Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[Philbert]

From here on I'm quite sure it doesn't and we don't have the luxury of waiting for evolution to evolve it out of the human race before disparate irrational beliefs tear us a new one, so to speak.

Gentle and brief reminder, over the last 100 years at least, the main threat has come not from those who believe in a personal God, but from those who don't.

This is not necessarily predictive of what will happen next however....

[otseng]

It doesn't make it absolutely objectively right or wrong and I'm not sure why that's important unless one happens to be a person who cannot tolerate any grey area in their life.

Then would you agree that objective morality cannot exist in a secular worldview?

The fact that most humans on this planet believe in some "god" doesn't make it right or wrong just popular and supernaturalists are, currently, more popular yes.

Then likewise you cannot say that anything is really morally right or wrong. It would only be what's most popular and nothing more.

The group of people who determines how to treat one another is constantly growing. Thousands of years ago it was the family unit or the tribe. As the world shrinks through technology the group is becoming multicultural and we're seeing more agreement on how to treat on another across the globe.

Sure, but it still does not define how to determine morality.

Do you hear many people complain that without "objective" good health you could simply declare that vomiting all day was healthy?

I've never even heard of "objective" good health. Yes, people should be healthy. But objective good health?

I'll give a better example. The Bible states that divorce is bad. So, even if every marriage ends in divorce, it would still be considered bad.

Huh? You lost me.

I was giving an example of where God decreed something to be bad. And even if a majority of people think something is acceptable, it would still be considered morally bad.

Killing is generally wrong in most situations because most humans think it is but when it comes to selection(survival) killing is frequently thought to be justified by most humans. So yes, killing is not morally wrong in life and death situations. .

So, if most people think that killing is right, then it's considered morally right?

If most people think killing for some reason is right then it's right, yes. Most people consider killing in self defense to be just.

What if the majority thought it was OK to kill someone just because of their ethnicity?

Again, like most things, morality is fluid. I'm not sure why some people desire everything in life to be black and white because they're going to be disappointed at every turn.

I don't claim that morality is black and white. But, if the test for morality is what the majority accepts, then isn't that a case of black and white? Simply poll the population and the majority answer wins. Cased closed.

Maybe I should have said black and white forever as the bible would have us believe.

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

[otseng]

Now this is where I have a problem with that particular version of free will.

God is also supposed to be the 'CREATOR' god. And, if he had foreknowledge of how people would act before his act of creation, then, he either could have change things to they acted differerntly.... or is responsible for how they act now. IT is the 'knowledge before that act of creation' that makes it 'decreed'

I believe that God is outside of our space-time. He can interact with us in our space-time, but he is not bound by our space-time. Since he's outside of our time, he can equally look into any point in history and see what is happening without causally having any effect on it.

[otseng]

So this god knows everything but nothing is ordained? This god can be wrong about what it knows? If your god knows everything then there is only one path, the path that you take. At the end of that path there are apparently two options: Heaven/Hell. How can your god know everything, including your destination heaven/hell, without there being only one path?

To be clear, I did not say that nothing is ordained. I said not everything is decreed. God has ordained some things.

I explained in the above post about God being outside of time. If God was bound by time, then yes, I'd agree that if God knew everything then there'd be only one possible path for all of history to follow.

[otseng]

But the same thing could be said about religions. They too contain many cultural claims. For example, most every religion would agree that it's immoral to steal. But not every religion would agree that it's immoral to not believe in a specific God of another culture's religion or any commandments that might be specific regarding how that God would like to be worshiped, etc.

To be clear, I'm not saying that everything is morally objective. Certainly culture exists, even in different religions. But, unlike a secular worldview, religion/spirituality provides a basis for objective morality to exist.

It would still ultimately need to boil down to what humans subjectively feel makes moral sense to them.

I would not readily accept that a subjective feeling would lead to an objective truth.

An unknown absolute morality is a totally useless concept.

Well, for Christians, it is not unknown.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to push a concept of absolute morality onto everything.

All I'm stating is that absolute morality exists. I'm not saying that it has to be pushed on everything. I accept that culture and preferences exist. I also accept that subjective morality exists. But, where I go beyond what secularists can rationally accept is that objective morality also exists.

Fascism = government by a dictator, king, or even a dictating council that wasn't elected by the people.

This would not be a generally accepted definition of fascism.

Here are some accepted, secular definitions of fascism:

"Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

"political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 10/fascism

Free will is not required for absolute morality to exist. But free will is required if you're going to blame someone for not adhering to an absolute morality.

