Gay is not a choice, says the Mormon Church

[Sabby]

But they maintain that it is still Sinful. So basically, they've recognized homosexuality as a thing some people are born with and would like to offer their support and understanding while we await a solution.

I appreciate the step forward they're taking out of their little reality bubble, but really? I'm not sure whether to humor them with a polite clap or just simply ignore the gesture until they can give a proper one. If you need to amend 'you're choosing to burn in Hell' to 'You're just inherently Hellbound and we love you anyway' then I'm not sure you've made any progress at all.

The Mormon Church has launched a new website in an attempt to "encourage understanding" with gays and lesbians, an effort heralded by activists as a departure from the church's perceived hostility toward the LGBT community.

Presented as a “collection of conversations” with LDS leaders and Mormons “who are attracted to people of the same sex,” the website, mormonsandgays.org, launched Thursday.
The site includes an unusual statement for a major religious body: that sexuality, including same-sex attraction, is not a personal choice. But it maintains that acting on that attraction is still a "sin."
“What we do know is that the doctrine of the church – that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married – has not changed and is not changing,” Elder Quentin Cook said in statement announcing the site's launch. “But what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same-gender attraction.”

The website, which a spokesman said has been in production for more than two years, features a number of videos from top church leaders and gay and straight lay Mormons, who share their experiences counseling Mormons who suffer from AIDS and advising Mormon parents not to reject children who pursue a gay lifestyle.

The development of the site was launched only a short time after the Mormon Church encouraged its members to get involved in the high-profile fight over Proposition 8 -- a ban on gay marriage -- in California in 2008.

The church, which was blasted by the LGBT community at the time, has since ended directives that Latter-Day Saints should oppose civil rights for gay families. In 2009, it officially endorsed gay rights initiatives in Salt Lake City that stopped just short of civil unions or marriage.

“On this website we witness something that church leaders rarely do: admit that we’ve done things wrong in the past. In light of this, the clear admission that things need to change is particularly welcome, if long overdue," Spencer Clark, executive director for Mormons for Marriage Equality, said in an email to NBC News.

Public acceptance of gay marriage among all Americans has increased to record highs. A Gallup poll released Wednesday showed that 53 percent of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.

Year-to-year membership statistics for the Mormon church place it among the fastest-growing religions, with more than 5 million members in the U.S. and more than 14 million members worldwide, the church reported in early 2012.
Randall Thacker, president elect for Affirmation, an organization supporting gay and lesbian Mormons, said the site brings to surface the openness of the Mormon culture to adaptation.

“The church is adaptable because we have a worldwide religion, which brings in people every day from all different perspectives and frames of reference, and so we have to be able to have a church membership that is ready for change,” Thacker told NBC News.
For Clark, the website represents a turning point for his faith’s stance on homosexuality.

“Too often, gay Mormons and their families have felt that they had to choose between their loyalty to each other and to their church,” Clark said. “Latter-Day Saints have often described gay individuals as ‘struggling with same-sex attraction’ without considering whether the true test from God was on those who are straight to see if they would struggle loving those who are gay. We simply can’t claim to love God, and not love the gay children, parents or neighbors that he has placed in our lives.” 

Jim Dabakis, a former Mormon missionary and soon to be the only gay person in the state legislature, told the Salt Lake Tribune he’s thrilled with the new site.

“I give tremendous credit to the LDS Church,” Dabakis said. “This can’t have been easy,” acknowledging ever-improving relations between the Mormon church and the gay community.

Clark said he believes the website will help heal deep-seated wounds. 
“It is clear that church leaders have heard the voices and stories of so many Mormons who have been working to make things better for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and I believe this will help open the door to even greater progress in the future.”

[Missy]

Was Mormon for twenty two years.

It would certainly be a surprise if Mormonism acknowledged the possibility that homosexuality could be a natural in any way, in my opinion anyway. I could be completely wrong, but I don't think it would be very likely to happen. If it did then I doubt they would ever get over calling it a sin, I could always be wrong, but that's my take on it.


In any case in twenty two years, well there's nothing in that websites front page which sounds new to me. I'm not saying there isn't anything in the videos since I haven't seen them, any of them, yet, but on the front page it's all old news to me. It's one thing that's admirable about Mormonism, they ideally believe in loving everyone. In my own time 'enemy' would have been too strong a word for most people, even on the opposite end of the spectrum. This stuff just sounds more like making publicity about stuff any Mormon already knows to me.

I could be wrong and I won't say don't look into the videos, I think it's a good thing learning about different outlooks on life. You never know they might actually be changing for the better, just it's not obvious at a glance. I would only take a sign of change seriously if it came from a twelve or a First Presidency though, I suppose logically.

[vtboy]

The problem with getting any church to amend its moral teachings is the difficult job of convincing it either that: (i) those teachings did not come from god in the first instance, or (ii) god has changed its mind.

