrong. The "scientific" point of view does not teach that we are simply one of many other species. Understanding the place of our species within the natural world is simply up to how people choose to interpret science/religion. I don't equate understanding the place of Homo Sapiens within evolution and the animal kingdom as science putting forward the notion that we cannot consider ourselves to be "special". Some atheists/agnostics, may choose to interpret it as such but that's their own interpretation. Science is neutral about this.

[skinfan2k]

I swear you guys were talking about this. This is real

[Destino]

Good point. Looks like his cold medicine did make him do something crazy - make an ill-advised joke that alienated reasonable Christians

I'd be surprised if he didn't attack religions constantly, after all he started his chat arguing that religion was getting too much respect from the scientific community. His intentions aren't exactly masked.

[techboy]

Watching enough William Lane Craig has given me immunity to bad Youtube material. Just one more hour wasted I suppose.

It's funny you should say that, because my gut reaction to Sam Harris is that despite this...

Harris has a background in neurobiology.

...Sam Harris is the atheistic equivalent of William Lane Craig getting a PhD (why not, he already has 2, right?) in Quantum Physics, then writing about it. If you listen to him, he started as an atheist angry about 9/11 and decided to take down religion. Then he decided to get a degree in neuroscience. Others have noticed this, as Jonathan Haidt (himself an atheist and attendee of the "Beyond Belief" conference) writes in MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION, in which he poses the question:

But because the new atheists talk so much about the virtues of science and our shared commitment to reason and evidence, I think it's appropriate to hold them to a higher standard than their opponents. Do these new atheist books model the scientific mind at its best? Or do they reveal normal human beings acting on the basis of their normal moral psychology?

He continues (including some direct comments about Harris), then writes:

You can't use the New Atheists as your guide to these lessons. The new atheists conduct biased reviews of the literature and conclude that there is no good evidence on any benefits except the health benefits of religion. Here is Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell on whether religion brings out the best in people:

"Perhaps a survey would show that as a group atheists and agnostics are more respectful of the law, more sensitive to the needs of others, or more ethical than religious people. Certainly no reliable survey has yet been done that shows otherwise. It might be that the best that can be said for religion is that it helps some people achieve the level of citizenship and morality typically found in brights. If you find that conjecture offensive, you need to adjust your perspective. (Breaking the Spell, p. 55.)

I have italicized the two sections that show ordinary moral thinking rather than scientific thinking. The first is Dennett's claim not just that there is no evidence, but that there is certainly no evidence, when in fact surveys have shown for decades that religious practice is a strong predictor of charitable giving. Arthur Brooks recently analyzed these data (in Who Really Cares) and concluded that the enormous generosity of religious believers is not just recycled to religious charities.

Religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbors. They give more of their time, too, and of their blood. Even if you excuse secular liberals from charity because they vote for government welfare programs, it is awfully hard to explain why secular liberals give so little blood. The bottom line, Brooks concludes, is that all forms of giving go together, and all are greatly increased by religious participation and slightly increased by conservative ideology (after controlling for religiosity).

These data are complex and perhaps they can be spun the other way, but at the moment it appears that Dennett is wrong in his reading of the literature. Atheists may have many other virtues, but on one of the least controversial and most objective measures of moral behavior—giving time, money, and blood to help strangers in need—religious people appear to be morally superior to secular folk.

and concludes...

But because of the four principles of moral psychology it is extremely difficult for people, even scientists, to find that wisdom once hostilities erupt. A militant form of atheism that claims the backing of science and encourages "brights" to take up arms may perhaps advance atheism. But it may also backfire, polluting the scientific study of religion with moralistic dogma and damaging the prestige of science in the process.

More importantly, it manifests itself in sloppy thinking, because...

What I saw in that video however is a person that intent on selling nonsense because it will really strike at the very fabric of morality (must be too close to religion for his liking).

...you're actually wrong. As nonsensical as it seems, Harris simultaneously argues for the existence of objective morals and duties (alexey posted a TED talk in another thread) and the illusion of free will.

Of course, it would seem blatantly obvious that for a person to be obliged to act morally, he must be able to take that moral action, and moreover that Harris' view would also make tornados morally culpable for murder, but I suppose this is the approach that best allows him to attack the "evils" of religion, though that's just my guess as to why he can apparently hold these totally contradictory notions, and actually the ability to hold completely contradictory notions without even apparent dissonance is just one more reminder to me of just how similar atheist fundies are to the religious variety.