I think the difference is just in semantics. I think the concept of absolute morality would be meaningless in a world without free will.

This is why a "God" is required for absolute morality to exist. All morality is subjective. A God provides a subjective entity who supposedly has the ultimate authority to decide what should be moral or immoral.

That would also be just semantics. Likewise, I can say that the Kelvin temperature scale is subjective and just relative to zero degrees.

If God is the basis, then from our perspective, it would be an absolute reference. It is not subjective in terms that it is not determined relative to each person's preferences.

But, I would agree with your first statement that a god is required for absolute morality to exist.

[otseng]

Selection in evolution doesn't care (and doesn't even know) about logic. It's only filter is what can cause more reproductive advantage. It doesn't follow that this filter can produce beings that can be logical.

That's quite obvious with 3/4 of the world illogically believing in a personal god.

And obvious that naturalistic evolution would produce people that would believe in the supernatural.

Apparently, in the past, illogical god belief had some survival benefit.

Yes, precisely my point. Logic or illogic really has no bearing on survival benefit.

[Goat]

Now this is where I have a problem with that particular version of free will.

God is also supposed to be the 'CREATOR' god. And, if he had foreknowledge of how people would act before his act of creation, then, he either could have change things to they acted differerntly.... or is responsible for how they act now. IT is the 'knowledge before that act of creation' that makes it 'decreed'

I believe that God is outside of our space-time. He can interact with us in our space-time, but he is not bound by our space-time. Since he's outside of our time, he can equally look into any point in history and see what is happening without causally having any effect on it.

That makes absolutely no sense to me, nor does it change the problem with 'knowing what is going to happen',and being the 'creator god'.

That point is not addressed. The whole 'compatibism' vs 'incompataism' is why I don't think the concept of 'free will' is anything more than word games.

Then, to justify it, you have to talk about God being 'outside time'.. Sorry.. that just does not make sense at all. '

[Nilloc James]

Being uninfluenced by the natural doesn't mean it is free. Example: a god that controls everything.

So what actually is free?

You're right. A God that controls everything would not constitute free will either.

The only way there and be free will is if every conscious person who has free will is basically their own god.

To have a single overriding ego in the sky would not help with the concept of Free Will.

That's correct.

what about these "people-gods" makes them morally culpable if supernatural isn't enough?

I'll rephrase the question: what ability do "free people" have that "not free" people have?

[Divine Insight]

Fascism = government by a dictator, king, or even a dictating council that wasn't elected by the people.

This would not be a generally accepted definition of fascism.

I apologize. You're right. I misused the term to simply mean dictatorship. All dictatorships do not need to be fascism by the definitions of fascism that you have given.

The concept I was trying to get at is that there can only be basically two ways for a society to be governed. Either by the people, or by a dictatorial authority.

When governed by the people that would be rules that are a subjective consensus of the people.

When governed by a dictatorial body that would be rules that are subject to the dictatorial body.

In religion it is presumed that a God is the master dictator. Although since no one has any evidence of any God, that usually boils down to accepting ancient myths as being the "Word of God". And that can become extremely problematic.

Surely you can see that when using ancient doctrines as the "Word of God" there still exists much subjective interpretations concerning precisely what those doctrines are even claiming.

Surely you can also see that within Christiandom there is quite a wide berth of subjective opinions on this. From Catholicism to the myriad of countless denominations of Protestantism.

Currently we are witnessing radically new and different interpretations being made of Catholicism by this new Pope Francis, for example.

So when religious people speak of absolute morality the people who observe this from outside of these religions ask naturally going to ask, "Where?" Where do we see any consistency in views of absolute morality. Even the Christians are clearly exhibiting subjective interpretations of their own supposedly objective doctrines.

To be clear, I'm not saying that everything is morally objective. Certainly culture exists, even in different religions. But, unlike a secular worldview, religion/spirituality provides a basis for objective morality to exist.

I disagree for the reason I just gave above.

Religions and spiritual philosophies themselves are clearly subjective. Even in the case of those that are based on scriptures. Subjectivity still rules in the subjective interpretations that are being pushed onto those scriptures.

It would still ultimately need to boil down to what humans subjectively feel makes moral sense to them.

I would not readily accept that a subjective feeling would lead to an objective truth.

And I'm not suggesting that anything is objective.

That's not my agenda. That's your agenda.

An unknown absolute morality is a totally useless concept.

Well, for Christians, it is not unknown.