If, according to Mormon doctrine, engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but being a homosexual is not, one has to wonder what god's purpose was in burdening so many with a mandate to deny themselves the god-given joys of sexual intimacy. Worse, the mandate requires the abnegation of a fundamental imperative, sewn into our genes. 

Maybe it's just a Job thing.

[Callie Del Noire]

Church organizations are by nature very conservative, the Mormons are one of the most conservative ones out there. To have this much come out so soon after Prop 8.. that is a MAJOR concession and will enable change to continue to come in the coming years.

Don't expect acceptance this year.. or decade.. or the next. I don't see a major change in outlook in the Mormon church till a LOT of the current elders are in the ground..but this IS a concession and a willingness to move towards acceptance.

That being said.. I don't know if short term wise if it is a good thing. I see a LOT Mormon attempts at 'treating the problem' coming out of this. And anyone here on this board knows how bad some of those can go.

Overall .. long term this is a good first step.. just don't expect the next big concession before midcentury though. Barring some major changes.

[Caela]

The problem with getting any church to amend its moral teachings is the difficult job of convincing it either that: (i) those teachings did not come from god in the first instance, or (ii) god has changed its mind.

If, according to Mormon doctrine, engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but being a homosexual is not, one has to wonder what god's purpose was in burdening so many with a mandate to deny themselves the god-given joys of sexual intimacy. Worse, the mandate requires the abnegation of a fundamental imperative, sewn into our genes. 

Maybe it's just a Job thing.

Really you sort of answered your own comment along with your question/observation. A lot of churches, not just the Mormons, recognizes that certain impulses/drives/etc. are natural to feel but acting on them outside a specific set of parameters is still considered sinful. For example, sex in general (gay, straight, other) is considered a sin in most churches unless it is within the confines of a marriage. You can feel it, but you aren't supposed to act on it.

Just reading the OP, it looks like the Mormon church has put it's gay members on the same footing as it's single members...you can feel desire, but if you act on it with anyone but a spouse, you are going to Hell. It's a baby step in the right direction, which is better than no steps at all but I think that Callie is right and you probably won't get much more until the next generation of Elders steps up.

[vtboy]

Really you sort of answered your own comment along with your question/observation. A lot of churches, not just the Mormons, recognizes that certain impulses/drives/etc. are natural to feel but acting on them outside a specific set of parameters is still considered sinful. For example, sex in general (gay, straight, other) is considered a sin in most churches unless it is within the confines of a marriage. You can feel it, but you aren't supposed to act on it.

Just reading the OP, it looks like the Mormon church has put it's gay members on the same footing as it's single members...you can feel desire, but if you act on it with anyone but a spouse, you are going to Hell. It's a baby step in the right direction, which is better than no steps at all but I think that Callie is right and you probably won't get much more until the next generation of Elders steps up.

The prohibitions faced by homosexual are of a different sort. Heterosexuals may be required by their churches to delay sexual intimacy until marriage, but the LDS church and others bar heterosexual members from ever knowing sexual intimacy, at least of the sort impelled by their nature.

Unlike temporal governance, religious law is not generally conceived as grounded in utilitarian concerns or in majority sensibilities. It may be that the Mormons will eventually change their teachings on homosexuality to conform to the sea change in public attitude and may recognize homosexual marriage. But, what will their explanation be: that all these years they misunderstood god's rules? or that god suddenly changed those rules? 

[Caela]

IF they end up recognizing homosexual marriage then the, "We were wrong this whole time," line is most likely exactly what they'll use. It's a pretty traditional excuse when a religion of any flavor changes it's mind about things. In the end a Church has one thing in common with any other organization, if it doesn't (eventually) change with the times to keep itself relevant, it will preach itself out of existence.

[vtboy]

IF they end up recognizing homosexual marriage then the, "We were wrong this whole time," line is most likely exactly what they'll use. It's a pretty traditional excuse when a religion of any flavor changes it's mind about things. In the end a Church has one thing in common with any other organization, if it doesn't (eventually) change with the times to keep itself relevant, it will preach itself out of existence.

I wholly agree that the highest star in the constellation of any church, as with other organizations, is self-preservation. And this is what makes clerical professions of pious certainty and divinely revealed truth so damnable. Regrettably, until the epiphany of looming unemployment, church leaders do a great deal of harm. 

[Deamonbane]

I wholly agree that the highest star in the constellation of any church, as with other organizations, is self-preservation. And this is what makes clerical professions of pious certainty and divinely revealed truth so damnable. Regrettably, until the epiphany of looming unemployment, church leaders do a great deal of harm. 

Most of the larger denominations, my friend, are built to make money. And to make money, people need to buy their products. So, what the hell did you think they were going to do? It never ceases to amaze me how sensationalist some people can be about religion, as if they expected that people that are religious to be perfect, and not different from other people that want to be rich, despite their claims. I don't recall people getting all hyped up about Political leaders when what they do is make money, and the continually spout on about the good of others... please... However, when people take advantage of their positions of power to enforce something on people that they wouldn't have wanted otherwise, then it is the time to get the snowball rolling.

