There is no Hope without Jesus

[Kenny]

Ok, I'll try. This is what you said:

Since I think that "belief" comes sometime after weighing the evidence and becoming convinced something is true, then I disagree that "to believe" is the same as "to become convinced something is true". Once you become convinced by thinking about the evidence, you may be compelled to believe. So even if the evidence doesn't lead you to directly choose to believe, the evidence indirectly leads you to choose to believe. In other words, if after weighing the evidence, it's so overwhelming that you couldn't possibly not believe, you are still indirectly choosing to believe, because of how you choose to process the evidence. Does that make any sense?

The part in Bold is where you've lost me. In what way am I processing the evidence, that leads to an indirect choice of believing?

It's indirect because you choose which evidence is reliable, which leads you to believe.

Do you see "choice" as a two way street? Or a one way street.

Not sure what you mean exactly. After research there may be only one logical choice, if I feel the evidence or proof is that strong. Other times my choice is only slightly more logical than other choices. Or anything in between.

In other words, there may be instances where I feel the evidence is so overwhelming, that it almost doesn't even feel like a choice.

Does that answer your question?

And no matter how compelling the evidence, you still have the ability to reject what you find reasonable and logical, and choose to believe something else. Is this correct?

[Kenny]

Let me put it this way:
Without free will there IS NO justice system that is NOT corrupt.


I believe in free will because without it, society falls apart.
I believe in free will because I choose, everyday.
Without free will there is no personal responsibility.

I've never understood those types who claim we don't have free will

Ken

[Kenny]

As I said before; I cannot choose to believe something that I am convinced is not true; and if I am unable to believe something, there is no choice involved.

You can't choose to believe something that you are convinced is not true BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY CHOSEN to believe something else.

Seriously...

No; if I choose A over B, I can always change my mind due to frivolous reasons and choose B, and reject A. What I believe does not work that way; with belief I have to be convinced to reject what I previously believed.

[RickD]

The part in Bold is where you've lost me. In what way am I processing the evidence, that leads to an indirect choice of believing?

It's indirect because you choose which evidence is reliable, which leads you to believe.

Do you see "choice" as a two way street? Or a one way street.

Not sure what you mean exactly. After research there may be only one logical choice, if I feel the evidence or proof is that strong. Other times my choice is only slightly more logical than other choices. Or anything in between.

In other words, there may be instances where I feel the evidence is so overwhelming, that it almost doesn't even feel like a choice.

Does that answer your question?

And no matter how compelling the evidence, you still have the ability to reject what you find reasonable and logical, and choose to believe something else. Is this correct?

I suppose. I don't see why I would consciously reject what I find reasonable and logical, but I guess it's possible.

[Kenny]

It's indirect because you choose which evidence is reliable, which leads you to believe.

Do you see "choice" as a two way street? Or a one way street.

Not sure what you mean exactly. After research there may be only one logical choice, if I feel the evidence or proof is that strong. Other times my choice is only slightly more logical than other choices. Or anything in between.

In other words, there may be instances where I feel the evidence is so overwhelming, that it almost doesn't even feel like a choice.

Does that answer your question?

And no matter how compelling the evidence, you still have the ability to reject what you find reasonable and logical, and choose to believe something else. Is this correct?

I suppose. I don't see why I would consciously reject what I find reasonable and logical, but I guess it's possible.

Fair enough. But for me that is not possible.

K

[PaulSacramento]

Let me put it this way:
Without free will there IS NO justice system that is NOT corrupt.

Why not? How do you argue?

I believe in free will because without it, society falls apart.

Certainly not. I my society free will is not an important component. Some believe in it but some don't.

I believe in free will because I choose, everyday.

Yes, we choose all of us, but that's an illusion that your choice is free. You can deliberate and chose between alternatives but what you chose depends on how you and your environment are.

Without free will there is no personal responsibility.

Yes, there is no true desert. But we can hold each other responsible without desert. Responsibility is needed to have a functioning society. In my opinion we get a better, more human, society without the concept of desert.

