My problems with religion

[Sancho]

Ecurb, I don't think it makes us sub-human to to be tempted to murder. I think it makes us human. I get temped to murder somebody every time I drive I-5 during rush hour. Not seriously temped, but temped nonetheless, I'm usually happy just muttering "putz" under my breath when somebody cuts me off. Also I like to fantasize about me and some of my army buddies traveling back in time to 9/11 and boarding those planes with some box cutters of our own and carving up some terrorist hijackers. I also wouldn't mind choking baby Hitler in his crib.

[YesNo]

Well that's a relief. But does a certain randomness at the quantum level actually provide for free will at our level, or does it just provide for an infinite number of situational possibilities given which we'd react to exactly the same every time.

I don't think what is happening at the quantum level is "random" in the way we normally use that word, that is, it is not like flipping a coin. Quantum indeterminism doesn't provide for free will at our level, but it does mean that any attempt to find a deterministic explanation for everything (including us) based on quantum particles will fail. I think what provides for free will at our level is the kind of pleasure/pain, carrots/sticks, that one finds in our brains underlying sexual activity and these moral foundations. One doesn't give a deterministic machine a carrot or stick to make it do something. The very existence of this pleasure and pain implies we have the ability to choose.

As far as murder goes, here is a YouTube video of crows killing another crow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7liZdySa-IU&t=14s One of the reasons I hope Haidt nails down better what innateness means for these moral foundations is that we could use that to search for similar innate structures in other species and then make the conclusion that those species are moral as well.

[Sancho]

In any given situation where everything is the same - everything - aren't we going to act the same every time? But change the slightest detail and the gig's up. So then naturally we can't have the same situation twice, eh? Therefore the only way to consider any single situation is to look at history. And when I look at any situation I've ever been faced with, I acted the same whether I look at it today or whether I consider it tomorrow. You can't change history. Would it follow then that how I'm going to deal with a situation tomorrow, has already been determined? Is this a fallacy? I'm fully prepared to admit that it is. In fact I hope that it's false. But by the same token if there is any randomness whatsoever in the universe, the future most definitely has not been determined.

At any rate, the universe is a pretty big place, with a practically infinite number of possibilities, even without randomness, so it probably doesn't matter, to me anyway. The fact that I think I'm acting of my own free will is good enough for me.

[YesNo]

In any given situation where everything is the same - everything - aren't we going to act the same every time? But change the slightest detail and the gig's up. So then naturally we can't have the same situation twice, eh? Therefore the only way to consider any single situation is to look at history. And when I look at any situation I've ever been faced with, I acted the same whether I look at it today or whether I consider it tomorrow. You can't change history. Would it follow then that how I'm going to deal with a situation tomorrow, has already been determined? Is this a fallacy? I'm fully prepared to admit that it is. In fact I hope that it's false. But by the same token if there is any randomness whatsoever in the universe, the future most definitely has not been determined.

Richard Feynman wrote in "QED" on page 19 the following which is similar to what you are describing but about photons reflecting or not off of a pane of glass:

Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance--identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass--that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photon will arrive at A or B. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface. Does that mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.

Note that this behavior is not deterministic for a single photon. Nor is the probability of reflecting off a pane of glass like a random toss of a coin (which would mean 50 out of 100 photons should reflect, not 4). If one defined the ability to make a choice as behavior that cannot be determined nor is uniformly random, then each photon could be described as making a choice. Whether the photon actually makes a choice or not is left to philosophers to argue.

If a photon could be interpreted as making a choice, we should be careful before assuming that we cannot make a choice.

We fool ourselves because our models are simplifications of reality and they use mathematics which is deterministic. Those mathematical models we know must be incorrect because in those models we could go backward in time, but reality generally speaking does not go backward. The models give accurate predictions, but that does not mean that reality is the same as those models.

At any rate, the universe is a pretty big place, with a practically infinite number of possibilities, even without randomness, so it probably doesn't matter, to me anyway. The fact that I think I'm acting of my own free will is good enough for me.

Here you are viewing yourself as an individual. It does matter what you think about reality because you influence the people around you. We are all members of various groups. We cannot isolate ourselves from all of these groups.

[Sancho]

Thanks for the concise, well thought out reply, Y/N. I believe you. I would like to read more about it, though, and I'm certain there is much written on the subject, but I sense it may be tedious. Any suggestions?

