| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2009 05:31:40 PM · #851 |
Provine certainly makes a distinction between "choice" and "free will". I found this quote in an abstract. Too bad I don't have access to the whole article:
The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will.
Maybe it will become more clear if I just ask if there is a difference between an ant and a computer?
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 17:32:27. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 05:34:28 PM · #852 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[Free will is] a very specific concept that comes out of a very specific religious context... |
It's more complicated than that. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 05:59:22 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it will become more clear if I just ask if there is a difference between an ant and a computer? |
Yes, huge difference. Insect brains can still do many things that computers can't. A computer is an automaton: input/output. Insects are not. They are capable of judgement calls and decisions beyond the grasp of current computer technology.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What if their little brains are really just organic versions of water drops running down their own walls? Would it be a choice then? |
Your brain is about 80% water. Does it matter?
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 18:01:11. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 06:04:20 PM · #854 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is all just another example of taking a very specific concept and denaturing it to fit your own world view. |
I agree, and you're the one doing it here. Even in religion, Free Will is the opposite of Determinism: essentially the ability to make your own choices rather than being directed through life as a living puppet. Morality is a separate issue. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 06:08:47 PM · #855 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it will become more clear if I just ask if there is a difference between an ant and a computer? |
Yes, huge difference. Insect brains can still do many things that computers can't. A computer is an automaton: input/output. Insects are not. They are capable of judgement calls and decisions beyond the grasp of current computer technology. |
Hmmm. A) Is this something with data behind it? What do we use to claim ants are capable of "judgement calls and decisions" beyond a computer? and B) Is it just a matter of technology? Could the computer become complex enough to fit in the ant category? and would it have "free will"?
EDIT to add I'm reading your link now. Ok, read it, but I wasn't very impressed. Complexity is different than "free will" by nearly any definition of either. All I saw was that insects are more complex than we thought.
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 18:14:26. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 07:03:38 PM · #856 |
| Maybe someone will enter a photo in the current challenge showing a bug exhibiting "free will" and settle the matter for us ... ;-) |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 02:56:21 AM · #857 |
I've been away from this site for quite a few months, but recently had an experience that I want to share with people who watch, and participate in, this thread. I am offering it simply to get your take on the events, and not as any sort of argument/debate. The events have particular meaning to me, but I am interested in how others view the events.
I realize that this post is a bit off topic as it is not about "free will" but I thought people in this thread might find the story I have to tell interesting. I'd be interested in an atheist's view of the events. I'd also be interested to know if anyone has a "scientific explanation" for the phenomena presented in the story. To a person of faith, the events of the weekend recounted are at least circumstantial proof of God. Would a scientist/doctor who viewed the two sets of photos mentioned in the story conclude that the existance of God is a possible conclusion (perhaps in the same sense that scientists conclude that a new species of finches is documented because of some changes that are witnessed)? Can a fractured bone be healed in three days by any known medical treatment?
(The friend I discuss has given me permission to tell his story wherever I like. For confidentiality reasons I choose to keep his name out of it at least for now. If that's a problem, well...then it's a problem I choose to allow at least until his health story runs its course and he gives me a written release.)
Here's the story (it took place in September of this year):
A friend of mine who is elderly and lives in another part of the country from where I live, was diagnosed with bone cancer this past May. I’ve been praying for him daily in my private prayers and with members of a prayer team from my church, and I knew all summer that I would be staying with his family in September because I do so each year at their invitation.
As soon as I arrived on Thursday, his wife asked me if I would lead a healing prayer session with their family. We decided on Sunday evening and the next morning I drove to a neighboring state for my daughter’s wedding. When I returned to his home Sunday afternoon after the wedding was over, he told me that X-rays had been taken on Friday because he was in so much pain that he feared additional tumors were present. His doctor’s office called Sunday afternoon while I was in the room listening to his end of the conversation and we learned that the Friday X-rays showed that he had numerous tumors in his hip and pelvic bones, along with four fractures caused by the tumors. The X-rays were so alarming that his doctor wanted him to get another set of photos made Monday morning at a different hospital so that radiation treatments could commence immediately before the tumors got any larger. (The original hospital was booked to capacity, necessitating a change of venue.) Apparently, it is dangerous to radiate in the pelvic area because so many vital organs are in that region of the body and damage can be done to those organs.