Nils

You don't see the issue that if a person is NOT free to choose what he/she does then they are not responsible for their choices and as such a system of laws that holds people accountable for their choices has problems?

Western system of laws came to be because of the understanding that people ARE responsible for their actions and choices.

[RickD]

Nils,

Here's we definition of free will:

free will
ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun
noun: freewill
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Maybe you're adding something to the meaning.

[PaulSacramento]

When someone steals, they make the choice to steal and as such are responsible for the consequences.
The law states that anyone deemed responsible for their own actions ( mental competency) will be tried for any crime they commit.
If a person has NO CHOICE in the matter and steals because they have NO CHOICE then they are not responsible for their actions, how could they if they did NOT CHOOSE to steal?

The law tries people that are responsible for their choices, their actions, it does NOT try those deemed not competent and not responsible for their actions.

The law presupposes the ability to choose and be responsible for ones actions.

And yes, I know there is a movement going trying to change this.

[Nicki]

Do you see "choice" as a two way street? Or a one way street.

Not sure what you mean exactly. After research there may be only one logical choice, if I feel the evidence or proof is that strong. Other times my choice is only slightly more logical than other choices. Or anything in between.

In other words, there may be instances where I feel the evidence is so overwhelming, that it almost doesn't even feel like a choice.

Does that answer your question?

And no matter how compelling the evidence, you still have the ability to reject what you find reasonable and logical, and choose to believe something else. Is this correct?

I suppose. I don't see why I would consciously reject what I find reasonable and logical, but I guess it's possible.

Fair enough. But for me that is not possible.

K

A lot of things we have beliefs about are things we're not fully convinced about anyway - like supernatural matters and the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. When people are asked about their beliefs on these issues they often come up with something they've chosen to believe even though there seems to be insufficient evidence either way. On the other hand, if you're totally convinced about something because it's right in front of your face, you'd be crazy to believe otherwise about it. I've got no choice in my belief that I'm sitting in my armchair with my feet up and that it's just past midnight where I am, unless I'm wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and it's possible these things aren't true.

[Kenny]

Not sure what you mean exactly. After research there may be only one logical choice, if I feel the evidence or proof is that strong. Other times my choice is only slightly more logical than other choices. Or anything in between.

In other words, there may be instances where I feel the evidence is so overwhelming, that it almost doesn't even feel like a choice.

Does that answer your question?

And no matter how compelling the evidence, you still have the ability to reject what you find reasonable and logical, and choose to believe something else. Is this correct?

I suppose. I don't see why I would consciously reject what I find reasonable and logical, but I guess it's possible.

Fair enough. But for me that is not possible.

K

A lot of things we have beliefs about are things we're not fully convinced about anyway - like supernatural matters and the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. When people are asked about their beliefs on these issues they often come up with something they've chosen to believe even though there seems to be insufficient evidence either way. On the other hand, if you're totally convinced about something because it's right in front of your face, you'd be crazy to believe otherwise about it. I've got no choice in my belief that I'm sitting in my armchair with my feet up and that it's just past midnight where I am, unless I'm wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and it's possible these things aren't true.

I agree!

K

[PaulSacramento]

I've got no choice in my belief that I'm sitting in my armchair with my feet up and that it's just past midnight where I am, unless I'm wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and it's possible these things aren't true.

So, because you have no choice other than to believe in something that you are 100% sure of based on your 5 senses and your ability to rationalize and your life experiences, does that mean that you have no choice in what you believe, period?

And also, why do you believe that you are "sitting in my armchair with my feet up and that it's just past midnight where I am,".


Absolute statements....

[Nils]

Nils,

Here's we definition of free will:

free will
ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun
noun: freewill
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Maybe you're adding something to the meaning.

There are different definitions of free will. One is freedom of action, the ability to act according to one's choice. But an important concept of free will relates to moral responsibility MR. Free will is what you need to be MR, that you deserve praise or blame for your choices or actions. But MR requires that you are able to choose different even if the circumstance, your internal and the external circumstances are equal. But that seems to be metaphysically impossible, its like lifting oneself in the hair.