As for myself, I don't see any reason to be a part of any denomination, and the way I read it, Jesus said," Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thine soul, and with all thine mind. This is the first and great Commandment, and the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". Translation: So long as what you are doing is in love, and/or not hurting anybody or blatantly disrespecting God in any way, it the precise opposite of a sin (The exact word escapes me right now). Homosexuality, so long as it is done in love and not hurting anybody, or not doing it for the reason of disrespect to someone, then what is the big deal? While it is not particularly what I would go for (You could say I wasn't born that way), I really don't see what churches have against it.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm curious as to what sort of changes will have to occur for the Vatican to unclench on the truckload of issues it has.

[Deamonbane]

People leaving en mass...

[Callie Del Noire]

People leaving en mass...

That's already happening in some areas.  I know in Ireland there is a big decline in the Catholic Church after the fallout of the investigation into church abuses where at least one order was given blanket immunity.

[Deamonbane]

Problem is (these aren't real statistics, mind... just assumptions) that a huge majority of the Latin American countries are still very much Catholic in majority, except maybe Argentina and Chile, which, in the questions of numbers, make Ireland seem a bit less major...

[vtboy]

Most of the larger denominations, my friend, are built to make money. And to make money, people need to buy their products. So, what the hell did you think they were going to do? It never ceases to amaze me how sensationalist some people can be about religion, as if they expected that people that are religious to be perfect, and not different from other people that want to be rich, despite their claims. I don't recall people getting all hyped up about Political leaders when what they do is make money, and the continually spout on about the good of others... please... However, when people take advantage of their positions of power to enforce something on people that they wouldn't have wanted otherwise, then it is the time to get the snowball rolling.

First, since I am not your friend, your use of the term is condescending. Please don't do it again.

Second, I have no illusions about clerics being better than anyone else, and don't know how you could possibly have gotten that from my post.

Third, my outrage is not fueled by expectations of better behavior from clerics. Rather, it is fueled by the special brand of arrogance and cruelty displayed by those who presume to proclaim god's judgment on homosexuals.

Fourth, I get plenty "hyped up" about the bad behavior of politicians, too. But, this is a thread about Mormon church doctrine on homosexuality.

[Callie Del Noire]

Problem is (these aren't real statistics, mind... just assumptions) that a huge majority of the Latin American countries are still very much Catholic in majority, except maybe Argentina and Chile, which, in the questions of numbers, make Ireland seem a bit less major...

It's not just Ireland.. I use it because I am following it. You got a LOT of Europe following, America and even in the 'strong holds' of South America..their abuses and rigid standing on specific issues and tendacy to cover up their mistakes rather than clean house are starting to have an effect. You got molesting priests being sent down to South America now.. three decades from now? The 'stronghold' nations of the Catholic faith might not be so kind towards them.

Clashes between Catholic Doctrine and the people of those nations are already starting. Excommunicating a doctor for saving a little girl's life from a failed pregnancy while supporting the molesting step father?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/25/490171/brazil-excommunication-for-abortion/?mobile=nc

[Deamonbane]

First, since I am not your friend, your use of the term is condescending. Please don't do it again.

Second, I have no illusions about clerics being better than anyone else, and don't know how you could possibly have gotten that from my post.

Third, my outrage is not fueled by expectations of better behavior from clerics. Rather, it is fueled by the special brand of arrogance and cruelty displayed by those who presume to proclaim god's judgment on homosexuals.

Fourth, I get plenty "hyped up" about the bad behavior of politicians, too. But, this is a thread about Mormon church doctrine on homosexuality.

I didn't mean it as condescending, and I apologize since it came out as such.

You didn't say it outright, but you presented the idea that self preservation being the highest goal of churches as being something surprising, something that one wouldn't expect from someone that is somehow supposed to be better than the next guy... that was how I read it, anyway.

Your outrage is misplaced. Everyone is arrogant when presenting points that they perceive themselves to be more knowledgeable in, is you yourself demonstrated in your 'outrage'. Everyone has the right to believe as they wish, and selectivity of certain groups, while deplorable, is nothing new, presented in men's clubs, women meetings, etc.(The precise names are a bit vague, sorry). If homosexuals are not accepted in a certain church, while that is an outrage, I know of no reason why they don't just leave that church, in favor of one that accepts them without discrimination. If they really feel the need to change the church, don't sensationalize it. Bring it to the proper authorities.

I apologize for having strayed from the topic of this thread.

It's not just Ireland.. I use it because I am following it. You got a LOT of Europe following, America and even in the 'strong holds' of South America..their abuses and rigid standing on specific issues and tendacy to cover up their mistakes rather than clean house are starting to have an effect. You got molesting priests being sent down to South America now.. three decades from now? The 'stronghold' nations of the Catholic faith might not be so kind towards them.

