[Calumcalum]

Any conflicts? Relationship in general? Never really see any threads on this anymore so will be interesting to hear thoughts.

[Annoying-Mouse]

I think there's some conflict e.g. neurology and free will as well as it's attempts to discredit personal relationships with God.

[midpikyrozziy]

+ no physical existence of a soul, or anything remotely like it.

[Annoying-Mouse]

PS, what are your views?

[Cities]

Subscribed.

I strongly recommend you to look up the experiments of Libet and Hallett with regards to Free Will.

[GodspeedGehenna]

Can you be more specific?

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
Can you be more specific?

Well, the main idea is that it's supposed to be quite open but my response to Annoying-Mouse in this post should highlight some of the pertinent issues - those, and religious experience. Arguments for God from reason (cf. for example, this) might also be of interest.

(Original post by n1r4v)
Subscribed.

I strongly recommend you to look up the experiments of Libet and Hallett with regards to Free Will.

I second this! I'm doing a research project on it next term

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
PS, what are your views?

On free will, I think liberal forms of Christianity emphasising libertarian free will are undermined slightly, though traditional (particularly Reformed) forms aren't. On the idea of a 'soul', I think that the diversity in each denomination is too much to be able to comment on a particular denomination, but that the Biblical (and so what should be the evangelical view, though this is not often the case) view is not undermined. Despite its problems, I think evangelicalism can actually stand up remarkably well against objections from neurology.
The most difficult problem, I think, applies to most forms of Christian belief, and is probably too often neglected - that of dementia or other problems involving the prefrontal cortex and a massive change in personality. It's all very well understanding that religious experience is dependent on the brain and so is religious belief, and I don't think any decent objections can be made on those grounds (e.g. "if you had a different brain, you wouldn't believe it" or whatever). But when someone's brain does change, and they perhaps go from being a good person to a horrible person (and change religious beliefs, perhaps), I think there are problems in terms of whether it is the same person, and how that person may thenceforth be judged.

(Original post by midpikyrozziy)
+ no physical existence of a soul, or anything remotely like it.

And what would you say is the scope of this objection - does it apply to all religions, or all parts of any particular religions, etc?

[Whatsinaname]

I'd like to know what exactly free will is supposed to be.

[midpikyrozziy]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
And what would you say is the scope of this objection - does it apply to all religions, or all parts of any particular religions, etc?

Religion doesn't seem too concerned with objective scientific proof, so I daresay that most major religions have come up with some sort of explanation for this lack of a physical soul. So I'd apply the objection to all religions which believe in souls, but as I say, they'd probably have some counter-argument that it would be impossible to prove or disprove.

A quick Google search tells me that every (major) religion believes in souls, except for Jehovah's Witness' - whether or not this is true I can't pretend to know.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I'd like to know what exactly free will is supposed to be.

Don't concern yourself with the notion. It does not exist.

We commit some instinctive actions through our motor neurones that our conscious mind will not be alerted to for roughly 350 milliseconds according to tests in neuro-science.

We are a bag of instinctive behaviour (sort of)

[qasman]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I'd like to know what exactly free will is supposed to be.

It's actually pretty fascinating. Religion aside, what IS free will? Doesn't society and the social/moral norms around us dictate what we will do a lot of the time? Something to ponder... Any specialist wanna elaborate (unless they have already o.O)

[The Cornerstone]

I mostly go by 'Je pense donc je suis' philosophy although I admit I don't know a lot on thought patterns so I would like to learn about it more.

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Don't concern yourself with the notion. It does not exist.

We commit some instinctive actions through our motor neurones that our conscious mind will not be alerted to for roughly 350 milliseconds according to tests in neuro-science.

We are a bag of instinctive behaviour (sort of)

'Some' being the key word here, perhaps?

(Bearing in mind that the pioneer who made these findings went on to report: "For spontaneous voluntary acts, RP onset preceded the uncorrected Ws by about 350 ms and the Ws corrected for S by about 400 ms. The direction of this difference was consistent and significant throughout, regardless of which of several measures of RP onset or W were used. It was concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous voluntary act begins unconsciously. However, it was found that the final decision to act could still be consciously controlled during the 150 ms or so remaining after the specific conscious intention appears. Subjects can in fact “veto” motor performance during a 100–200-ms period before a prearranged time to act.")

[Saichu]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
'Some' being the key word here, perhaps?

A related notion is that we don't, despite illusion, actually have a will: we have at least two. I seem to remember there was a more detailed article on this a while back.

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by Saichu)
A related notion is that we don't, despite illusion, actually have a will: we have at least two. I seem to remember there was a more detailed article on this a while back.

Yeah, the corpus callotomy stuff is definitely interesting - I must admit, I've shamefully used it as a model for the hypostatic union a few times

It's worth noting, though, that when you get to this level of detail it is probably the case that 'mind' is too loosely defined to be of much use. I understand the sentiment, of course, but 'two minds' does hint a little at sensationalism.

[Saichu]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
Yeah, the corpus callotomy stuff is definitely interesting - I must admit, I've shamefully used it as a model for the hypostatic union a few times

It's worth noting, though, that when you get to this level of detail it is probably the case that 'mind' is too loosely defined to be of much use. I understand the sentiment, of course, but 'two minds' does hint a little at sensationalism.

The two sides show themselves able to make opposing choices; isn't that already indicative of two minds? In either case, it sure defeats the idea of a singular "free will".

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
'Some' being the key word here, perhaps?

...

"Some" being a very key word indeed.

Hence the inclusion of "Sort of."

[GodspeedGehenna]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
'Some' being the key word here, perhaps?

(Bearing in mind that the pioneer who made these findings went on to report: "For spontaneous voluntary acts, RP onset preceded the uncorrected Ws by about 350 ms and the Ws corrected for S by about 400 ms. The direction of this difference was consistent and significant throughout, regardless of which of several measures of RP onset or W were used. It was concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous voluntary act begins unconsciously. However, it was found that the final decision to act could still be consciously controlled during the 150 ms or so remaining after the specific conscious intention appears. Subjects can in fact “veto” motor performance during a 100–200-ms period before a prearranged time to act.")

Sounds like the work of Libet, am I right?

If so, I'm not sure if I really buy his experiment. It's rather contrived and his findings were probably just an artefact of the methodology he used. For example, it's most likely that the activity he picked up was the product of the generating of a response. That said, I haven't read any of his papers in a while.

[yawn]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
Any conflicts? Relationship in general? Never really see any threads on this anymore so will be interesting to hear thoughts.

I'm assuming you're implying there may be a neurological reason for religiosity - in the absence of something more definitive in your post. I apologise if this is not your intent.

Assuming my assumption is correct, I ask who put that neurological basis into humans? God maybe?

If we do have a hardwired religious impulse as implied in Rom. 2:15, at least that will prevent religion from dying out, eh?

I know this is, in all probability, not the direction you intended your thread to take...but it's worth mentioning purely to include debate on a more superficial level.

[GodspeedGehenna]

(Original post by yawn)
Assuming my assumption is correct, I ask who put that neurological basis into humans? God maybe?

Evolution? Having a group identity is certainly advantageous, as is the ability to resolve cognitive distress/fear associated with 'the unknown'

(Original post by yawn)
If we do have a hardwired religious impulse as implied in Rom. 2:15, at least that will prevent religion from dying out, eh?

We probably have a non-specific hardwired impulse to enter into groups and resolve distress. Some, due to social context, choose religion as a route to do this. Certainly recent publications using census data suggests that religion will die out in the near future.