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?

[Divine Insight]

How are you definig free will?

Free Will means a will that is free from the laws of nature.

In other words it isn't merely a result of the laws of nature.

Thus is must be free from the natural laws.

Therefore Free Will is necessarily supernatural.

In other words, it's beyond the natural laws that govern the behavior of mere physical objects, forces, and interactions.

This is what it is "Free" from.

It it wasn't free from these things then it would be dependent upon them and thus it would be Dependent Will instead of Free Will. Or even "Determined Will" since it could only be the result of natural forces that are already determined by the laws of nature.

So the very notion of Free Will requires a Supernatural Agent. (i.e. an Agent that is Free from the natural laws of physics)

So Free Will can only exist if the Supernatural exists.

[Nilloc James]

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

So what actually is free?

[Goat]

Genocide is wrong because most humans think it's wrong.

The majority deciding something would be subjective morality. I wouldn't even really consider it morality, but more like culture and preferences. If you truly believe that what the majority of people consider is right is the determinative factor, then using that logic, believing in a supernatural deity is right since the majority of humans believe in some sort of deity. So, the supernaturalists are the good people and the naturalists are bad.

The problem is that the supernaturalists can't show that their claim for their moral preferences come from their supernatural source. You will find just as much varations between people who believe their morality comes from God, verses non believers, If you have two people who claim their morality comes from God, and they disagree on the specifics, who am I to believe? That doesn't seem to be morality to me.

[Divine Insight]

Genocide is wrong because most humans think it's wrong.

The majority deciding something would be subjective morality. I wouldn't even really consider it morality, but more like culture and preferences.

That's right. That's exactly what it would be. And for this reason many people prefer to call it ethics instead of morality. There is no such thing as absolute morality. All that exists is subjective ethics that is agreed upon by social cultures.

If you truly believe that what the majority of people consider is right is the determinative factor, then using that logic, believing in a supernatural deity is right since the majority of humans believe in some sort of deity. So, the supernaturalists are the good people and the naturalists are bad.

I would argue that you are totally missing the point here. The reason being that you are attempting to demand that social ethics must be viewed as "absolute morality". Which is a totally misunderstanding of the entire concept.

Several things are going on when a society creates socially accepted ethics.

One thing is that they only put into law the things that the society is willing to socially accept as being the collective social ethics. Clearly not every person within the society is going to agree with the ethics that have been put into law. But they agree to follow the law of the society anyway, even whilst they may attempt to change it.

Therefore it's wrong to say something like supernaturalists are good people and naturalists are bad simply because there are more supernatural-minded people than natural-minded people.

There was never any social consensus that one of these thing is "good" whilst the other is "bad". And it also was never put into law.

And even if it was put into law, there would still be people trying to get the law changed.

So these kinds of social ethics do not represent any sort of absolute black and white.

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.

No, it's not "Case closed".

Social ethics do not become absolute morality caved into stone. Social ethics is dynamic and may even change over time. In fact, it clearly does change over time.

Look at even the Catholic Church. That's a social entity that supposedly uses the Bible as the basis for their morality and even they have changed dramatically over the centuries concerning what they consider to be right or wrong.

Look at this new Pope. He's trying to get the Catholic church to accept gay priests. It wasn't very long ago when the Catholic Church wouldn't have even remotely considered such an idea.

It won't be long before they will finally have women priests too. Again this was something that would have been considered total blaspheme at various times in history.

There are no concrete morals carved in stone. All that exists is human opinion and consensus. Even within things like huge religious institutions like the Catholic Church.

So it's senseless to speak of absolute morality even in a religious context.

Everything is dynamic, and everything boils down to human opinion, even religious morality. Religions are nothing more than human opinions and interpretations too. And those opinions and interpretations change as humanity changes.

Nothing is carved in stone, and nothing is absolute.

[otseng]

However a case for meaningful ethics (or morals) can be made simply by majority consensus. It would be a subjective-based ethics. But that's ok. There is no need to claim that it needs to be objective in any absolute sense in order to be meaningful.

Majority consensus can certainly determine subjective morality. What I mean by meaningful is that there's no foundation for objective morality that is coherent in a secular framework.

You simply need to recognize that it is indeed a subjective consensus. In fact this is precisely what we attempt to do through the ideal of democracy.

Even in a democracy, values change. So, it can not really say anything is objectively good or bad.

And if the majority does have a certain position, the minority then has no right to even complain about things since they are by definition wrong.

Moreover, when we don't have a democracy then we end up with a totalitarian fascism.