The definition you give is more about ability to act.

Nils

[Nils]

Let me put it this way:
Without free will there IS NO justice system that is NOT corrupt.

Why not? How do you argue?

I believe in free will because without it, society falls apart.

Certainly not. I my society free will is not an important component. Some believe in it but some don't.

I believe in free will because I choose, everyday.

Yes, we choose all of us, but that's an illusion that your choice is free. You can deliberate and chose between alternatives but what you chose depends on how you and your environment are.

Without free will there is no personal responsibility.

Yes, there is no true desert. But we can hold each other responsible without desert. Responsibility is needed to have a functioning society. In my opinion we get a better, more human, society without the concept of desert.

Nils

You don't see the issue that if a person is NOT free to choose what he/she does then they are not responsible for their choices and as such a system of laws that holds people accountable for their choices has problems?

Western system of laws came to be because of the understanding that people ARE responsible for their actions and choices.

Yes, I don't think that persons are free to choose. They are free to deliberate and from an internal perspective choose what they want but if the act is rationally they will always come to the same decision, same choice. So they are not moral responsible MR in a basic sense, i.e. if you deem the responsibility by looking backwards.

However, we can hold persons responsible for their act, using a consequential perspective. They are not MR because who they are, what motives they have etc. They are only MR because we need rules how to behave in a society. By adapting this idea we can skip or at least mitigate the feelings of retribution and instead try to rehabilitate the person. This was the official purpose of the criminal system in Sweden about 1940 - 1970. Then the idea of proportionality was introduced, the idea that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. But that idea was part of the criminal system also earlier even if not officially declared. And of course the policy of rehabilitation remains even if it isn't particularly successful. In Norway they are doing much better. (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/)

Nils

[PaulSacramento]

Yes, I don't think that persons are free to choose. They are free to deliberate and from an internal perspective choose what they want but if the act is rationally they will always come to the same decision, same choice. So they are not moral responsible MR in a basic sense, i.e. if you deem the responsibility by looking backwards.

However, we can hold persons responsible for their act, using a consequential perspective. They are not MR because who they are, what motives they have etc. They are only MR because we need rules how to behave in a society. By adapting this idea we can skip or at least mitigate the feelings of retribution and instead try to rehabilitate the person. This was the official purpose of the criminal system in Sweden about 1940 - 1970. Then the idea of proportionality was introduced, the idea that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. But that idea was part of the criminal system also earlier even if not officially declared. And of course the policy of rehabilitation remains even if it isn't particularly successful. In Norway they are doing much better. (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/)

Nils

I think you need to re-read what you wrote here and if you still agree, give me 1 reason why out justice system should make a distinction of mental capacity or even age, or even circumstance.
And also please explain you basis for "moral responsibility" and "rules" in society.

[Nicki]

I've got no choice in my belief that I'm sitting in my armchair with my feet up and that it's just past midnight where I am, unless I'm wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and it's possible these things aren't true.

So, because you have no choice other than to believe in something that you are 100% sure of based on your 5 senses and your ability to rationalize and your life experiences, does that mean that you have no choice in what you believe, period?

No, as I said people often choose to believe things they're not 100% sure of - that's where the choice comes in in my opinion. How convinced they have to be varies from person to person.

And also, why do you believe that you are "sitting in my armchair with my feet up and that it's just past midnight where I am,".


Absolute statements....

Because those things were obviously true, unless as I said I'm wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and it's all an illusion or something - a la The Matrix. If we discount that sort of thing there's a lot about which we have no choice what to believe. But maybe you're only really talking about the uncertainties. I did a poll on here a while ago about certainty of belief in the doctrines of Christianity and most people basically said they were 100% convinced. Whether that meant they could not imagine it to be wrong and so had no choice but to believe, or whether they didn't have 100% proof but had chosen to throw themselves into it 100%, I'm not sure. It's midnight again and my brain's tired so I'll have to leave it there!