[YesNo]

I think philosophical idealism and panentheism are true and so I will try to rationalize those ideas. They would be my not-so-hidden agenda. Here are some books that I think further that agenda:

(1) If I am interested in a better understanding of quantum physics, I would read Richard Feynman's "QED". He is clear although he probably doesn't agree with my agenda.
(2) If I wanted to know more about the pleasure/pain chemistry in the brain that I think justifies saying we have free will, I would read Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".
(3) If I was interested in questioning scientific models of gravity, I would read John W. Moffat's "Reinventing Gravity" who has a modified theory of gravity.
(4) If I were interested in seeing how mathematics dealt with formal logic, I would read Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman's "Godel's Proof". This helps to clarify mathematics role as a model.
(5) The book I have read most recently is Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". Although I disagree with his evolutionary theory I think his data does provide a foundation for altruistic individuals and their groups.
(6) If I were interested in Darwinian evolution, I would read Niles Eldredge's "Eternal Ephemera".

There are other sources, but these come to mind and interest me the most at the moment.

[Scheherazade]

Ecurb, I don't think it makes us sub-human to to be tempted to murder. I think it makes us human. I get temped to murder somebody every time I drive I-5 during rush hour. Not seriously temped, but temped nonetheless, I'm usually happy just muttering "putz" under my breath when somebody cuts me off. Also I like to fantasize about me and some of my army buddies traveling back in time to 9/11 and boarding those planes with some box cutters of our own and carving up some terrorist hijackers. I also wouldn't mind choking baby Hitler in his crib.

Interesting thoughts there, Sancho (not that we expect anything less from you!). Do you also wonder had those wishes were granted, how the world history would have evolved?

I am not objecting your notion (might be willing to pay for the cutters myself, for example) but also cannot help wondering how the dominoes would have fallen.

[Sancho]

Scher, my friend, it's good to hear from you. Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I intended no snubbery with my slow response.

At any rate, I think you're exactly right - if we start meddling around with history, no telling how things might work out. The theory of unintended consequences, or something like that. But it's fun to think about, eh? Somehow though whenever I think about it, I always wind up being the hero. So I suppose it's a sort of self-serving, cartoonish thought:

Here I come to save the day!

https://youtu.be/rsPa8QgGGkc

But of course nothing happens in a vacuum. I can't really look at that one moment in time without considering everything that led up to to it. Why were those guys so angry? Was it just one big thing, or more of a death by a thousand cuts type situation? Americans pushing their economic interests in the middle east? Cold War tensions? Europeans colonizing the African continent? The crusades? Shenanigans on The Silk Roads? What? I suppose for me to make any difference at all, I'd have to travel way-way back in time, into prehistory and squish that little genetic mutation that made us into such an angsty species.

And so, by El Sancho trying to save the day, he winds up wiping out the whole species - the whole enchilada - the whole shebang-a-bang.


Anyways, I'd still kinda like to choke out baby Hitler in his crib. And infanticide being a pretty-much indefensible crime in court, that's just one I'd have to take for the team.


(By the way, Scher, I'm still reading 1001 Nights. Great stories. Great fun)

[Ecurb]

Murder (unlike killing) is a uniquely human behavior. However, the Christian approach would be that the human soul is immortal, in which case choking baby Hitler would NOT lead to "the greatest good for the greatest number". One soul sent to perdition is more horrible than 6 million, or 20 million (or however many) people dying. IN addition, the notion of preventive punishment is abhorrent. We shouldn't put people in prison because they are likely to commit crimes, unless they deserve the punishment by having already committed them.

I'm not a Christian, but I have a feeling that good and evil are eternal, and the ends (per Kant) cannot justify the means. Of course the Christian (and Communist) witch hunters and Inquisitors would disagree.

[Sancho]

Who said anything about doing the greatest good for the greatest number? I'd enjoy choking baby Hitler for the sake of choking baby Hitler. Besides, not being Christian myself, trading one soul for 6 million or 20 million (or however many) lives sounds like a pretty good swap. Also, minor detail here, Hitler has already committed those atrocities. Duh. So when I choke baby Hitler, I'm just acknowledging the fact that time is not necessarily linear.

One final point, I can't confirm it, but I did read it in a scientific periodical a while back. Some of the great apes, chimpanzees in particular, not only murder but organize wars as well.

[YesNo]

Murder (unlike killing) is a uniquely human behavior.

An animal cannot commit murder because murder means violating a human law applying to only humans. However, that does not mean animals (or plants) do not have a moral approach to their lives and some of their killing could be viewed as unjust even to themselves. That is, they could perceive themselves or members of their species as good or bad. I have suspicions they have this ability.

One of the things I liked about Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" is his discovery of "innate" moral foundations. Although I don't think he extends these to animals, the fact that they are innate implies they could be so extended. Finding a signature or correlate in brain chemistry or genes of this innateness would help confirm his research. We could then check if other species have this genetic or brain chemistry pattern.