Clashes between Catholic Doctrine and the people of those nations are already starting. Excommunicating a doctor for saving a little girl's life from a failed pregnancy while supporting the molesting step father?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/25/490171/brazil-excommunication-for-abortion/?mobile=nc

The problem with that is that stories such as these rarely, if ever, make it to the front pages of newspapers and the television, where they belong, due to the fact that many of the news agencies around here are very tightly held by the Catholic Church, which slows down the process considerably.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's happening though Brazil is actually two sorts of cultures. .you got a very large progressive elements in the larger cities and a very conservative rural element. There is a clash between the two of them.

[Skynet]

I'm just going to weigh in, but the pro/anti-LGBT rights divide in the US is very much a generational one.  From what I hear, even many young Mormons are more supportive of gay and lesbian people in general and don't feel threatened by them.  The LDS Church, like many other churches, has had to make major changes in their ideology over the years to avoid losing members.  But this statement might be a way of "having it both ways," so to speak, instead of a march towards progressiveness.  The Church still views homosexuality/bisexuality as a sin, but they're willing to acknowledge that it's not a conscious decision on the part of the individual.

[TaintedAndDelish]

If they just accepted the fact that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality in the first place, then the bit about it being choice or not would be irrelevant.  They are confused because they are still trying to justify their religious beliefs. Its nice to see these folks taking a step in the right direction at least.

I wonder if there is another angle to this though. I had read some time ago, that with polygamy, unmarried males are valued less due to the higher demand for women. If this is so, and forgive me if I'm incorrect t about that, would the validation of a homosexual lifestyle help build their community?

[Oniya]

Except that the LDS (not to be confused with the FLDS) doesn't practice polygamy any more.

[Skynet]

What Oniya said.  Not only that, it was weeded out with extreme prejudice.  The LDS Church was pressured to get rid of polygamy in 1890 in order to become a US state (Utah).  Practicing polygamy is grounds for excommunication, which is pretty much social suicide for Mormons in LDS communities.

Polygamy is illegal in the rest of the United States as well.

[Oniya]

Thinking a little more along those lines, the secular reasoning behind the Leviticus condemnation is that the ancient Israelites were a small, nomadic tribe, in which every additional life was necessary for survival.  (This also explains the sin of Onan - which was actually coitus interruptus, and the acceptance of polygamy in the Old Testament, along with the 'unclean' times for heterosexual intercourse.)

The early Mormon church had the same sort of issues as they moved westward and eventually settled in Utah - which wasn't incredibly prime real estate at the time.  Perhaps this is at least a token acknowledgement that we no longer need to worry about that 'Go forth and multiply' bit as much.

[band in the rain]

Oh, how cute, they're talking about choice....  funny how they never think about their choice of religion, and furthermore, their RIGHT to that choice, and heck, the right to keep having a moral code told to them rather than built up.

Oh, I didn't read the thread... shows what kind of autopilot can form so far as reacting to this sort of thing.

[Dashenka]

Should we still spend our time and breath on brainless imbeciles who call this?

The Catholics, the Mormons, the Muslims, Protestants... they all wildy swing at minority groups because they are rapidly becoming one themselves.

Calling out this kind of things is exactly why I stopped being religious. Selfish b*stards who have to resort to little children or cults. That says it all.

[RubySlippers]

There is one good thing about this families of gay members don't have to disown them which is likely what would happen as long as the person abstains for sex with the same gender, its not nice but to a Mormon the sex part might be a smaller price to pay for the staying in the faith part.

[Skynet]

There is one good thing about this families of gay members don't have to disown them which is likely what would happen as long as the person abstains for sex with the same gender, its not nice but to a Mormon the sex part might be a smaller price to pay for the staying in the faith part.

I hear this a lot from conservative Christian groups, but I don't buy it.  Simply having same-sex feelings is enough to cause ostracism; they don't need to be sexually active to face shunning.

[Oniya]

That's because most people, on a gut level, can't wrap their heads around the idea of someone choosing to abstain from sex.  It's either a 'Gee, that sucks' reaction, or an 'I don't believe anyone has that kind of control' reaction.

Never mind the fact that most of these same conservative groups preach the 'abstinence only' method of preventing teen pregnancies.

[Sabby]

Abstinence only as birth control... that's like starvation as protection from choking.

[Oniya]

Except abstinence won't kill you on its own.  ;)

[Caela]

Abstinence only as birth control... that's like starvation as protection from choking.

You do have to admit though, that both are very effective at preventing what they seek to prevent! :)

Teaching abstinence only is just stupid. Why people don't want to arm their kids with the best information they can, so that their children can make an informed decision about something as important, and possibly dangerous, as sex is just beyond my ability to understand. My mini is going to go into making her choices about sex knowing about STI's and pregnancy and how to prevent both along with the fact that it's a lot of fun with the right partner and that she has the right to tell anyone, "No." Hell, if she tells me when she's ready I'll schedule her an appointment with my own GYN to get on the Pill and start her yearly exams since she should be having them if she's active.

In this day and age, I just don't get why people hold so tightly to antiquated notions that having us judging our children. Why is them not having sex, or having the "right" kind of sex, more important than them simply being happy??