Sunday evening, as scheduled, his family and I held a healing prayer meeting, which I led. We prayed for perhaps 45 minutes to 1 hour in a manner I have learned this past summer. After the prayer was completed I asked him if he sensed anything during the prayer. He replied that at one point he sensed a white light falling on him and he felt a sense of being “drained” from head to foot. Other than that, he did not notice anything unusual. (I did not sense anything unusual, but others in the room said they felt that there was a lot of “energy” in the room.) My friend was still in a lot of pain, which had not abated since Thursday.
The next day (Monday) I was scheduled to meet with several clients and my friend went off to the hospital for more pictures. When I got back to their home Monday afternoon, his son greeted me in their driveway and told me he was having goose bumps because of what his father had just told him. I went inside and learned that the new photos taken Monday morning showed that all of the tumors in his hips and pelvic area were totally gone, that one of the fractures had already healed completely, and that the other three fractures were showing signs of healing. He had not received any medical treatment between Friday when the first set of pictures was taken and Monday morning when the second set of pictures showed the tumors were gone. He also told me that when he woke up Monday morning all his pain was gone.
His doctor, who usually takes a quick look at the photos and pronounces what needs to be done, studied the Monday photos in my friend’s presence for a good ten minutes without saying anything. He then took the photos to talk with the radiologist for a half hour before returning to my friend and his wife. The doctor indicated that he had never seen anything like it before, but his pelvis and hips were tumor-free.
My friend and his wife then told the doctor about the prayer meeting and the doctor could only say, “Whatever you are doing, keep doing it.” He indicated that he had heard stories about similar results, but had never experienced it firsthand.
The Monday photos did reveal that my friend had another tumor in his right thigh and knee, about which they had not known, so radiation was scheduled for those tumors. These, unlike the pelvic tumors, are nowhere near as dangerous because no organs are nearby. The doctor also mentioned that his bone marrow is regenerating much quicker than he normally sees in patients, which is encouraging, and indicates that my friend is doing well in his battle with bone cancer.
My friend is not yet finished with his bone cancer battle and he will continue to be monitored by his doctor in case more tumors appear. However, he is making remarkable progress and, of course, the complete disappearance of many dangerous pelvic tumors virtually overnight is nothing short of miraculous in my humble opinion.
Recently a doctor acquaintance of mine was fascinated by the story not so much because the tumors disappeared, but because one of the fractures was completely healed in the space of three days and the remaining three fractures were showing signs of healing. First of all, the healed fracture is, in this doctor’s view, not possible by any known medical process because bones just don’t heal in three days. Second, the existence of the three remaining fractures in both sets of pictures rules out any mishandling of the photos.
There are a lot of “healings” being reported in religious circles these days. This is the first time I have ever heard of bone cancer being healed so dramatically. The fact that it occurred to my friend over a weekend when I was a participant is even more compelling. It's one thing to hear healing stories; it's quite another thing to be part of one. (For the sake of full disclosure, I have experienced one other healing when my knee was healed after 21 years of problems when I attended a prayer meeting (my first one ever) last March - I don't have X-rays of my knee, so I don't offer it for any reason than to let you know my limited experience with healing prayer. The bone cancer healing was my friend's one and only experience with healing prayer. Not that it matters, but my faith tradition is mainline Protestant; his is Catholic. Neither of us considers outselves to be "charismatic" or "Pentecostal" or from similar backgrounds.)
I'd be interested in any responses people may have to my questions in the second paragraph of this post.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2009 05:27:43 AM · #858 |
Speaking as an agnostic, I can't tell you what that story proves or suggests. To put it simply you've given no information to fully investigate this story so to jump to any conclusion would be foolish. However since you did experence this what have you done to rule out other plausible explanations? Could it simply have been misdiagnosed? or the power of positive thinking? Will to live? Despite our advances there's a lot we don't know about the human body let alone what's going on inside of it at any given moment.
