October 2017 – Page 28 – TrueFreeThinker

natural laws

Free will, atheism, dualism, Massimo Pigliucci, Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris

The website Atheism Analyzed wondered out loud, as it where, whether the atheist Massimo Pigliucci is flirting with dualism. This was in regards to Coyne’s denial of free will in anticipation of Sam Harris soon to be published book, a topic that this Examiner has been covering in some detail, see: Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free will.

Atheism Analyzed notes:

Although he doesn’t admit to it straight out, Massimo Pigliucci seems to go dualist in his latest critique of Jerry Coyne. In an analysis of Coyne’s declaration that Free Will is a universal delusion, Massimo takes non-deterministic positions, many of which I agree with, which is some sort of first, I believe.

Massimo’s final analysis concludes that we do make choices and that we should be held accountable; but he is also a fairly strict materialist. So he seems to be sliding into a moderately dualist mode here (emphasis on the “seems”).

Sam Harris’ book it due to be published in March of 2012 AD and will surely set off a firestorm of polemics. This will be interesting as the issue of free will is multifaceted as, for example, Calvinist Christians deny it for some reasons and some Atheistsdeny it for others whilst other Christiansand Atheists affirm it.

Even considering only two personages who are both atheists, Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne, we encounter a variety of views. It was just observed that “Massimo’s final analysis concludes that we do make choices and that we should be held accountable.” Now, Jerry Coyne asserts that we do not make choices, and therefore do not have free will, but still should be held accountable. Sam Harris, on the other hand, asserts that we make choices, while not having free will, and are thus, accountable (Harris holds that we do not have free will on the subconscious level but that we then make choices on the conscious level).

Massimo Pigliucci concludes:

In the end, skepticism about free will seems to me to be akin to radical skepticism about reality in general (the idea that all of reality is an illusion, or a computer simulation, or something along those lines): it denies what we all think is self-evident, it cannot be defeated logically (though it is not based on empirical evidence), and it is completely irrelevant to our lives…we should then proceed by ignoring the radical skeptic in order to get back to the business of navigating reality, making willful decisions about our lives…and assign moral responsibility to our and other people’s actions.

So is, Pigliucci nearing dualism? Only time will tell but here, may be, a clue. His statement, that the denial of free will “denies what we all think is self-evident” mirrors what this Examiner wrote as a guest author on the statistician William Briggs’ website in an article titled, To Be, Or Not To Be…Free: Sam Harris & Jerry Coyne On Free Will, the relevant portion of which is:

What reason, really, is there to deny our common knowledge, our common experience and well, our common sense conclusion that we have free will? In this case, it is that some Atheists are interpreting lights flashing on a screen [this is referring to neuroscience]. Moreover, their interpretations are based upon materialism, mechanism, reductionism in short: based upon their particular, and peculiar, Atheistic world-views. But why should we believe that their world-view is accurate? After all, they claim that it cannot be proven and since they are making extraordinary claims they must provide evidence that is more extraordinary than expecting us to believe their personal interpretations of “data.”

Atheism and free will: Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne deny it

Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne both deny free will. Coyne believes that we do not make choices and thus, have no free will. Harris believes that we do no make choices and thus, have no free will.

In March 2012 AD Sam Harris will publish a book wherein he will explain why he denies free will. This will likely become a hot topic of debate between Atheists, Christians and Calvinists and so will make for an interesting multi-way discussion.

I just finished posting a multi-part essay on this issue:
Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free will:

I also wrote a succinct version as a guest over at William Briggs’ site:
To Be, Or Not To Be…Free: Sam Harris & Jerry Coyne On Free Will

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism
Facebook: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism

Atheism and Science – The Magus

On rare occasion I decide to pull forth something from the nether regions of the comments section in order to augment and or elucidate a matter.
As I have made clear in the past: this is not done in order to call out an individual nor single them out for ridicule or embarrassment.

A comment was made which read as follows, the first sentence is a parody (of a caricature) of a theist:

“I want you to stop looking for the real explanation and accept my supernatural explanation just because.When we see a stage magician perform his act, we can be very comfortable is assuming that the tricks have a materialistic explanation.Is it at all possible that the magician is actually truly Magical?Sure, it’s possible but completely unlikely.Now, I think that I’m pretty well justified is claiming that all stage magicians tricks have a natural explanation even if I don’t happen to know what that explanation is.

If some stage magician wants to claim his is real magic, then it is up to him to demonstrate that it is real magic (whatever that is) in some definitive way.

Pardon me, but we must begin with a rather pointed statement: the sentiment that theists “want you to stop looking for the real explanation and accept my supernatural explanation just because” is one of the most popular, pernicious, historically illiterate, unreasonable, logically bankrupt and well-within-the-box-group-think atheist myths. In fact, as we may see, the exact opposite is true-it is the atheist who restricts research.