[Oniya]

Castration is also an excellent preventative for teen pregnancies, but no one in their right mind is going to put that one on the table.

[Caela]

Castration is also an excellent preventative for teen pregnancies, but no one in their right mind is going to put that one on the table.

Ackkkk....

[TaintedAndDelish]

Slightly related, I was watching an interesting talk about determinism on youtube recently. While I don't fully agree with determinism, or perhaps don't fully understand it ( ie. how choice making is possible in a strictly deterministic universe ), the discussion did bring out some interesting points of view concerning this. Take the following into consideration:

If we don't really have full-blown "free will", but rather more limited version of free will. If our choices, decisions, and actions stem more from the creatures that we are than from our conscious minds. If indeed, we are who and what we are - not entirely because of our own personal choice, but more for reasons that we were not in control of ( ie,. you never chose to be the physical person that you are. You never chose your environment, or to have your particular moods and brain chemistry from which your choices and ideas flow ) then some of what we do has to be chalked up to who and what we are.

Bears sometimes kill people, however, we don't just wipe out all bears because they are potentially dangerous - rather we develop a healthy respect for them and give them their space. They are not seen as evil, rather, its just in their nature to be dangerous or whatever - its part of being a bear. People on the other hand, are not held to an equally fair standard that takes their nature into consideration. It's assumed that people are equally capable of fitting into and adhering to some silly *norm* ( that some sadly misguided know-it-all made up).

People who are gay or straight are most likely so because of factors that they never chose, likewise those who are straight are not straight strictly because they they are *moral* or because they decided to be ( though they may tend to disagree *cough* cackle *snort* ). There are some folks who change their orientation at some point, so this explanation is not a perfect fit for all cases - at least, not in simplest terms.

By the same token, those who are religious and are members of stuck up, greater-than-thou religious groups may not have chosen that path either. They didn't choose their parents, their environment, their nature, alignment, etc.. so they are religious twits for reasons that are not their doing for the most part - perhaps some of it is conscious choice, but certainly not all. It seems that if you factor in each person's nature, then its a tiny bit easier to be little more tolerant.  ( And yes, this is coming from someone who's guilty of being rather intolerant of religious folks. )

[Caela]

I think we expect more from the people than the bear, because people, unlike the bear, have the self-awareness to say, "I know this is wrong, I won't do it," despite their instincts telling them to do something. A bear will simply live according to it's drives and instincts without that same level of awareness. I expect more from a human being than I do from a bear.

I don't think our "free will" is limited by circumstances beyond our control, it just means that we have to determine how we are going to choose to react to those things. Will we accept, them, fight against them, pause and wait to see what happens next? Things like our sex, our parents, our family are all things we don't choose but we do get to choose how we react to those things. This might just be a matter of semantics and POV on free will though.

Let's be realistic, people are capable of fitting into the "norm" if they choose to. For generations it's what they did regardless of how they might have personally felt about it, because to not fit into the norm could mean being ostracized from society or death depending on time period and the culture they were from. In some places in our own world it still means that. Part of the problem we face today is that a lot of the rule (particularly those of the Abrahamic religions) were made for a tribal people of small numbers trying to survive in a desert. In that time, in those circumstances, life was about survival and if everyone didn't do their part to contribute to the tribe (including via procreation) then the tribe could die out. A prohibition against sex that didn't aid in procreation does make some sense when survival of an entire people is on the line.

The problem is that these rules got codified into a religion instead of being allowed to stretch, and expand, or simply break, as they became unnecessary. We obviously don't have a need, in our current place in the world, for every man and woman to pass along their genes. We have enough people on this world that survival isn't really an issue and neither is genetic diversity. The old taboos seem, and are, silly for our circumstances. Unfortunately, religious fanatics have decided to cherry-pick which rules are still relevant and which aren't.

I think this clip from the West Wing is a good example of such rules that no longer fit our current world. It also just amuses the hell out of. :)

I'm going to just flat disagree about religious twits not choosing to be religious twits. I know a number of people of faith who are not religious twits at all because they choose not to be. They know the background of their faith and have chosen faith in a Diety that makes sense to them, while discarding rules that make no sense for people in a modern world. Being a close minded, ignorant twit (religious or otherwise) may not start out as a choice. It may start as it simply being the way you were raised, but when you are presented with information counter to what you thought you knew, and choose to bury your head in the sand against it, then being an ignorant twit has become a choice.

I was actually going somewhere with all that but I got distracted by my mini and have lost it! lol If I remember the end point I was going toward I'll come back and edit, but for now I'll just leave it there. :)

[Cthonig]

   As others have said, it is a very tiny step sort of in the right direction. While some religions are making progress, it would be nice if all religions were at least making small efforts rather than some still spewing lies and denials.

   I have to share these lines from the movie "Latter Days", a gay romance where one of the guys is a Mormon:
Father: "I wish my shame was enough for both of us. Not to mention the shame you've brought to this church, our family, our ancestors."
Gay son: "Wait a minute, our ancestors? Dad, your grandfather had half a dozen wives. ... I'd say we were the original definition of alternative lifestyle."
Father: "Are you calling us hypocrites?"
Gay son: "No, we've gone way beyond hypocrisy, Dad, now we're just being mean."

