104 years old and still harmful? We report, you decide...

A great conversation about the utility and harm of religion. Start with the news story about the 104 year old man and then read the discourse that ensued...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15548443/

From: Wiseclam

> "I'm not a strong believer in retirement. I don't think retirement is
> in the Bible. Maybe it's there, but I haven't found it.”

Too bad myth and superstition are a source of his drive, though.


Reply From: Voooov

I'd have to say though, it's gotten him through 104 years of some tough times - - WWI and WWII, the Great Depression, and the deaths of virtually everyone he has ever known. He's one of those guys I mean when I say to you and Iota that I have no problem with people who use religion as a source of internal strength and who do not try to push their views on others.

Voooov


Reply From: IOTA

>>He's one of those guys I mean when I say to you and Iota that I have no problem with people who use religion as a source of internal strength and who do not try to push their views on others. <<

In general I agree. It seems that faith of the kind that Mr. McBurney has can be beneficial, and there doesn't seem to be much gain in depriving him of it. That's a fair point.

However, I do think it is wrong that only *certain* religions and internal beliefs are treated with this kind of reverence, while others are not. For example, had Mr. McBurney said, "I thank the space aliens who placed me here and gave me my advanced anti-aging genes for my long life" instead of talking about the Bible, the reaction among the vast majority of people would be far different. Amusement or even pity would be typical, with assumptions of senility, and perhaps even derision among some. You'd definitely have fewer people saying, "what's the harm, as long as it gives him comfort?"

So, while I understand and agree with the view that we should respect people's internal beliefs, whatever they may be and as long as they are not harmful or forced on others, I do criticize the arrogance by which faith in the Bible (and other Holy books) is given a pass, but by which other equally irrational (though perhaps less harmful) beliefs are branded as "weird". In my view, if faith in religion is something to be admired, because of the internal strength it gives, then let's at least be consistent and accord the same respect to all such internal beliefs, so long as they are not born of some abnormal neurological malfunction. Personally, I'm more open to the opposite but equally fair view: If you believe something irrational and you express it, it's fair game for *criticism*.

As it stands now, I'm quite sure that many of the people who would applaud Mr. McBurney for his particular faith would be first in line to demean him had he revealed a non-socially acceptable form of internal comfort. I find that to be arrogant.

God is to Free Will as Square is to Circle - Not!

I’ve always struggled with the idea that God cannot create man with a truly free will. Now of course I don’t even believe that God exists as there is quite clearly not sufficient evidence to hold such a belief. But I’ve never understood the argument – from either the theist or atheist – that an all knowing God cannot exist simultaneously with human free will.

My views on this are quite simple: God is cable of creating a being (humans in this case) that has complete free will EVEN THOUGH God is also all knowing. The logical bridge to this conclusion is clear, I think. I’m assuming that God’s knowledge of how any individual human WILL choose does not necessarily negate the purity of that human’s freedom to choose.

The counter argument usually proposes that God’s knowledge of the pending choice renders that choice something other than a free choice. But why is this necessarily so?

Consider my definition of free will and that the “freeness” of any choice is measured only by the perception of the chooser. The human being exercising her free will, for example, only needs to feel that her choice is made freely, without barriers or constraints, in order for it to qualify as a free choice. God’s prior knowledge of HOW she will choose does not force her to choose a particular way nor does it constrain her choices in any way. At least not as far as she knows, which for all intents and purposes renders her choice free.

I understand the counter. God knows how she will chose therefore it is predetermined – and if the choice is already predetermined then it clearly IS constrained and not free. But God’s foreknowledge does not necessarily require the choice to be predetermined. This future choice we speak of can be made freely by the chooser – and God can simply know how the choice will be made.

Imagine that our protagonist has any number of choices in exercising her free will but eventually settles on one choice. Determining the “freeness” of this choice is quite simple (and it is aided very much by the lack of evidence for a knowing or especially intervening God - but that's another post).

Let’s ask her to choose between receiving one million dollars in cash or a new minivan. The obviousness of this choice not withstanding, can we say her choice is truly free even if one of the options isn’t a real choice (e.g., say the first option of one million dollars won't really be granted - but she doesn't know this)? Of course hers is still a free choice. The point being that her lack of an ability to ACTUALLY receive the deliverable does not make the choice any less free. The same is true for any of the myriad of options the chooser may have when exercising her free will. That only one is *known* by God to be the ultimate choice does NOT render her choice any less free.

I’m very open to considering counter arguments. I believe my view on this topic is in the minority. What are your thoughts? One counter argument I can think of is that my example is framed within the environment in which free will doesn't exist in the first place, so it cannot apply. Please comment.

That their is no God renders this debate the intellectual equivalent of arguing over the question, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", but still, it is in interesting philosophical and logical debate.