With regards to atheism and science and theism and science (let us say Judeo-Christianity and science), the example employed above that of a magician who makes it appear as if magic/miracles are occurring.

Let us consider how the atheist and Judeo-Christian would deal with the magician’s craft.

Both can simply enjoy the show and not give it a moment’s thought.

Yet, let us imagine that, correlating the magic show with ascertaining reality or engaging the scientific method, they seek to figure it out.

While some atheists claim that Judeo-Christians “stop looking” let us strain our imaginations and consider that Judeo-Christians are actually capable of doing science.

The atheist will begin by observing the phenomenon-let us say, the pulling of a rabbit out of an empty top hat.

The atheist will retrace what she witnessed: a flashy show, waving hands, a wand, a top hat and presto-a rabbit.

She will next take various steps-perhaps she noticed that the flashy show, hand waving and wand were meant to distract attention, or she may read up on how to perform magic tricks of that sort, etc.

She may then conclude that what appeared to be a rabbit appearing from an empty hat was a mere illusion and that the reality of the matter which was actually_insert superfluous description here.

She may, at this point, describe cause and effect relationships: the rabbit was really in a hidden pocket in hat or the magician had it hidden in his tux and moved it into the hat or what have you.

The Judeo-Christian makes the very same observation, engages in the very same musings and makes the very same descriptions.

However, there comes a crucial difference at this point.

The Judeo-Christian, whose thinking is not restricted by adherence to an absolutely materialistic worldview but who is a true skeptical freethinker, takes it a step further and seeks to ascertain whether the act was planned, purposeful-designed.

Correlating the magic act to some phenomenon such as the universe:
The Judeo-Christian may conclude, merely by observing the phenomenon, that the magus is a person or exhibits characteristics of personhood such as volition; making decisions, conceiving plans and carrying out actions, etc.

The atheist must be convinced that the phenomenon was an accident, a coincidence, a happenstance, an arbitrary, odd and rare coming together of known or unknown natural forces that just so happened to coincide and cause something to come about unintended, unplanned and uncaused. The atheist must believe, by faith1, that the phenomenon will someday be explained by purely materialistic means because surely, scientists are working on it.

As regards atheism and science; an atheist thinking takes place well within the box: beyond a certain parameter no considerations are allowed in and no thoughts are allowed to express themselves.Following our correlation, the scenario is tantamount to the atheist stating, “The rabbit did not appear from nothing, I have uncovered the fact that it was in a hidden pocket in the hat all along.”Then when we state, “Fine, but how did the rabbit get into that pocket in the hat?”

The atheists states, “The rabbit was just there, and that’s all.”

Overall, we see that the unrestricted thinking of the theist allows her to consider whether there is something behind the observed phenomenon whereas with regards to atheism and science, the atheist must be satisfied with either an infinite regress or a it just is pseudo-explanation.

Copernicus

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Show Yourselves

In this segment we will consider instances in which people were healed of some malady and were told to go to people who would have known of their malady so that they may see that they had been miraculously healed.

Legion: the Gadarene DemoniacIn Mark chapter 5 (and Luke 8:27-39 and Matthew 8:28-34) Jesus had traveled to the country of the Gadarenes which is opposite Galilee. Jesus is confronted by two demon possessed men one of whom is known as Legion (“for we are many”). This is quite a tragic story:

Legion made “his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains, because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and in the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones (v. 3-5).

This was an extreme case of demonic possession. Jesus exorcized him and when He went to leave Legion (the now ex-Legion) “begged Him that he might be with Him. However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, ‘Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you'” (v. 18-19).

Blind From Birth
In John chapter 9 Jesus encounters “a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'” (v. 1-2).
As we saw in the last segment, this is odd and fallacious theology as Jesus explains, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him (v. 3). And how could the man have sinned in order to have been born blind? He either sinned in the womb or he was a Hindu or Buddhist. Apparently, there was a non-biblical concept of a baby being able to sin in the womb.

Jesus heals him and sends him to “wash in the pool of Siloam,” Jesus had placed mud mixed with saliva on his eyes.

“So he went and washed, and came back seeing.Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, ‘Is not this he who sat and begged?’Some said, ‘This is he.’ Others said, ‘He is like him.’He said, ‘I am he.’Therefore they said to him, ‘How were your eyes opened?’He answered and said, ‘A Man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed, and I received sight.”Then they said to him, ‘Where is He?’He said, ‘I do not know'” (v. 7-12).

Note that he was seen by those who knew that he was blind and that some, in quite a natural response, questioned whether it was really him, “He is like him.”

“They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, ‘He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.’Therefore some of the Pharisees said, ‘This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.’Others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?’ And there was a division among them” (v. 13-16).

This goes to who the dead, dry as dust, heart of “religion”-they are more concerned about administrating laws than praising God for healing a blind man.