I'm happy for you and your friend that whatever happened, happened. For every story like that you have a tragic one. If god is pulling all these strings (good and bad) he's pretty sadistic.
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 05:35:00.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2009 10:46:33 AM · #859 |
Originally posted by chalice:
I'd be interested in an atheist's view of the events. |
Your story is an anecdote with no evidential value. Words to watch for in anecdotes, which run throughout your story: "he told me that X-rays had been taken...", "he sensed a white light...", "because of what his father had just told him...", "He also told me that..", "he had heard stories about similar results", "...'healings' being reported in religious circles...". As a compendium of facts, the story is worthless; as an interesting tale, it has a lot of meaning to any sympathetic individual who will listen.
It is well known, through real scientific experimentation, that intercessory prayer does absolutely nothing.
If this happened in September, it should have been well covered by the national media at this point, it is so dramatic and unexplained.
Lastly, on a personal note, any god willing to miraculously cure a man already near the end of his life, but who will happily let untold numbers of very young children suffer unspeakable pain and die from identical diseases, or in any number of chamber-of-horrors ways, is, to quote Nietzsche, so absurd a god that he would have to be abolished even if he existed. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 11:33:07 AM · #860 |
I agree with Louis that anecdotal evidence is the weakest category for proving something in a scientific sense. However, one cannot just dismiss such evidence out of hand merely because it is anecdotal. In a similar manner, Richard's wanting to "fully investigate" an event is a great request, but most of the time it is impossible as we could never go back in time to redo whatever tests or "see for ourselves".
Finally, in comment to Louis' Nietzche argument, we must remember that the end of our life here is nothing compared to eternity. IF God exists and IF there is life after death, curing a man now at the end of his life may change him in important ways we cannot see here, but make a big difference in the afterlife. Nietzche's quote only makes sense if God exists but there is no life after death. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 11:43:57 AM · #861 |
I think it's contradictory to use the words "evidence" and "anecdote" in the same sentence, as you've done. Once is useful, one is useless. For example, Whitley Strieber, a respected writer and author of dozens of books, has all kinds of anecdotes that support the existence of intergalactic aliens interacting deeply and personally with human beings, and him in particular, but he has absolutely no evidence. We are left with the choice to believe his anecdotes, or dismiss them pending actual evidence. Guess which choice I've made.
Nietzche's statement is meant to be ironic, of course, and its value lies in its acid humour. He believes in neither God nor an afterlife.
I've never accepted the "mysteries of God" argument, because it's the ultimate bandaid for all the gaping holes in the proposition that a personal god exists. Your IF statements are staggering wells of assumptions. They support the intercessory and healing stories in a circular way, but not a useful way. There is a god, and he heals the sick according to his unfathomable plan, because his eternal afterlife awaits us, but only if we believe, but the way to believe is to simply have faith that there is a god, and he heals the sick according.... etc. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:07:24 PM · #862 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with Louis that anecdotal evidence is the weakest category for proving something in a scientific sense. However, one cannot just dismiss such evidence out of hand merely because it is anecdotal. |
You are a medical doctor, correct? Supposedly with a PhD or similar qualification which would indicate you've got a excellent understanding of human biology, conditions, treatments etc.
Given your background, how on earth can you give any credence to 'the power of prayer' such as the anecdote described above? - Time and time again we read about religious fanatics putting themselves or their families in medically dangerous situations by placing their faith in god instead of in the medical profession.
On a professional level, would you ever prescribe or encourage a patient to pray to cure their condition?
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 12:08:14. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:13:23 PM · #863 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with Louis that anecdotal evidence is the weakest category for proving something in a scientific sense. However, one cannot just dismiss such evidence out of hand merely because it is anecdotal. |
You are a medical doctor, correct? Supposedly with a PhD or similar qualification which would indicate you've got a excellent understanding of human biology, conditions, treatments etc.