[No Excuses]

It's funny you should say that, because my gut reaction to Sam Harris is that despite this...

...Sam Harris is the atheistic equivalent of William Lane Craig getting a PhD (why not, he already has 2, right?) in Quantum Physics, then writing about it. If you listen to him, he started as an atheist angry about 9/11 and decided to take down religion. Then he decided to get a degree in neuroscience. Others have noticed this, as Jonathan Haidt (himself an atheist and attendee of the "Beyond Belief" conference) writes in MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION, in which he poses the question:

I don't disagree. Harris, Dawkins etc., I don't put much weight into what they have to say on matters of religion. Not their field of expertise and their books on religion come across as angry rants. Although Dawkins is great when he writes about Biology.

[Henry]

Is this a thread about religion?

[Jumbo]

I understand the appeal of "we can make it ourselves" to men that count religion amongst their enemies and ego's large enough to think themselves qualified. What I don't however understand is the idea that religion is cut and dry and entirely unchanging. Also interpretation isn't so cut and dry.... it's the difference between the creation story being the story OF evolution and an argument against it.

I just now took the time to reply, Des, but the keyboard ate it so I'll try to catch up later.

[alexey]

Of course, it would seem blatantly obvious that for a person to be obliged to act morally, he must be able to take that moral action, and moreover that Harris' view would also make tornados morally culpable for murder, but I suppose this is the approach that best allows him to attack the "evils" of religion, though that's just my guess as to why he can apparently hold these totally contradictory notions, and actually the ability to hold completely contradictory notions without even apparent dissonance is just one more reminder to me of just how similar atheist fundies are to the religious variety.

I think the contradiction you are seeing comes from you seeing concepts in question as objective, absolute things.

I do not see Harris denying the existence of whatever it is that we usually call "making decisions" but our assumptions about it.

I see him arguing that we should take into consideration what we know about the neurological basis of behavior. Throughout history people have made assumptions. Many of those assumptions turned out to be incorrect. One such assumption is that you have free will. Another such assumption is that you actually exist

The idea of a ghost inside the brain machine, a little guy inside of your brain sitting there viewing the screen and pulling the levers is not correct. There is as much evidence for existence of a soul as there is for existence of Zeus. This is one of many ideas in which religion directly conflicts with science, and will eventually give way.

I do not see Harris attacking "evils of religion" but highlighting areas in which religion contradicts with science, and arguing that religion should give way. I welcome that approach. I also think that people are too often inclined to say that science and religion deal with different realms while allowing religion to trespass.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 07:50 PM ----------

I don't think atheism is cult any more than theism is a cult. I think cult-like behavior can exist in either. What I saw in that video however is a person that intent on selling nonsense because it will really strike at the very fabric of morality (must be too close to religion for his liking). The science isn't there to support his philosophical conclusion and he takes it even further pretending that his philosophy IS science.

I think your point about the boundary between philosophy and science would hold a lot more water 20+ years ago before recent advances in brain imaging and neurobiology.

As for the "cult" stuff, I think any group of people can display cult-like behavior.

You may be interested to learn that Harris argues against using the term "atheism".

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 07:56 PM ----------

I'd be surprised if he didn't attack religions constantly, after all he started his chat arguing that religion was getting too much respect from the scientific community. His intentions aren't exactly masked.

This should not stop him from making allies with moderates.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 08:05 PM ----------

I don't disagree. Harris, Dawkins etc., I don't put much weight into what they have to say on matters of religion. Not their field of expertise and their books on religion come across as angry rants. Although Dawkins is great when he writes about Biology.

Depending on your standards for "expertise in religion", you may be running the risk of over-narrowing the pool of people you take seriously. Who would devote a significant portion of their life studying religion?

A religious expert will not be in position to argue why Young Earth Creationists are wrong. Similarly, the way actual decisions are made in actual brains contradicts the way most people imagine it, as well as the way most religions present it. A religious expert will not be in position to argue that. Similarly, only a historian may be in position to argue against a religious expert trying to present theology as history.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 08:15 PM ----------

I have often wondered about, and do agree, that for a species with a higher developed brain (cerebral cortex allowing higher thought) if religion/god is a big man made need to solve the age long question of "why are we here." This thought of "god" and something greater than us, or a creator, if you will is certainly in all cultures and spreads across time. I often wonder if religion and god are simply there to comfort us in things we don't understand. Animals have no concept of "God" nor can they comprehend such a thing. My dog is smart, but not that smart.