[Ecurb]

I'm the one who mentioned "the greatest good for the greatest number", Jeremy Bentham's (possible) justification for murdering the baby Hitler. As much as I hate to agree with YesNo on anything, the notion that we can predict which baby will become a mass murderer smacks of scientific (not "atheistic") determinism. If murdering baby Hitler could stop the atrocities, then, of course, that would disprove the notion that Hitler has "already" committed the atrocities. You can't have it both ways. If you can prevent genocide by killing baby Hitler, then Hitler has NOT already committed the atrocities. If murdering baby Hitler is just for your own satisfaction, then you are stepping down the slippery slope toward evil.


as far as Haidt's simplistic theory is concerned, why would non-human animals tendency toward "morality" (or war) indicate that morality is "innate"? The notion that culture is uniquely human is, I think, incorrect, and the notion that a correlation of brain chemistry to morality proves "innateness" is idiotic. If proving Euclidean theorems could be correlated to brain chemistry, would that prove that we have an innate ability to prove Euclidean theorems, and that Euclid discovered nothing? Of course it wouldn't. All of our thoughts and behaviors, whether learned or innate, presumably are correlated with chemical reactions in our brains. So what?

[Sancho]

Make no doubt about it. I won't pull a punch here. I'd get a tremendous amount of satisfaction out of choking baby Hitler. And if that is stepping down a slippery slope towards evil, then once again, that's one I'll have to take for the team.

Also, this thought experiment is all about having it both ways, and not at all about determinism (scientific, atheistic, or otherwise). We are not talking about some baby with a weird brain chemistry. Hitler did commit those atrocities. So then, if El Sancho can time travel and choke baby Hitler, it follows that time is not linear. Similarly my action doesn't prevent what has already happened, but rather creates an alternate or parallel universe in which it never happened. And this new universe, just one of an infinite number of universes, is the one that El Sancho has just jumped to. And of course the one he will probably die on the gallows in because nobody there will believe his cockamamie story about why he needed to kill baby Hitler.

There are other worlds than this one.*

*I ripped that off from a Stephen King book

[North Star]

You all should watch this TED Talk about homosexuality, how epigenetic markers from the mother affect the child's sexual orientation - and of the reasons why it happens, and why it appears in so many animals. I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of treating sexual minorities poorly advancing anything positive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU

Richard Feynman wrote in "QED" on page 19 the following which is similar to what you are describing but about photons reflecting or not off of a pane of glass:

Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance--identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass--that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photon will arrive at A or B. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface. Does that mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.

Note that this behavior is not deterministic for a single photon. Nor is the probability of reflecting off a pane of glass like a random toss of a coin (which would mean 50 out of 100 photons should reflect, not 4). If one defined the ability to make a choice as behavior that cannot be determined nor is uniformly random, then each photon could be described as making a choice. Whether the photon actually makes a choice or not is left to philosophers to argue.

If a photon could be interpreted as making a choice, we should be careful before assuming that we cannot make a choice.

We fool ourselves because our models are simplifications of reality and they use mathematics which is deterministic. Those mathematical models we know must be incorrect because in those models we could go backward in time, but reality generally speaking does not go backward. The models give accurate predictions, but that does not mean that reality is the same as those models.



Here you are viewing yourself as an individual. It does matter what you think about reality because you influence the people around you. We are all members of various groups. We cannot isolate ourselves from all of these groups.

That the probabilities for each of the possible outcomes are not evenly distributed doesn't in anyway imply that the photons make a choice. You might as well be saying that a coin bent slightly makes a choice since it has a statistically significant tendency to land on one particular side. If the concept of choice was defined so that uneven odds = choice, the whole concept would be meaningless.

Before a human or some other living creature decides on a course of action, they have 'choice potential' and after they have made a choice they have 'choice action'. Humans have consciousness, and a huge amount of information in the form of past experiences, what they've learned from school, Internet, TV, friends or whatever, and what they've observed. It's not possible to remove all these sources of information from our lives, but if we are selective about them, their influence will be more stable and predictable, and so our choices. In the end, I think this 'free will' is just the result of having so much different information that there are infinite ways to interpret it - imagine a dice with an infinite number of sides to land on - a ball. I am reminded of Dijkstra saying that "whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim" - Free will doesn't really exist if we look close enough, just as there is no solid matter since we see a whole lot of emptiness in a diamond with a tunneling electron microscope. That doesn't mean that the concept of free will, solid matter, or of swimming, is useless, though.

[Sancho]

Speaking of other worlds, one of the better books I read last year was The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon. The writer wasn't quite so crass as to simply choke out baby Hitler in his crib, but rather he created an alternate history in which the United States stepped up in 1940 and created a Jewish homeland in southeastern Alaska, thereby preventing much of the holocaust. (This book popped into my head partly because I'm sitting in a hotel room in Juneau right now.) Evidently, FDR considered doing just that, but a congressman from Alaska blocked the vote. And, well, the rest is history.

Okay, enough of this. It's a pretty day and El Sancho is going hiking.