   Jacqueline Bisset has several wonderful lines in the movie but this is the one that best applies here: "Your church [LDS] doesn't like alcohol or homosexuals. Well I'm definitely not joining. I can't imagine heaven without both."

   I generally don't like romance movies because of the rampant stupidity and artificial "reasons" the couple can't just be together. But I enjoyed this movie greatly. I felt this was well written and intelligent. There are some beautiful moments, some tragic and heart wrenching moments and a wonderful knitting together of seemingly unrelated storylines. Plus some good music.

[Caehlim]

While I don't fully agree with determinism, or perhaps don't fully understand it ( ie. how choice making is possible in a strictly deterministic universe )

Forgive the minor diversion from the thread topic, however since I consider myself a determinist I thought I'd answer this.

When people make a choice, it's an entirely deterministic phenomenon. Let's picture a simple choice, though it really applies to any choice, and imagine someone in a supermarket trying to decide between pepsi and coke.

From a psychological view, the person is thinking about which one they like better, their experiences they've had with them, the marketing campaigns they remember and how much the two items cost. Eventually they make a decision and pick one up.

From a physical view, within the person's brain trillions upon trillions of chemical and electrical interactions are occurring within the brain as various neurotransmitters and neurons do their respective things. The whole time each atom within the brain is following the laws of physics and chemistry. As an eventual result of these interactions, an electrochemical signal goes down the spine into the nerves in the arm, triggering the muscles to move and pick up one of the bottles.

These aren't two different processes, they're the same thing viewed in two different ways. It's like I could say, "The other night my World Of Warcraft character fought a dragon" which is true from one point of view. It's equally true to say "The other night, my computer's circuit boards flowed with electricity in a complex pattern that I interpreted as symbolically representing a night elf fighting a dragon".

People still "make choices" in a deterministic universe, it's just caused by physical phenomena that could theoretically be predicted if you have enough information.

[Oniya]

People still "make choices" in a deterministic universe, it's just caused by physical phenomena that could theoretically be predicted if you have enough information.

Just like the weather - if only you could track down all those blasted butterflies.  *chuckle*

[TaintedAndDelish]

 I get this perspective, but to say that choice is effectively an illusion doesn't sit very well with me.  If our choices are strictly inevitable reactions to previous conditions then I don't think I would call them choices.  It seems that this would make choice no different from any other thought.

It would be interesting to see if there was some concrete experiment that could be done to prove or disprove this, but then one could argue that you conducted this experiment out of necessity - that it wasn't a choice, but rather the next event in a predetermined domino effect.  This is starting to resemble the argument of whether or not there is a god. Something smells fishy.

(Edit:  Sorry, but it was bound to happen :p )

[Caehlim]

*snip* I get this perspective, but to say that choice is effectively an illusion doesn't sit very well with me. I don't like the consequences of that assertion. *snip*

I'm not going to respond point by point, because I get the overall meaning of what you're saying and will try to respond to it in two sections. Let me know if I've misunderstood.

When I first started seeing the evidence for determinism, I had many of the same concerns. It's taken me a lot of time thinking about it to try to come to terms with what it really means, I'll try to share what I came up with and see if it helps you feel a bit more comfortable with it.


Part 1
The human experience


Imagine if I stab my finger with a sharp needle. The process follows the physical laws and we can describe it all scientifically very easily. The needle displaces some of the substance making up my finger causing an injury and also a signal in the nerves that conduct pain. But such a clinical look completely ignores the human reality of what that pain feels like, and what it means to me to experience it. We all understand pain, but only because we've all experienced it, there's no scientific explanation we can use to help someone understand pain if they don't know what it's like.

Likewise if a mugger puts a gun to my head and says "Your money or your life", I'm going to feel something different. I'm going to be afraid of what might happen, I'm going to start anticipating possible future outcomes and weigh their possibility. We can scientifically describe how this happens in the brain just as easily as we can describe what's happening with the needle pricking my finger. Once again though, there is the human reality. The feeling we experience that we call 'choice'. Like the needle, it usually involves pain because unfortunately that's a lot of what life is. It's caused and explainable through entirely physical, natural reality but that doesn't capture what it means to us when we experience a choice.

It's easy to feel that scientifically explaining how choices are made cheapens them and it can if you let it. But only academics in ivory towers would imagine that the scientific explanation is all that matters and that you can disregard the human experience. For people in the real world, the human reality is so obvious and we all understand it that it doesn't need explanation, the science just covers what's left over.


Part 2
Responsibility


I don't have to tell you that you really do have to make choices. Whatever science discovers over the next three thousand years, we've all been there and we know how choices work. Yes, we can explain now how it happens and yes theoretically the result was predetermined all along. It doesn't change that process we have go through where we decide what to do.