Given your background, how on earth can you give any credence to 'the power of prayer' such as the anecdote described above? - Time and time again we read about religious fanatics putting themselves or their families in medically dangerous situations by placing their faith in god instead of in the medical profession.
On a professional level, would you ever prescribe or encourage a patient to pray to cure their condition? |
I don't often come to the good Doc's defence, but I seriously doubt that what he is advocating here is that patients forego all form of medical treatment and rely solely on the powers of prayer and positive thinking.
What he is saying (I think) is that even anecdotes can contain an element of truth and ought not be summarily dismissed.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:14:24 PM · #864 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think it's contradictory to use the words "evidence" and "anecdote" in the same sentence, as you've done. |
I think this statement is false. Because a case is anecdotal does not make it false. In medicine there is a hierarchy of evidence with prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials at the top. However, we don't have such studies for even a fraction of the medical questions we face every day. One then goes down the hierarchy to help make decisions. At the bottom is the Case Report which is nothing but an anecdotal account (hopefully presented with as much detail as possible). I can't tell my patient I can do nothing for them because I don't have a RDBPC trial that addresses their issue. I will search for case reports, weigh the quality of that evidence, and make my decisions.
Listen, I'm not expecting anybody to drop their atheism because of this story, BUT I don't think one can merely toss it. It needs to be put in place with other evidence and given its proper weight.
And as far as JH's comment. There's no insurance CPT code for therapeutic prayer, so I can't bill for it. ;)
EDIT; Hey, thanks Ray. You summarize what I'm saying well.
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 12:15:37. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:18:41 PM · #865 |
I think a Case Report of symptoms provided to a physician is a much different thing than a story told third hand about a miraculous cure.
Edit to add that I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. If there was a third-hand story going around that a friend, whose friend is a scientist, had viable scientific proof that God didn't exist, but that he was sitting on it because of the fracas it would generate, I'd dismiss it with extreme prejudice.
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 12:20:59. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:24:08 PM · #866 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think a Case Report of symptoms provided to a physician is a much different thing than a story told third hand about a miraculous cure.
Edit to add that I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. If there was a third-hand story going around that a friend, whose friend is a scientist, had viable scientific proof that God didn't exist, but that he was sitting on it because of the fracas it would generate, I'd dismiss it with extreme prejudice. |
Maybe all I'm saying is that it's possible you are throwing out a few good nuggets with the heaps of slag. I don't blame you though and I work through the same process all the time. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:27:06 PM · #867 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What he is saying (I think) is that even anecdotes can contain an element of truth and ought not be summarily dismissed. |
True, but hoaxes also contain an element of truth to keep them from being summarily dismissed. You'll find far more stories of prayer curing cancer on Snopes than you will in any medical literature.
Moreover, world religions are all bitterly territorial— Catholics don't officially regard Protestants as being on a path to heaven and vice-versa, yet I've never heard any miracle cure story note the specific religion of the healed. This is an important detail. If the claims are true, such stories would either lend credence to one particular denomination as the "right" one by the frequency of cures or utterly discredit the "one true path" claims of church leaders by their randomness. Since neither has happened, we must question the veracity of stories themselves. People who falsely claimed they had cancer or were pregnant are not exactly rare. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:28:19 PM · #868 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. |
So would a court. Hearsay is not evidence of anything. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 12:39:46 PM · #869 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. |
So would a court. Hearsay is not evidence of anything. |
You guys are so uptight. We use such evidence in our lives ALL THE TIME. If the guy at the gas station says he heard the ranger say the bridge on the highway was closed due to snow, do you just laugh in his face and yell "HEARSAY!" as you burn rubber out of the station? Of course not. You may take the advice or you may not, but you WILL pay attention to it and it WILL weigh in your decision. The statement "hearsay is not evidence of anything." is absurd in its finality unless you meant purely within the US court system. In that case, the statement is merely irrelevant.