Well, I don't think it's just one or the other. And I don't have a problem with democracy per se. But, I do have a problem if what is determined to be morally right is judged by the majority.

In fact, if there exists a being call "God" who creates a moral code and enforces it onto everyone else, then that God itself would represent a totalitarian fascist dictator and that's all God would be.

I think King would be a better term.

Actually, in terms of personal responsibility there's a way to get around this as well. Even if we view humans as nothing more than biological computers, we can conclude that they can think logically. Therefore if a biological computer takes an oath that it will respect and obey the ethical laws of a society, then if it breaks those laws we have full justification for concluding that it is indeed malfunctioning. After all, if it had agreed to respect and uphold those laws and then failed to keep that agreement it's clearly a flawed computer.

One problem is determining the ethical laws of society. Ethical laws, as far as I know, are never determined by polling a country and seeing what the majority consider to be moral.

If we are all computers, on what basis can we say that we think logically? Computers are only logical because programmers programmed it to be logical. Computers sitting there without computer programmers are useless. We impose human logic on computers. If we are just physical computers, what programmed us?

The only problem is that we don't really see this around us. Selection appears to be the rule, whereas behaving in a moral fashion doesn't appear to be of much help in many cases. Selection really does trump.

So where is there any reason to believe that morality trumps selection?

I think the only basis is really through religion.

But you haven't really shown that a supernatural viewpoint is coherent.

Also, coherent with what? And ideal of absolute morality, or that morality trumps selection?

I'm referring to coherent in terms of epistemology of beliefs. The concepts of free will, morality, and the supernatural mutually support each other and do not present conflicts. Whereas in a secular view, one has to reject free will and (absolute) morality because they are not compatible with physicalism.

So we have no reason to believe that morality trumps selection in this universe.

I would agree that secularists have no reason to believe that morality trumps selection.

Moreover, if you are attempting to imply that a pure secular existence is somehow not coherent that would be wrong.

Isn't this the point of your thread? "Wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?" How can one justify personal responsibility (let alone morals) if materialism is true?

[Goat]

Isn't this the point of your thread? "Wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?" How can one justify personal responsibility (let alone morals) if materialism is true?

Because, it is built into us biologically..the desire for morality is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/

And with the desire for morality comes personal responsibly.

I don't know how you can call it personal responsibility if you think you are doing what someone else thing you should , and if you don't do it, you get punished.

[Divine Insight]

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.

[Divine Insight]

Majority consensus can certainly determine subjective morality. What I mean by meaningful is that there's no foundation for objective morality that is coherent in a secular framework.

But why is objective morality anymore meaningful than subjective morality?

Meaningful with respect to what? With respect to someone who would like to believe in an absolute morality?

Even that is a subjective desire.

Even in a democracy, values change. So, it can not really say anything is objectively good or bad.

I agree.

And if the majority does have a certain position, the minority then has no right to even complain about things since they are by definition wrong.

Well, if its a free society then they still have the right to complain. They even have a right to try to get the laws changed.

Obviously if its a fascist dictatorship then they don't even have the right to complain and they will probably be killed if they do complain.

Welcome to reality.

Moreover, when we don't have a democracy then we end up with a totalitarian fascism.

Well, I don't think it's just one or the other. And I don't have a problem with democracy per se. But, I do have a problem if what is determined to be morally right is judged by the majority.

Typically a democracy doesn't even try to put morality into law. In fact, that's not the purpose of the law.

The only purpose of the state and law is to protect the citizens of the state from harm and potentially from one another, or even in some cases from themselves.

So laws really have very little to do with morality. We make it a law not to kill people, not because it's immoral, but because it is in the interest of keeping citizens safe. The laws are even set up in such a way that you actually can kill people under certain circumstances and be permitted to get away with this. For example, in cases of self-defense.

Laws and democracy aren't about morality. They are about protecting the citizens of the state. This is why we don't see laws concerning things like spiritualists or naturalists because those views aren't harmful to citizens of the state. However, if they were to become harmful, then we might see laws arise to protect citizens from becoming victims of these views.

In fact, if there exists a being call "God" who creates a moral code and enforces it onto everyone else, then that God itself would represent a totalitarian fascist dictator and that's all God would be.

I think King would be a better term.

But what is a King by a totalitarian fascist dictator. There is nothing in there about a need to be mean or cruel or selfish. A totalitarian fascist dictator could potentially be totally for the people. He could be loving and have everyone's personal interest at heart.

It just happens that when we think of a totalitarian fascist dictator we think of very selfish and heartless regimes because that's what we all too often see.

