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?

[Peter]

20,000 years ago there was no higher law than natural selection. Today there's precious little natural selection so, no, natural selection isn't the highest law. What we have today is artificial selection and the technology to wipe out vast swaths of humanity in an instant. Today the least fit reproduce the most but also die the most. We have completely subverted natural evolutionary processes.

So, humans are exempt from evolution because he has the ability kill a large number of people?

Exempt? No. Just pointing out the tiny roll "natural" selection has on us these days. The ability to wipe out a significant portion of the human gene pool is just one example of our ability to wield artificial selection.

Just like any life form, we will never be exempt from Evolution but the selective forces driving evolution which were natural are steadily being replaced by artificial selective forces.

I've never encountered a definition of evolution where it included artificial selection. But, no matter.

Let's call it artificial evolution instead of natural evolution. It still works the same no matter where the selective pressures originate.

How about we just use the general term "selection" and disregard whether it's natural or artificial? Wouldn't selection be the highest guiding principal then for all human behavior? My point is, if this is so, then would selection supercede morality?

Fair enough, yes, selection which is essentially survival would supersede morality. If you were part of the Donner party would you cannibalize another to survive or would you refuse on moral grounds and remove your genes from the pool? Most people would choose not to die for their morals. Survival is a very strong motivator and pushes morality around at will. IMO morality appears to be just what we mostly agree on right now.

[Philbert]

IMO morality appears to be just what we mostly agree on right now.

Perhaps morality is the realistic recognition that human beings are an intensely social species, and to a very large degree, we sink or swim together.

[woodpen]

IMO morality appears to be just what we mostly agree on right now.

Perhaps morality is the realistic recognition that human beings are an intensely social species, and to a very large degree, we sink or swim together.

How can you claim that your reason is qualified to comment on such an important question?

[otseng]

Fair enough, yes, selection which is essentially survival would supersede morality. If you were part of the Donner party would you cannibalize another to survive or would you refuse on moral grounds and remove your genes from the pool? Most people would choose not to die for their morals. Survival is a very strong motivator and pushes morality around at will. IMO morality appears to be just what we mostly agree on right now.

If selection trumps morality, then there is no justification to say that genocide is wrong. The strongest and most able to adapt survives. Killing in general would not be morally wrong either since it's just selection in action.

[Divine Insight]

If selection trumps morality, then there is no justification to say that genocide is wrong. The strongest and most able to adapt survives. Killing in general would not be morally wrong either since it's just selection in action.

To the best of our knowledge selection does trump morality.

And who can say that genocide is wrong in any absolute sense? Natural disasters do it all the time. Nature does it all the time. Clearly nature doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with mass killing.

And clearly if there exists an omnipotent God that God doesn't have a problem with mass genocide.

In fact, didn't the Biblical God flood out the planet committing mass genocide himself?

Didn't the Biblical God instruct the Hebrew to murder the Canaanites as a mass genocide as well?

Clearly even the Biblical God has no problem with committing mass genocide himself as well as instructing humans to do it.

So if we feel that mass genocide is wrong why would we worship the Biblical God?

I think the idea that our modern day ethics concerning mass genocide is indeed nothing more than a subjective opinion of humans. And clearly it's not even the subjective opinion of all humans since there exists humans who actually commit mass genocide. So someone must think it's the right thing to do.

Clearly the guys who flew planes into the WTCs thought that mass genocide was the cool thing to do. So not everyone feels that mass genocide is wrong. Thus it's safe to say that it's nothing more than a subjective human opinion concerning ethics.

[keithprosser3]

Clearly the guys who flew planes into the WTCs thought that mass genocide was the cool thing to do. So not everyone feels that mass genocide is wrong.

Well, I don't know if 9-11 was genocide rather than large scale mass murder but
I would say the perps. of 9-11 considered what they did as wrong but necessary to help correct a greater wrong. The US killed 60-100 times as many people with just two bombs in 1945 but I don't think that means Americans favour mass genocide.

Although then again may be I should check that with some Native American Indians....

[Philbert]

If selection trumps morality, then there is no justification to say that genocide is wrong. The strongest and most able to adapt survives. Killing in general would not be morally wrong either since it's just selection in action.

otseng, I agree with your logic, and feel you are making a good point.

For the sake of this post, let's assume there is a God. And let's use the usual definition, God as creator of reality, nature etc.

It's seem quite philosophically inconvenient that this God created a reality where ruthless selection is the guiding principle for every creature on Earth for a billion years, except for one.

It raises the question of whether we should look to what this God has actually created (according to the theory) as our authority, or look to a book of questionable authorship for instruction.

It seems the case for morality has to be made on selection grounds in order to be credible. As example, we are unlikely to survive as a species unless we greatly improve our ability to work together. Somehow or another the reality of nature has to be squared with Christian teachings on morality, don't you think?

[woodpen]

Somehow or another the reality of nature has to be squared with Christian teachings on morality, don't you think?

Why not square it with zoroastrianism or any other religious teaching and what makes religious teachings on morality of any benefit to anyone?

[otseng]

If selection trumps morality, then there is no justification to say that genocide is wrong. The strongest and most able to adapt survives. Killing in general would not be morally wrong either since it's just selection in action.

To the best of our knowledge selection does trump morality.

Yes, for the secularists.

In fact, didn't the Biblical God flood out the planet committing mass genocide himself?

So if we feel that mass genocide is wrong why would we worship the Biblical God?

Important points, but I'll defer on addressing this for now.

Clearly the guys who flew planes into the WTCs thought that mass genocide was the cool thing to do. So not everyone feels that mass genocide is wrong. Thus it's safe to say that it's nothing more than a subjective human opinion concerning ethics.

Not only the "cool" thing to do, but I would suspect that they thought it was the right and good thing to do.

[otseng]

If selection trumps morality, then there is no justification to say that genocide is wrong. The strongest and most able to adapt survives. Killing in general would not be morally wrong either since it's just selection in action.

otseng, I agree with your logic, and feel you are making a good point.

Thanks.

It's seem quite philosophically inconvenient that this God created a reality where ruthless selection is the guiding principle for every creature on Earth for a billion years, except for one.

I'll defer on addressing God. I'd like to not make the leap to the god of the Bible yet.

It seems the case for morality has to be made on selection grounds in order to be credible.

I'm only presenting two cases right now to justify personal responsibility and morality. One case is there is no supernatural at all. In this scenario, selection would be the paramount principle. Morality, if it even exists, would be secondary to selection. And if there is no true free will, then there's no basis for objective morality. So, this case cannot coherently embrace free will, morality, and selection in a meaningful way.

The second case is that there is a supernatural/spiritual world and humans are not merely physical bodies obeying physical laws. In this scenario, morality would trump selection because selection is not what is most important. There would be a free agent that can make free will decisions that is not determinative by physical laws. So, it can be subject to praise and condemnation in decisions that he makes. In this scenario, free will and objective morality would be in a coherent framework.

I'm not arguing anything about the God of the Bible yet. At most, it would only show that a supernatural viewpoint is coherent. So, discussions about the flood or Christian teachings would not be relevant at this point.