But collectively it is unknown for Christians. This is what I has just pointed out above. There is no such thing as an objective Christiandom that you can point to that has any major consensus on precisely what is or isn't moral.

Sure you can point to some major themes like the idea that all Christians consider it immoral to murder someone without just cause. But you are highly unlikely to get them to all agree on precisely what constitutes "just cause".

Some will claim that Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and that you should never kill anyone under any circumstance whatsoever, even if they are currently raping and murdering your family right before your very eyes.

Other Christians will claim that Jesus didn't expect anyone to be a fool and that if you need to kill someone to prevent them from harming or killing your family that's a perfectly moral thing to do.

There are many "Christians for Guns" enthusiasts.

So where is this Christian objective morality?

I claim that it doesn't exist. All that exists are a bunch of subjective individuals who push their own subjective morality onto the religion and pretend that their subjective views and opinions are backed up by an objective God.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to push a concept of absolute morality onto everything.

All I'm stating is that absolute morality exists. I'm not saying that it has to be pushed on everything. I accept that culture and preferences exist. I also accept that subjective morality exists. But, where I go beyond what secularists can rationally accept is that objective morality also exists.

But what good is that concept if you can't even point to it?

You can't just point to the Bible and say, "There it is" because everyone who reads those scriptures comes away with different subjective ideals of morality.

So where does this objective morality exist?

If you can't put your finger on it, then what sense does it make to claim that it exists?

Free will is not required for absolute morality to exist. But free will is required if you're going to blame someone for not adhering to an absolute morality.

I think the difference is just in semantics. I think the concept of absolute morality would be meaningless in a world without free will.

Well, you could be right. If you can't blame someone, then morality kind of loses it's meaning.

But consider the following: Imagine that we live in a world were absolute morality exists. Also imagine that it is absolutely immoral to kill and innocent person.

Now imagine that a storm kills a lot of innocent people. The storm has no free will. Does that then make the absolute morality meaningless?

Clearly we do live in a world where some animated forces have no free will. Unless you believe that all storms and natural disasters are caused by the will of God. But in that case, then God himself would be violating his own absolute morality.

This is why a "God" is required for absolute morality to exist. All morality is subjective. A God provides a subjective entity who supposedly has the ultimate authority to decide what should be moral or immoral.

That would also be just semantics. Likewise, I can say that the Kelvin temperature scale is subjective and just relative to zero degrees.

If God is the basis, then from our perspective, it would be an absolute reference. It is not subjective in terms that it is not determined relative to each person's preferences.

But, I would agree with your first statement that a god is required for absolute morality to exist.

Yes I do agree that a God would necessarily be required for absolute morality to exist.

However, I do not accept that if a God exists so also must absolute morality.

Even if a judgmental God exists, morality itself could still be relative, and contextual and actually quite different for each individual soul. In other words it wouldn't necessarily need to be carved in stone.


In fact, this actually leads us to a whole new concept:

Morality based on Actions, versus, Morality based on Intent

These are concepts worthy of discussion in great depth.

You keep speaking of a concept of absolute morality, but what does morality even mean?

Can morality be described by actions. Like "Thou shalt not kill".

Like as if killing someone is absolutely immoral. What if you accidentally kill someone, is that immoral?

What if you kill someone in self-defense? Is that immoral?

What if you kill someone because God told you do it (or at least you were convinced that God had told you to do it), is that immoral?

If God is the one who calls the shots on absolute morality then surely if God tells you to kill someone then this act would necessarily be moral because God himself is condoning it and even commanding that it be done.

So now we start to see where morality isn't about actions at all, but rather it's entirely about intent.

This is why it could potentially be immoral for you to have sex with a person of your own gender, but for someone else that may be a perfectly moral action.

Because actions don't constitute morality. Intend constitutes morality.

And if the intent is LOVE, then homosexuality would not be immoral.

So that's a whole new perspective on the very concept of morality.

Can absolute morality truly be based on nothing more than actions?

Or must it be based on intent?

I would personally say that it must be based on intent and not on actions.

So that's a whole new concept of morality altogether.

[olavisjo]

.

Can absolute morality truly be based on nothing more than actions?

Or must it be based on intent?

I would personally say that it must be based on intent and not on actions.

So that's a whole new concept of morality altogether.

• 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone
  who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
  
  Matthew 5:27-28

Jesus would agree with you, it is not the action of looking at a woman that is immoral, it is the intent of lust in your heart that makes it immoral.