God is an easy eplanation. And while its very comforting to think that some supreme being created all of this (much less loves us all) it doesn't necessarily make it true. I can say that I believe in the power of prayer, and generally find those who have "god" in their life tend to be more happy than those who don't.

I am not good at putting my thoughts into words, but I hope this at least made some sense.

Let us separate the experience and its interpretation. Some animals could easily have the mental machinery for spiritual experiences but not the rich cultural and linguistic context in which to interpret them.

The question "why are we here" strikes me as a fairly recent one. I would think that such concerns were not at the forefront for most of our evolutionary history.

We certainly should not just discard the whole religion thing and start over. However, it would be good to start letting go of some revealed knowledge and incorrect assumptions in areas where we have actual knowledge.

[PeterMP]

The whole thing is a good point. Watch it and discuss, or do not watch it and do not discuss. Do not settle for stories told by other people.

This is not about rejecting god but about continuing to take science into things that have traditionally been god's realm. Just a few hundred years ago people thought that god is a source of earthquakes and lightning. Some people still think that god is source of morality. Knowledge keeps marching on.

Free will (in the traditional sense) is a a religious concept. It is born out of the ideas of various religions. Any discussion of free will is inherently going to be about religion and God.

Science can tell us about how the brain works, but it can't really provide insight on free will.

There will always be a level of detail that science can not explain. And it isn't even like the creation story where you can start to say these details are likely wrong. There is no real religious explanation as to how free will occurs.

Disproving the idea of free will at its heart has the same foolishness as disproving the exsistance of God.

[No Excuses]

Depending on your standards for "expertise in religion", you may be running the risk of over-narrowing the pool of people you take seriously. Who would devote a significant portion of their life studying religion?

A religious expert will not be in position to argue why Young Earth Creationists are wrong. Similarly, the way actual decisions are made in actual brains contradicts the way most people imagine it, as well as the way most religions present it. A religious expert will not be in position to argue that. Similarly, only a historian may be in position to argue against a religious expert trying to present theology as history.

For the same reason I don't bother making much of Harris and Dawkin's opinions of religion is the same reason I don't want to read a book on Astrophysics by a theologian. When I see theologians butcher Physics, I have the same reaction as I do when I see Dawkins and Harris discuss religion.

Dawkins' refutation of Creationist claims is worth paying attention to. But Dawkins and Harris often go deep into scripture which they are not qualified to do. He often makes the same childish mistakes as his opponents. There are many people who are not theologians but experts in the field of Philosophy etc. who are much more credible than Harris and Dawkins.

[alexey]

Free will (in the traditional sense) is a a religious concept. It is born out of the ideas of various religions. Any discussion of free will is inherently going to be about religion and God.

Science can tell us about how the brain works, but it can't really provide insight on free will.

There will always be a level of detail that science can not explain. And it isn't even like the creation story where you can start to say these details are likely wrong. There is no real religious explanation as to how free will occurs.

Disproving the idea of free will at its heart has the same foolishness as disproving the exsistance of God.

I do not agree with your placement of Free Will in the religious domain. Secular philosophy has a rich history of discussing Free Will.

Science can provide insight into how our decision making process works. You can use any term you like to refer to that process.

Religious views on Free Will do not have to be disproved. They just need to be disputed with better explanations, and they will slowly become as relevant as religious views on witchcraft.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 09:17 PM ----------

For the same reason I don't bother making much of Harris and Dawkin's opinions of religion is the same reason I don't want to read a book on Astrophysics by a theologian. When I see theologians butcher Physics, I have the same reaction as I do when I see Dawkins and Harris discuss religion.

Dawkins' refutation of Creationist claims is worth paying attention to. But Dawkins and Harris often go deep into scripture which they are not qualified to do. He often makes the same childish mistakes as his opponents. There are many people who are not theologians but experts in the field of Philosophy etc. who are much more credible than Harris and Dawkins.

Would you feel the same way if they were talking about astrology, palm reading, or one of numerous religions that have been discarded throughout history? How do you determine which subset of magical claims requires a dedicated expert?

How much of a handicap is one's inability to provide detailed analysis on whether the trinity is one entity or three separate entities?

[PeterMP]

I do not agree with your placement of Free Will in the religious domain. Secular philosophy has a rich history of discussing Free Will.

Science can provide insight into how our decision making process works. You can use any term you like to refer to that process.

Religious views on Free Will do not have to be disproved. They just need to be disputed with better explanations, and they will slowly become as relevant as religious views on witchcraft.

