7thangel

To All:

I am amused of those who believe that the laws of physics totally runs the being of a person then somehow believe they have a “power,” an ability, to control their brains. Nay, rather, if we can only quantify all the physical content of all interacting physical bodies, coupled with the knowledge of all the physical laws, we could know even the future of all these physical things. The laws of physics are fixed, and therefore, everything that happens in our brains are fixed according to the physical make of our brains and of the environment that interact with it. I expect that a person having a brain with a drop of blood and without oxygen to have no intellectual integrity at all.

Somehow, in essence, the people I refer above, subconsciously believe that intellectual integrity should not be subject to physical laws because they believe that “intellectual integrity” is knowing or understanding his/her own ignorance. As if there are two persons in their being; one person knows everything, and the other person needs guidance. But I guess they do not refer of themselves as having multiple personality syndrome, are they? So I guess that the thing that they think gives them ability to know the ignorant part of their being is Wisdom, which is somehow distinct from the other part of themselves, their physical body as how it works as being. Thus, when we think, we judge these physical beings, and that we sometimes come to a conclusion of making personal sacrifices, even our very own existence, our lives. This wisdom has the power and will to make changes, to make a purpose, to plan and reach a goal, and the most amazing thing: to control the flow of physical events.

I guess the essay above is what, I wanted, in a way, that we should be discussing, nothing personal really. I wanted to know where your intellect originated, and how could you show that it has integrity. I guess, as you read my essay above, you would sense the implication of “intellectual integrity” that I am talking about. The responses were great, and I came further to understand the lack of lucidity on my part. I really appreciated your responses.

I guess some already have a hint of what I am talking about, hope I could answer soon. Sorry, I’m still busy.

To NialScorva-Moderator:

I'm sorry, I'm new on the board. My eagerness to share my thought about the topic made me not notice other things. Thanks anyways.

God Bless,
NILO

brighid

I do not believe "good" and "evil" exist as entities seperate from actions of men. I do KNOW that man does both good and evil things. I do not attribute the good and evil men do to the battle of supernatural beings such as any of the Gods or Goddesses in the Human Mythological Pantheon, or their cohort Demons, Devils, etc. in some cosmic contest for our souls.

Are you asking if atheists have morals, or are you stating that atheists cannot have morals because they lack a belief in God(s.)?

First you please define WHICH God you are referring to. Is it the Judeo-Christian one (and which version of the numerous Catholic and Protestant denominations are you referring to), it is some other God like Allah, Vishnu, Odin or Kali Ma? Then you must demonstrate how an individual actually acquires morals through this belief and how people who do not share said belief cannot acquire morals without said belief. Then you must explain why literally millions of non-believing people in fact act morally without any threat of divine retribution or reward, or any specific God belief. Oh ... and then as the one making the positive claim you will have to in fact prove that YOUR very specific version of this God is indeed the one that actually exists. And please, if you aren't already familiar with them, become intimately acquainted with logical fallacies so you aren't guilty of lacking intellectual integrity by constructing strawmen, red herrings, poisoning the well with ad hominems, or make appeals to emotion, etc.

Brighid

ImGod

The more you post, the more I agree with this point.

Oxymoron

I actually take objection to the tone of the question.

"Intellectual integrity" has a ring of value-judgement about it. The implication of the questioner is that one is obliged to have it in order to be judged worthy. This is just prejorative semantics.

I exist in the world: I try to take it as I find it. I learn skills such as politics, psychology, maths and physics to help me understand it. I try to treat others well. I try to learn from my mistakes. I do my best to have fun. And that's about it. All this "integrity" crap is just Holier-Than-Thou judgement.

Shadowy Man

This is demonstrably false.

Jayjay

7thangel, it would perhaps help your presentation if you stopped using the term "intellectual integrity" altogether. Your original question was misunderstood by many because the generally accepted meaning for the term (which has been summarized by others already) does not seeem to be the meaning you are using. At least I'm baffled by what on earth are you trying to say...

As for people being able to control their brains, I'm not sure if anyone has claimed that. Sure, I could control it to some extent for example by drugs or alcohol (well, actually I don't drink but that's besides the point...) but it would be insane to think that every single brain cell in my head is under my direct power to do as I wish. Does this stop me from having an intellect? I don't think so.

Bill Snedden

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is Christian Presuppositionalism with some unnecessarily obfuscatory packaging.

It seems to me that 7thangel is arguing that a natural universe is necessarily wholly deterministic and that such determinism precludes rationality or moral agency (which he/she seems to lump together under the term "intellectual integrity"). However, an allegedly non-deterministic supernatural universe would presumably not suffer from this defect. Therefore, only in such a supernatural universe (read "only if God exists") can we have rationality and moral agency.

Such an argument seems to rest on the hidden premise that the supernatural foundation avoids determinacy. However, I see no reason to grant this assumption and in truth, no reason to believe that a supernatural universe is any less deterministic than a natural one.

To suggest otherwise would seem to entail a rejection of any causal connection between God's will, his actions, and his character. One example: most Christians will generally assert that God's actions are good because they flow from his character, which is wholly good. Therefore, God's actions are determined by his character (as they would seem to be for us as well).

Since God's will and actions flow from his character, the entire universe must necessarily reflect this. After all, God created the universe and his act could not have been one in contradiction to his character.

Therefore, the universe and everything in it, including us and the manner in which we think and act, was and is determined by God's character. It would seem then that determinism is no less an issue for the supernaturalist than it is for the naturalist.

Compatibilism, anyone?

Regards,

Bill Snedden
-----------------------------
"When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream, and shout." Lazarus Long

99Percent

Yes, Bill Snedden, and even though in closed easily observed systems the laws of physics indicate that indeed we live in a deterministic world, it is also observable that the whole universe is all the time its own cause and effect so we can never determine or predict any particular event with absolute certainty. To be able to do so would require omniscience, ie knowing the exact state of the universe which in itself is contradictory, because we are part of this same universe.

So yes, our brains are following the laws of physics and we act according to all the sum of causes in our lives, but in the rational sense we cannot determine exacly how we will act. To be able to do so would require first knowing how every single neuron of our brain is wired and in probing the brain itself we would affect it anyway altering its previously predetermined reaction and secondly, knowing the exact state of affairs this very brain is being subjected to which as stated in the first paragraph is impossible.

So yes, we do have free will, no gods are necessary.

xoc

Just one point.

You refer to "character" like an undivided whole, when(at least we can see from "Man") that it is rather a medium between poles.

The "poles" in this case are values, ethics, etc. So a character is in conflict and stress over certain values, immoral or moral. We can be in conflict over altruistic vs. selfish acts, but also have conflict of the varying good ethics as well. There can be a conflict between justice and mercy, and other internal "wars of the virtues." The Bible portrays this internal conflict to exist in God as well as man. Therefore "character" cannot be some uni-polar thing which will always provide one decision, but a set. In that freedom, do we have the same determinism?

dangin

And then some.



Pupil: How did you make the right choice?

Teacher: Good judgement.

Pupil: How does one gain good judgement?

Teacher: Experience.

Pupil: How does one gain experience?

Teacher: Bad judgement.


And 7th angel. Of course there is no such thing as "good" and "evil". Stop being silly.