Scientific endeavor is concerned with a working body of knowledge, not solidifying history.
Religion is a primitive attempt at science, seeking to correlate causation with observed reality and lacking the structure to do so. Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your taste) religion has...
Fair enough. My fate, for the most part, is my own doing. Although this may not be the case for every individual on the planet, for me to think otherwise would be foolish. I may construct my life as I wish. There are obvious constraints regarding the limits of my endeavors, i.e. I cannot fly...
Obviously. If an individual chooses to change their life, they're "in charge." If not, they remain "in charge," yet inactive. Or possibly inert. Religious stuff seems to always be primed by the self-help aisle.
Neither. Free will is an illusory concept. Understandably, "freely exercising our will" is linked to a certain value which we place on humans. Without it, we don't seem so special anymore. Which says nothing about a greater power who must be capitalized or he'll be offended.
There's a lot going on there! Are you familiar with Rambo's Integrative Model? It's pretty interesting stuff re: religious conversion. Obviously, such things are highly personal, so no model can capture all associated factors, underlying causal relationships, etc. But, it does a decent job...
Fantastic! You have the floor, my friend. By all means, and please take as much time/space as you need, explain how it works. Be specific, because it aids in others understanding your point(s!)
Oh no. Not at all. What alternative futures exist? Those determined by human choice? We seem to keep missing each other here. I'll help you a bit. What determines those choices? Mechanisms aren't rules, I have no idea where you're headed there.
Right then..."forced" opinions do not count, but...
Thank you!
I apologize, however, "choosing" is not a methodology. There are several processes which occur prior to the experience of choice. Viz, choosing to believe in the existence of a soul is as epistemically valid for others as choosing to believe that Leprechaun's exist. It does not, in...
Fair enough! I assume I'll find it amongst such gems as:
"...but don't and can't see what it is that makes decisions turn out the way they do."
"...the conclusion that the soul does not exist is as valid as it does exist." *
And others! I think, somewhere, was some blip about faith and...
'Ello der!
I certainly may have missed an explanation here or there. My problem most likely has its genesis in your posts making limited sense. It certainly could be a comprehension issue on my part, though. Generally, I'm pretty decent, but admittedly have limited experience with individuals...
Sorry I missed it. If you and I are looking at the same painting, you find it beautiful and I do not, what mechanisms are involved for us to reach our conclusion? Do you view it as simply a matter of choice?
Howdy!
I did not reject your definition, but rather; your definition given in place of an example. I appreciate that you would like to repeatedly share your definition, however still request an example for reference.