Philosophers can discuss free will, but they can't provide a mechanism of how it would occur. Unless we very badly understand biology, chemistry, and evolution, there can only be a supernatural explanation.

I am glad to see that your thoughts on these topics seem to be sharpening. This is much better than this thread (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343375-Why-I-m-an-Atheist.-By-Ricky-Gervais/page21).

I disagree with the role that science will play on affecting religion in terms of are decision making process.

I believe as we better understand decision making and try and explain it, people will inherently believe they, and their decisions, are more than a complex set of reactions, interactions, and electrochemical events w/ partially stochastic processes at their heart.

[No Excuses]

Would you feel the same way if they were talking about astrology, palm reading, or one of numerous religions that have been discarded throughout history?

Harris, Dawkins etc.? I don't have to read them to know that astrology, palm reading etc. are bunk. They are proven and tested to be complete nonsense. And we have good reason based on our understanding of natural law to doubt a lot of religious testimony.

How do you determine which subset of magical claims requires a dedicated expert?

How much time and effort in their life have they dedicated to honestly investigating what they are attempting to refute/acknowledge. I don't think Harris and Dawkins are honest in their evaluations, which in my opinion goes against the face of the scientific method. It's natural for people who are as highly opinionated as them to not be completely fair and honest.

I am not suggesting that scientist's can't disprove religious myths. They've been doing this for quite some time now. I am against the method employed by Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens.

[Jumbo]

I think I understood what Peter is saying re: discussing religion & free will and certainly alexy's identifying the secular aspects (and philosophical or Pre- or non-Christian roots) of related discussions. Since Peter uses wiki at times as a source, I'm sure he won't mind and its won't hurt to throw some of this in the mix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The two main positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behavior.

One of my preferred sources when applicable:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires

On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire. David Hume, for example, defines liberty as “a power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will.” (1748, sect.viii, part 1). And we find in Jonathan Edwards (1754) a similar account of free willings as those which proceed from one's own desires.

One reason to deem this insufficient is that it is consistent with the goal-directed behavior of some animals whom we do not suppose to be morally responsible agents. Such animals lack not only an awareness of the moral implications of their actions but also any capacity to reflect on their alternatives and their long-term consequences. Indeed, it is plausible that they have little by way of a self-conception as an agent with a past and with projects and purposes for the future. (See Baker 2000 on the ‘first-person perspective.’)

1.2 Free Will as deliberative choosing on the basis of desires and values

A natural suggestion, then, is to modify the minimalist thesis by taking account of (what may be) distinctively human capacities and self-conception. And indeed, philosophers since Plato have commonly distinguished the ‘animal’ and ‘rational’ parts of our nature, with the latter implying a great deal more psychological complexity. Our rational nature includes our ability to judge some ends as ‘good’ or worth pursuing and value them even though satisfying them may result in considerable unpleasantness for ourselves. (Note that such judgments need not be based in moral value.)

We might say that we act with free will when we act upon our considered judgments/valuings about what is good for us, whether or not our doing so conflicts with an ‘animal’ desire. (See Watson 2003a for a subtle development of this sort of view.) But this would seem unduly restrictive, since we clearly hold many people responsible for actions proceeding from ‘animal’ desires that conflict with their own assessment of what would be best in the circumstances. More plausible is the suggestion that one acts with free will when one's deliberation is sensitive to one's own judgments concerning what is best in the circumstances, whether or not one acts upon such a judgment.

<much more at link>

Misc: I have met and talked to Haidt and even aside of those experiences, would certainly tend to heed him moreso than Harris--which reflects why I said I wasn't real motivated to rehash Harris' video though I don't totally marginalize the man's content (mostly the "good parts" he picked up from others before him) in these areas. It's just that he's nowhere near the top of my list as a preferred source. I agree with TBs comment that people with a very strong belief-base in one area can become credentialed/well-educated in others and and primarily be looking for how to package that new expertise just to support previously held stances as as opposed to being truly open to new ways of viewing a matter they have held forth on in serious fashion before they entered that field.

Relatedly, one always has to deal with the battle of conflicting sources----x says this and y refutes it, but z casts some doubts on y, and u & v agree with z, but w suggests that while all have some standing, none are anywhere near as authoritative as herself and r, s, & t, who all have the dicussison elevated to another set of more meaningful and still conflicting contentions. :pfft:

But we must endeavor to persevere (for you Diesel 44).

