107 karma · joined May 17, 2016
Having read Dawkins, my primary critique of him overall is that he regularly demonstrates a willful ignorance as to what religious people actually believe. He’s content to attack straw men and not the propositional truth claims at the heart of religious belief.
I tried Blue Apron once. So boring.
Most would call what I do boring, and some of it is. I do enjoy working with our clients, most of whom are easy going, like to shoot the shit and talk about the interesting designs and projects they are working on. Some of them have worked on some incredibly large projects in Houston and Dallas. I also enjoy digging into their contracts and offering non-legal advise to help them mitigate their risk.
Is it fulfilling? A little bit, but I realized that if I allow work to be my biggest defining factor, I'd probably be frustrated most of the time. I like my team, and others in my office, and I get paid very well for my market. I'm not overworked and have time to do other things that interest me. I spend a ton of time with my wife, and have a great community of friends.
My life as a whole is fulfilled. My job contributes to that, but I count it a small factor.
I drive a fairly fuel efficient car. Only fill up every week and a half. That's pretty good I think in my situation.
I'd be happy if Houston made it easier not to drive! Maybe I'll try to find activists working toward that end.
I mean, kind of. I'm not sure where the author lives, but in Houston, I don't have much of a choice. I already pay tolls and taxes, gas prices and my car note. I live as close to work as is affordable, and still have to drive. There's no bus route from my apartment and I'm not about to ride my bike on I-10. I ask this next question in seriousness, because I'd love to change my habits without moving to a more expensive city with good public transportation: what are my options here? I'd rather not be "disinsentivized" from doing something I have no choice but to do.
Web App Development and Computer Science. I don't plan on making it a career but I started learning to program a few years ago after reading The Innovators by Walter Isaacson and it turned into a healthy addiction. Right now I'm throwing together a video library, actually for my improv theater, with Django to search for videos by improv troupe. I'm also doing Harvard's online CS50 course because I want to dive a little deeper into the science of it all.
I left High School with a terrible taste in my mouth for math, which is partly why I dropped my STEM major for a liberal arts degree. Now in my late twenties, I am about to start taking math courses at a local community college. I think the hours I've put in debugging code has given me an enjoyment of being stuck for hours or days on end. Hopefully this will help me experience a renewed enjoyment of mathematics.
Maybe I missed it, but it seems the author of the article makes no distinction between natural and moral inability. Jonathan Edwards, in his work Freedom of the Will, puts forth the idea that a man chained to a chair is not morally unable to get up from the chair, but he is naturally unable.
The author mentions that a day laborer with no belief in free will are perhaps more likely to show up to work late. I don't necessarily doubt that's true, but they still bear moral responsibility. Unless he broke his leg on the way to work or something like that, there is no natural inability to be on time.
In the same vein, if an otherwise gentle and courteous person develops a brain condition that causes anger violent behavior, that is owing to a natural inability, not a moral one.
> The term "free will" is simply wrong. And it's not like "sunrise," which is likewise wrong but for everyday purposes the error is harmless.
I agree with you. Again, Edwards would state that our will is determined by our mind. We will to do whatever our mind finds most desirable at any given moment. The laborer who is consistently late to work desires an extra few moments on his couch at home more than the virtue of fulfilling his commitment to his boss. But in the absence of any natural inability, he bears moral responsibility for that choice.
You mentioned Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul is assuming a natural inability to do the right thing, which it seems to me he also assumes to be a moral inability. I suppose the question to be answered here is whether the desires of our mind are captive to natural forces, such as cause and effect, or whether have complete agency over our minds. Or both.