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 12:40:21. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 01:10:03 PM · #870 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. |
So would a court. Hearsay is not evidence of anything. |
You guys are so uptight. We use such evidence in our lives ALL THE TIME. If the guy at the gas station says he heard the ranger say the bridge on the highway was closed due to snow, do you just laugh in his face and yell "HEARSAY!" as you burn rubber out of the station? |
No, but if the guy says the ranger told him the bridge was demolished by an enormous Mothra-like creature breathing fire, I might. Above story of miraculous cure caused by fervent prayer = story of bridge demolished by Mothra beast. If it strains credulity, bends the laws of physics, defies the natural experience of billions, or otherwise doesn't smell right, it demands better evidence than "someone said" and "I heard that such and such". |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 01:15:07 PM · #871 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No, but if the guy says the ranger told him the bridge was demolished by an enormous Mothra-like creature breathing fire, I might. Above story of miraculous cure caused by fervent prayer = story of bridge demolished by Mothra beast. If it strains credulity, bends the laws of physics, defies the natural experience of billions, or otherwise doesn't smell right, it demands better evidence than "someone said" and "I heard that such and such". |
Well, I don't disagree with this at all. I was just trying to provide a cautionary tale about the fact that most, if not all, people shape the facts around their worldview instead of the other way around. I'm guilty. You're guilty. We're all guilty. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 01:31:44 PM · #872 |
Originally posted by Louis:
if the guy says the ranger told him the bridge was demolished by an enormous Mothra-like creature breathing fire, I might. Above story of miraculous cure caused by fervent prayer = story of bridge demolished by Mothra beast. If it strains credulity, bends the laws of physics, defies the natural experience of billions, or otherwise doesn't smell right, it demands better evidence than "someone said" and "I heard that such and such". |
Exactly. Faith is inversely proportional to reason: where one exists, the other need not apply. If Achoo diagnosed someone with a severe peanut allergy on Friday, and that person walked into his office on Monday and downed a jar of Skippy with a soup spoon, it would create quite a stir. There are two unequivocal miracles with the cancer cure anecdote:
1. That such an event would occur without banner headlines in NEJM and guest appearances with Matt Lauer.
2. That any rational person would believe such a story in lieu of any such news coverage given its obvious significance. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 01:45:21 PM · #873 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There are two unequivocal miracles with the cancer cure anecdote:
1. That such an event would occur without banner headlines in NEJM and guest appearances with Matt Lauer.
2. That any rational person would believe such a story in lieu of any such news coverage given its obvious significance. |
But it's a chicken-and-egg problem with such agencies a priori assuming there must be an explanation so it isn't news and thus not covered. Miracles have been discussed before and I hold the position that even a real, bona fide miracle, would not provide the evidence a skeptic would seek. There would always be another level of evidence sought in order to perpetuate the viewer's current worldview. That's my position anyway, and I'm sticking to it. ;) |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 01:51:50 PM · #874 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it's a chicken-and-egg problem with such agencies a priori assuming there must be an explanation so it isn't news and thus not covered. |
That's a cop out (and patently false). There needn't be an explanation to make the news, and scientific journals post extraordinary findings all the time as unexplained mysteries. The doctor can submit before and after X-rays for discussion without any explanation, but you're apparently willing to accept a story at face value without even basic confirmation that it ever took place. The need to believe overrides common sense. That's where we differ.
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 13:53:30. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 02:06:38 PM · #875 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Miracles have been discussed before and I hold the position that even a real, bona fide miracle, would not provide the evidence a skeptic would seek. There would always be another level of evidence sought in order to perpetuate the viewer's current worldview. That's my position anyway, and I'm sticking to it. ;) |
Staying with the category of medical 'miracles' for a moment.
If you had sample showing cancerous cells, which disappeared before your eyes. At which stage in your scientific analysis would you attribute this to 'miracle'? Would you really reach a point where you felt you've exhausted all other explanations, therefore it must be a bona fide miracle.
Or.... Would you discount the possibility of miracle and continue your investigations in the hope of discovering some external factor has caused the cells to disappear? (Look, you could be passing up the cure for cancer because you thought it was a miracle!!!)
In other words, in your professional role, are you a skeptic?
|
|