Just because the ending of the book is already written, doesn't mean we don't have to still turn the pages to get there.

Also, yes, it's kind of unfair that with the end result already determined we have to put in that kind of effort. But that's because that effort was already included in the end result. If I ask my best friend to do me a favour and clean the kitchen, I might know them so well that the result was predetermined. I had confidence in them (because of my knowledge of their character) and knew that they would put in the effort to get it done. Doesn't mean they put in any less effort to do it, just because I knew they would.

And yes, we could make the decision to shoot someone. Yes, that decision would have been predetermined. It will still require the same effort from us to make and action that choice. We'll still have to live with the consequences. So yes, you still do have to try to make the right choices, even though the result was predetermined.



In short, determinism doesn't really change anything about the human experience, and why should it? Assume for a moment that it's true, just as a thought experiment. What would you do differently and why?

(The only change it's made in my life is it's made it a lot easier to forgive people.)

[Caehlim]

Additional response, post edit.

It would be interesting to see if there was some concrete experiment that could be done to prove or disprove this,

Yes falsifiability is important to any scientific theory. Fortunately it's easier than you think. You can disprove determinism and prove the existence of choice easily by finding a single neuron firing in the human brain without any underlying physical cause.

but then one could argue that you conducted this experiment out of necessity - that it wasn't a choice, but rather the next event in a predetermined domino effect.

I don't understand why this would invalidate the result.

This is starting to resemble the argument of whether or not there is a god. Something smells fishy

I don't see the resemblance or smell the fish personally.

I'm not personally invested in you believing in determinism or not. It won't save your soul and preaching it won't get me into heaven. But you were curious and this is something I've thought about a lot, I'm happy to share it with you and hope that it helps you in some way.

I don't know how well I explained my thoughts on the subject, but at the end of the day, I don't think you should take my word for it. Think about it yourself and come up with your own conclusions. I only hope that I've given you a bit more food for thought.

[Cthonig]

Yes falsifiability is important to any scientific theory. Fortunately it's easier than you think. You can disprove determinism and prove the existence of choice easily by finding a single neuron firing in the human brain without any underlying physical cause.

But that isn't correct. What you are giving an example of is magic/divine intervention or a magical free will. The only way to prove determinism is to make a perfect copy of the universe and start all the copies running at the same time and see if there is any divergence. If there isn't any at all anywhere then reality is deterministic. If there are any divergences then the universe is stochastic.
    In the mean time, the logical choice is to accept the universe as stochastic - it is predictable but it is not predetermined.

    Relevent subjects which explain part of why there is choice in what is to some a seemingly deterministic universe: chaos theory, emergent complexity. But I won't go into them since that would be an even further divergence form the thread topic.

[Caehlim]

But that isn't correct. What you are giving an example of is magic/divine intervention or a magical free will.

You're quite correct and it's a good point. I'll address it again later in this post.

The only way to prove determinism is to make a perfect copy of the universe and start all the copies running at the same time and see if there is any divergence. If there isn't any at all anywhere then reality is deterministic. If there are any divergences then the universe is stochastic.
    In the mean time, the logical choice is to accept the universe as stochastic - it is predictable but it is not predetermined.

I don't see any reason why stochastic is any more or less the logical default choice than deterministic. I will admit that my preference for deterministic is aesthetic more than anything else. I'm not 100% sold on determinism either and am quite willing to accept the possibility of a stochastic universe. The available evidence seems to support either quite well. And as you described in your first line, the test required to prove it one way or the other seems like it would be a difficult engineering challenge to say the least.

However returning back to your original point. While I agree that you're correct, I don't think the universe being Stochastic makes free will any more possible than it would be in a deterministic universe.

Your actions being determined by the rolls of your GM's d20 isn't choice, it's just random. The kind of choice people are talking about sound like magical free will to me, if they disregard causal reality and don't function based on brain chemistry and prior circumstance.

Relevent subjects which explain part of why there is choice in what is to some a seemingly deterministic universe: chaos theory, emergent complexity. But I won't go into them since that would be an even further divergence form the thread topic.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for emergent complexity generating conscious thought. I admit though I would love to hear your thoughts on it. But you're right, this is hardly the time or place.

Still I'd be happy to talk about it any time you like.

[Cthonig]

    My understanding of the different aspects we're discussing is that deterministic is at one end and free will is at the other with stochastic in the middle. The extremes are very unlikely to be real while the middle is the most logical possibility.
    I wasn't sure if I should even discuss this since I've met some determinists who believed in determinism with a religious fervor. I'm glad to see that you take a reasonable approach.
    Another part of why I don't accept determinism (other than it not being logical to me) is that it presents IMO a very negative view in that there is nothing that can be done to change things. I foolishly cling to the hope we can change things for the better even when it looks IMO like the rabid religious are going to try to drag all of us down into a new dark ages.
    The attempts by the religious extremists to get their religious beliefs taught in schools as an alternative to science worries me. That they've succeeded in some places scares me. While LGBT efforts have succeeded in some areas, scary people are working hard to IMO begin the fourth reich.
    What I really want is a way to get decent, normal people who happen to be religious to see the extremists for the problems that they are.