The same is true of Kings. You can have a good King who is loving and kind to everyone in his kingdom, or you can have a greedy selfish King who abuses his subjects as much as he can get away with.

One problem is determining the ethical laws of society. Ethical laws, as far as I know, are never determined by polling a country and seeing what the majority consider to be moral.

The reason this isn't done is because the masses are like childern. If you poll a class of young childern what they would like to do with their school time you'll get the reply, "Let's have ice cream! Or recess all day!"

In other words, does polling the masses truly represent what they believe to be the most ethical thing? They are far more likely to choose what they would simply rather do which may not be in anyone's interest including their own.

Just like eating ice cream all day, or playing in the playground isn't going to do young kids any good either.

If we are all computers, on what basis can we say that we think logically? Computers are only logical because programmers programmed it to be logical. Computers sitting there without computer programmers are useless. We impose human logic on computers. If we are just physical computers, what programmed us?

You already know the answer to that. Evolution programmed us. The biological computers that failed to be programmed died out a very long time ago. And I'm sure there were many of them.

The only problem is that we don't really see this around us. Selection appears to be the rule, whereas behaving in a moral fashion doesn't appear to be of much help in many cases. Selection really does trump.

So where is there any reason to believe that morality trumps selection?

I think the only basis is really through religion.

But which religion?

I don't know about you, but I'm not prepared to view the stories that were written by a bunch of male-chauvinistic barbarians to be "The Word of God".

I have no problem accepting the teachings of someone like Buddha, maybe Confucius, or Lao Tzu. But why would it even need to be religion. I've read philosophers who have had what I consider to be very good moral values.

In fact, I have no need to turn to anyone for moral values. I'm quite happy with my own subjective views of what is ethical or moral.

I'm referring to coherent in terms of epistemology of beliefs. The concepts of free will, morality, and the supernatural mutually support each other and do not present conflicts. Whereas in a secular view, one has to reject free will and (absolute) morality because they are not compatible with physicalism.

But both belief systems are self-coherent. So all you are doing is subjectively choosing to favor one over the other because you personally find it more attractive.

You seem to find a concept of absolute morality quite attractive. I personally don't feel that its even necessary.

I will grant you the following. Free will requires the supernatural.

And I personally feel that I have free will, so I'm willing to entertain the supernatural.

However, the supernatural does not automatically demand absolute morality. On the contrary, even in a supernatural reality morality could still be determined independently.

In other words, there may be things that would be "moral" for me to do, but not for you to do and vice versa.

In other words, even in a spiritual reality morality could be contextual.

So a supernatural or spiritual reality does not automatically require absolute morality itself.

I will give you this much. I feel that there are things that are, in some sense, absolutely immoral for me to do. But those particular things may not apply to you.

Also, I believe that there are things that are absolutely moral for me to do. And again, those things may not apply to you.

So even if the world is spiritual I still don't see a need for absolute morality.

So we have no reason to believe that morality trumps selection in this universe.

I would agree that secularists have no reason to believe that morality trumps selection.

No, no, no.

I'm saying that we have no observational evidence that morality trumps selection in this universe. And this is true whether you are a secularist or a spiritualist in terms of your own personal philosophy.

Your philosophical beliefs don't change reality.

Moreover, if you are attempting to imply that a pure secular existence is somehow not coherent that would be wrong.

Isn't this the point of your thread? "Wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?" How can one justify personal responsibility (let alone morals) if materialism is true?

That's not a pure secular existence being incoherent.

That would be ideological secularists blaming people or holding them responsible for things when the secularists themselves have no justification for this. The secularists would be incoherent in their philosophy.

But a secular existence is not incoherent as a reality.

There simply is no free will, there is no absolute morality, there is no spirituality.

That's all totally coherent.

There is nothing incoherent about a secular existence.

But there could be incoherence in the philosophies and ideologies of secularists.

But those are two entirely different things.

[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?

[help3434]

Majority consensus can certainly determine subjective morality. What I mean by meaningful is that there's no foundation for objective morality that is coherent in a secular framework.

There are many secularists who believe in objective morality. Have you done any research on their arguments?

I'm referring to coherent in terms of epistemology of beliefs. The concepts of free will, morality, and the supernatural mutually support each other and do not present conflicts. Whereas in a secular view, one has to reject free will and (absolute) morality because they are not compatible with physicalism.

I disagree about those concepts mutually supporting each other. It seems to me that either God let people's nature be form through physical processes, which would put you on the same boat as physicalists, or God created everyone's nature, which would mean that He predetermined every decision we would ever make. The latter view seems to be supported by Romans in the Bible where it says that God created some people to be vessels of wrath.