Which brings me back to Haidt, whom TB quoted in a mix of WLC, Harris, and maybe others, I forget,---oh, btw, with proper respect for intellect and some understanding, screw Hitchens and Dawkins who are just like their religious counterparts in my book regarding many of their discussion/argument behaviors, both in construct and attitude---I just like to throw that out every now and then. I agree with TB that extremist fundies on both sides (and extremists in general as a group) have a lot in common cognitively no matter what base premise(s) they're bitterly divisive over.

But here's a wiki on Haidt and his home site, and while many elements of his own views in his field of expertise are met with their share of challenge (mostly respectful and valid), he's worth checking out for folks interested in such things as being discussed lately in the 'gate. I have personally worked with some of his models (and other of similar nature) and they have been helpful. Being genuinely helpful in benign cause gets credit with me.

There's no money in that, though.

http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt

Jonathan Haidt (born October 19, 1963) is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. His research focuses on the psychological bases of morality across different cultures and political ideology. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. He was awarded the Templeton Prize in Positive Psychology in 2001.[1] His book The Happiness Hypothesis examines ten "great ideas" dating from antiquity and their continued relevance to the happy life. A certain portion of his research has been focused on the emotion of elevation.

Haidt is best known for what he dubs "Moral Foundations Theory", which has been reported in publications such as The Atlantic,[2] Boston Globe,[3] and The Huffington Post.[4] It is also the basis of his talk given at TED.

Moral Foundations Theory looks at the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or lesser degree by different societies and individuals.[5]

These are:

Care for others, protecting them from harm. (He also referred to this dimension as Harm.)

Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.

Loyalty to your group, family, nation. (He also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)

Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to this dimension as Authority.)

Purity or Sanctity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Haidt has recently added a sixth fundamental value, Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty.[6]

Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tend to value care and fairness considerably higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans value all five values more equally, though at a lower level across the five than the liberal concern for care and fairness. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.[7]

Oops. Crap. Des, even if not tonight and even if I think I'm close to about done with my rare return to extended discussion in these type of threads, I will get back to your post. I wasn't seeing a whole bunch of direct connection to what I actually wrote in my post and your response quoting it. No big deal on anything, of course.

[Conn]

The OP is Loki. Beware.

[alexey]

Philosophers can discuss free will, but they can't provide a mechanism of how it would occur. Unless we very badly understand biology, chemistry, and evolution, there can only be a supernatural explanation.

I am glad to see that your thoughts on these topics seem to be sharpening. This is much better than this thread (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343375-Why-I-m-an-Atheist.-By-Ricky-Gervais/page21).

I disagree with the role that science will play on affecting religion in terms of are decision making process.

I believe as we better understand decision making and try and explain it, people will inherently believe they, and their decisions, are more than a complex set of reactions, interactions, and electrochemical events w/ partially stochastic processes at their heart.

People may inherently believe as they wish. A scientifically correct understanding will win out sooner or later.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 10:42 PM ----------

How much time and effort in their life have they dedicated to honestly investigating what they are attempting to refute/acknowledge. I don't think Harris and Dawkins are honest in their evaluations, which in my opinion goes against the face of the scientific method. It's natural for people who are as highly opinionated as them to not be completely fair and honest.

I am not suggesting that scientist's can't disprove religious myths. They've been doing this for quite some time now. I am against the method employed by Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens.

I see one main similarity in common - all of their methods do not have a customary respect for religion. Am I missing something?

[No Excuses]

Am I missing something?

Their hostility towards religion causes them to be dishonest and unfair when attacking the view points of those they challenge. It's one thing to attack religion, it's another to do it while not understanding (genuinely or purposefully) the other sides view point.

My main critique of all of them is that their hostility (and the consequences of this hostility) only appeases those who are already as rigid in their thinking as they are. But they don't represent the school of thought appropriately and it's kind of sad that they've become the faces of it mainly because they speak the loudest.

It's safe to say that their form of "militant" atheism won't be convincing people of otherwise good arguments. I didn't become a religious skeptic because I read The God Delusion, and I'm going to make the assumption that this is true for most skeptics.

[PeterMP]

I think I understood what Peter is saying re: discussing religion & free will and certainly alexy's identifying the secular aspects (and philosophical or Pre- or non-Christian roots) of related discussions. Since Peter uses wiki at times as a source, I'm sure he won't mind and its won't hurt to throw some of this in the mix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

There's nothing in the wiki link that I disagree with.

Even Plato, who argued that there was free will, believed there was a soul that was connected to free will (and he believed in incarnation).

Certainly, secular philosophers can discuss the consequences of free will vs. not having free will.