Thus:

17 They said to the blind man again, ‘What do you say about Him because He opened your eyes?’ He said, ‘He is a prophet.’But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, ‘Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?’His parents answered them and said, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.’ His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him.’So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, ‘Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.’He answered and said, ‘Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see'” (v. 17-25).

This is fascinating and quite logical: those who did not know him did not believe that he had been healed. Quite logically, they called for his parents to ask them whether he had been born blind and how he now sees. Their answer is likewise quite logical: they knew he was blind and that he now sees but nothing about what happened in between so why not ask him.His answer is the same he knew that he was blind and that he now sees but nothing about how the change occurred. It is almost as if the man and his parents are to deny the fact of the change from blindness to sight because they cannot provide a scientific account. Yet, they could care less-they are just happy that the man can see. This reminds me of complaining about the poor design of a Panda’s “thumb” while the Panda is saying, “Let’s see you try to strip thousands of bamboo leaves from branches. I’m doing just fine, Mr. Opposable.”

A disputation ensues between the Pharisees and the ex-blind man, and he is basically excommunicated. Finally, we get a glimpse into the point of this parabolic action as Jesus moves from physical blind/sightedness to spiritual blind/sightedness:

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of God?’
He answered and said, ‘Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?’And Jesus said to him, ‘You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.’Then he said, ‘Lord, I believe!’ And he worshiped Him.And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.’Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, ‘Are we blind also?’Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains'” (v. 35-41).

The LeperIn Matthew 8:1-4 (also Luke 5:12-14) we find a leper engaging Jesus.

The “leper came and worshiped Him, saying, ‘Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.’Then Jesus put out His hand and touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, ‘See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.'”

The priests would have been acquainted with the leper since it was they who would have diagnosed him. They would have followed a systematic process of diagnosis and quarantine which had been in place for millennia (see Leviticus chapter 13).

These are some of the examples of people who knew the demon possessed men, their own son and a diagnosed leper and witnessed the change in them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

On Abraham

Concerning Noah's Work as a Planter

Serpent and Dragon in Philo of Alexandria, part 4

Herein we conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3, providing quotations and citations on Serpent and Dragon (within a Satanic context) from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Serpent and Dragon in Philo of Alexandria’s On Husbandry, On the Life of Moses and On the Migration of Abraham.

On Husbandry
XXI But we must explain what is the enigmatical meaning which he conceals under this prayer, the name of Dan, being interpreted, means “judgment;” therefore he here likens that power of the soul which investigates, and accurately examines, and distinguishes between, and, in some degree, decides on each part of the soul, to a dragon (and the dragon is an animal various in its movements, and exceedingly cunning, and ready to display its courage, and very powerful to repel those who begin acts of violence), but not to that friendly serpent, the counsellor of life, which is wont to be called Eve in his national language, but to the one made by Moses, of the material of brass, which, when those who had been bitten by the poisonous serpents, and who were at the point of death beheld, they are said to have lived and not to have died.

XXII The serpent, then, which appeared to the woman, that is to life depending on the outward senses and on the flesh, we pronounce to have been pleasure…And these things thus expressed resemble visions and prodigies; I mean the account of one dragon uttering the voice of a man and pouring his sophistries into most innocent dispositions, and deceiving the woman with plausible arguments of persuasion; and of another becoming a cause of complete safety to those who looked upon it.

XXIV Moses, therefore, represents the serpent that appeared to Eve as planning the death of man, for he records, that God says in his curses, “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” But he represents the serpent of Dan, which is the one which we are now discussing, as biting the heel of the horse and not of the man, (108) for the serpent of Eve, being the symbol of pleasure, as has been already shown, attacks man.

On the Life of Moses, I
VIII But whenever their distress abated, then again their taskmasters returned and oppressed them with increased severity, always after the respite adding some new evil which should be even more intolerable than their previous sufferings; for some of their overseers were very savage and furious men, being, as to their cruelty, not at all different from poisonous serpents or carnivorous beasts–wild beasts in human form–being clothed with the form of a human body so as to give an appearance of gentleness in order to deceive and catch their victim, but in reality being harder than iron or adamant.

On the Migration of Abraham
XII For what has been said in words, indeed, is applicable to the serpent, but in reality it is meant to apply to every man who is irrational and a slave to his passions, being truly a divine oracle, “Upon thy breast and upon thy belly shalt thou Go;” for anger has its abode about the breast, and the seat of desire is in the belly.

In the next segment, we will consider Angels in Flavius Josephus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Month: October 2017

natural laws

Free will, atheism, dualism, Massimo Pigliucci, Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris

Atheism and free will: Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne deny it

Atheism and Science – The Magus

Copernicus

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Show Yourselves

On Abraham

Concerning Noah's Work as a Planter

Serpent and Dragon in Philo of Alexandria, part 4

fallen angel