[Caehlim]

My understanding of the different aspects we're discussing is that deterministic is at one end and free will is at the other with stochastic in the middle. The extremes are very unlikely to be real while the middle is the most logical possibility.

Hmm, I actually considered them to be on a different axis to one another, but yeah I see what you mean.

I wasn't sure if I should even discuss this since I've met some determinists who believed in determinism with a religious fervor. I'm glad to see that you take a reasonable approach.

I haven't done enough research into a lot of the ideas about randomness that are being explored in quantum physics to really consider myself qualified to have all the answers. Determinism seems consistent with what I've seen of how things work (particularly on the macro-level), but I could very easily be wrong.

Another part of why I don't accept determinism (other than it not being logical to me) is that it presents IMO a very negative view in that there is nothing that can be done to change things.

I like to think that our eventual victory over human suffering and misery and the eventual golden age of mankind is inevitable and already predetermined, but I'm an optimist that way. :P

I foolishly cling to the hope we can change things for the better even when it looks IMO like the rabid religious are going to try to drag all of us down into a new dark ages.
    The attempts by the religious extremists to get their religious beliefs taught in schools as an alternative to science worries me. That they've succeeded in some places scares me. While LGBT efforts have succeeded in some areas, scary people are working hard to IMO begin the fourth reich.
    What I really want is a way to get decent, normal people who happen to be religious to see the extremists for the problems that they are.

While I agree that there are a lot of scary folk around, I think that they've come out of the woodwork and are pushing so hard because they're scared of how progressive the world has been lately. Look at all the great stuff happening in America right now, with several states legalizing gay marriage, the US president openly speaking in favour of gay equality.

I personally think the religious extremists are trying so hard because they realize that the average man on the street just isn't willing to accept the excuses for religious extremism or corruption any more.

Over here in Australia there were the same child-abuse cases happening within the catholic church and getting covered up by the church hierarchy that was happening everywhere else and people were saying nothing could get done about it because the people involved were too high up and protected for the police. So our government just declared a Royal Commission to investigate, giving it massive powers and support to try to crack the code of silence that was occurring on these crimes.

[Cthonig]

I hope for the best but expect the worst. That way, what happens is usually somewhere in the middle.

The Royal Commision is excellent news, thank you, I hadn't heard about that yet.

[Caehlim]

The Royal Commision is excellent news, thank you, I hadn't heard about that yet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/gillard-launches-royal-commission-into-child-abuse/4367364

[Love And Submission]

Personally , I don't  understand how people can disbelieve in determinism.'


I look at it like this , you breathe oxygen. You didn't make that choice. Evolution  or God (whichever you believe) made the choice. It was determined long before you existed and you absolutely no say it and you still don't.


I don't think your life was written out from the day you were created but I   would say I know for a fact that certain parts were determined without so-called Free Will.

I don't think most people chose to die but it's pre-determined  from the day you're born that you're  going to die.



I understand that people like Free Will and want to Believe but I think that it's easier for me to see a Deterministic universe then one of free will.



I can't choose tomrrow that I want to be taller or black or  have long nose. All these things were pre-determined and free will had absolutely no say in them.

[Cthonig]

Evolution  or God (whichever you believe) made the choice.

Evolution doesn't make choices. It is a process.

The rest of your points do not apply to the basic discussion for or against determinism. Also, I also don't accept "free will". While we can make choices (negating determinism), they are from a limited selection of possibilities based on the factors of our lives (negating "free will") with nanoscopic random changes due to subatomic variations adding a tiny bit of chance.


Caehlim, IIRC I read about the more local investigation issues in NSW. I didn't watch the videos because my computer is being uncooperative but I found the articles encouraging. It would be nice to see the same sort of thing happen here in the USA but I don't think it likely.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I suppose if determinism is true, then it doesn't really change anything. Perhaps it suggests that the notion that we are the masters of our destiny is a little flawed. I agree with your point on forgiveness and tolerance, though.

Additional response, post edit.

Yes falsifiability is important to any scientific theory. Fortunately it's easier than you think. You can disprove determinism and prove the existence of choice easily by finding a single neuron firing in the human brain without any underlying physical cause.

Interesting... OK, I'm a little more in favor of determinism now.  It tastes bad, but seems to make logical sense.

I don't understand why this would invalidate the result.

I don't see the resemblance or smell the fish personally.

Sorry, Brainfart.

I'm not personally invested in you believing in determinism or not. It won't save your soul and preaching it won't get me into heaven. But you were curious and this is something I've thought about a lot, I'm happy to share it with you and hope that it helps you in some way.

I don't know how well I explained my thoughts on the subject, but at the end of the day, I don't think you should take my word for it. Think about it yourself and come up with your own conclusions. I only hope that I've given you a bit more food for thought.

You've explained your thoughts quite well. Thank you :-)