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]

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.

Also, what group of people determines what is good and bad? Polling everyone on the planet is impossible. So, then it's impossible to state if anything is good or bad. One particular country? One state? One family? How does one draw the line of who counts?

Yes, people decide how to treat people and we pretty much go with the consensus. 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. 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.

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. Some places, especially the most religious have some way to go though don't you think?

Would you similarly argue that because a supernatural free agent hasn't decreed that vomiting all day is bad that there's no justification to say that vomiting all day is bad?

Too hypothetical of a question to even answer in a meaningful way.

It's a perfectly valid, if hypothetical question. Good health is very much like good morals. We can tell the difference between an olympic athlete and a dead person but what exactly is "objective" good health in between the two? Do you hear many people complain that without "objective" good health you could simply declare that vomiting all day was healthy? Somehow we all pretty much know good health and bad health when we see it. So it goes with ethics/morals.

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.

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.

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. The majority opinion is constantly changing and adapting to the time and circumstances. In a life and death situation the majority might be only a couple of people that decide who lives and who dies.

[otseng]

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.

I'd agree also. I believe that God knows everything, but I do not believe that God has decreed everything. If there is only one single path that everything can follow, then free will is an illusion.

[otseng]

But why is objective morality anymore meaningful than subjective morality?

I would say that subjective morality is not really morality, but simply preferences and culture. Subjective morality could not classify something as morally wrong. For example, it would not be morally wrong to wear shoes inside a Chinese home. It would be culturally improper. However, it would be morally wrong to steal shoes laying at the front of a Chinese home.

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.

They can complain, but there's no need to listen to them, because by definition they are wrong since they are in the minority.

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.

Would you agree that there are other forms of government other than a democracy and fascism?

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.

Actually, I'd disagree. Morality can actually be foundational to laws. Morality would be determining if something is considered good or bad. And some laws are in place to uphold morality. In your example of laws preventing people from killing each other, the moral principle is that murdering other people is wrong.

I'm not stating that all laws are based on morality. And I'm not even stating that they would be morality based on any particular religion. But, I'd disagree that a democracy (or any government) doesn't put morality into laws.

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.

This would then refute the claim that morals are determined by the majority of the people.

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.

Yes, I know my answer, but it's not evolution. I also knew you'd say evolution.

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. The only trait that follows is that is has reproductive advantage in that particular environment. It could be a bigger or smaller beak. It could be lighter or darker pigments.

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".

If you view Jews or Christians that way, I wouldn't either.

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.

I'll add that it doesn't even need to be a religious person or philosopher that can be moral. Since I believe all people have an innate sense of morality, other's can also be moral to a certain extent.

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.

What about if a neighbor who is also quite happy with his moral values of cheating on his wife? If morals were subjective, you might think his actions are wrong. But you can only say according to your own morals he is wrong. But, according to his own morals, he is right. They are both equally valid since morals would be subjective.

But both belief systems are self-coherent.

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

OK, do you accept that free will is required for morality to exist?

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

For this thread, if other's can also reach your same position, I'm happy with that.

[Goat]

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.

I'd agree also. I believe that God knows everything, but I do not believe that God has decreed everything. If there is only one single path that everything can follow, then free will is an illusion.[/quote

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'

[woodpen]

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.

I'd agree also. I believe that God knows everything, but I do not believe that God has decreed everything. If there is only one single path that everything can follow, then free will is an illusion.

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?

[Goat]

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.

I'd agree also. I believe that God knows everything, but I do not believe that God has decreed everything. If there is only one single path that everything can follow, then free will is an illusion.

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?

And, not only that, how can he not 'ordain' things if he knows what is going to hapepn, and he is the creator god?? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Divine Insight]

I would say that subjective morality is not really morality, but simply preferences and culture. Subjective morality could not classify something as morally wrong. For example, it would not be morally wrong to wear shoes inside a Chinese home. It would be culturally improper. However, it would be morally wrong to steal shoes laying at the front of a Chinese home.

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.

Another good example is that one religion might claim that it is immoral to judge other people and stone them to death, but then there are religions that not only claim this to be moral but actually have their God commanding and directing people to do this.

So religions have their subjective cultural quirks just like everything else.

In other words, even if there existed some absolute morality where on Earth would we look for it?

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

So it's senseless to claim that there can be absolute morality when you can't even point to any absolute source of where to find this supposed absolute morality.

How can it exist if you can't even point to where it would be found or known?

An unknown absolute morality is a totally useless concept.

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.

They can complain, but there's no need to listen to them, because by definition they are wrong since they are in the minority.

I disagree. In a society where the majority decides what is moral it is understood to be a subjective morality.

You are the one who is trying to force a concept of absolute morality onto this situation. But that can be nothing but your own refusal to understand that this is actually the subjective morality of the majority.

You are just refusing to accept the system for what it actually is.

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

But that has nothing to do with a society that would actually choose subjective morality by majority consensus.

There is no absolute morality in that. You are just trying to force it into being an absolute morality without justification.

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.

Would you agree that there are other forms of government other than a democracy and fascism?

I'm not so sure that there is. You'd need to suggest one that can't be placed into either of these two groups from as a matter of practicality.

Democracy = government by the people (or at least by elected officials)

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

So what's left?

Can you describe a government that isn't either by the people, or by a dictator?

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

OK, do you accept that free will is required for morality to exist?

No. Free will is not required for morality to exist. Especially a concept of absolute morality that you are proposing.

You can easily have a preexisting absolute morality in a universe where there is no free will at all. Some of the beings in that universe will do things according to the absolute morality code and others will not.

You can then say, "This biological machine is acting in accordance with absolute morality, and this one is not".

But you can't blame those biological machines for their behavior because they have no free will.

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. And even then you'd need to make sure that they actually understand what the absolute morality is and that they believe that it has proper authority.

But no. Free will is not required for absolute morality to exist.

What would be required is for some conscious entity to exist that has itself subjectively decided what should be moral and what should be considered to be immoral.

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.

All morality is a subjective opinion.

The concept of a "God" simply allows us to imagine a conscious sentient personality who is the ultimate subjective authority. No one else's subjective opinions count. That's all.

So even with a God absolute morality is really still subjective.

There can be no such thing as absolute morality without some subjective consciousness to subjectively decide what should be moral or immoral.

Even the Bible recognizes this. All that morality in the Bible amounts to is pleasing God.

For example, why is homosexuality a "sin". Well, according to the Bible its a sin because the Biblical God subjectively hates homosexuality. So that's why it is immoral.

So even when an imagined God decides what is moral or immoral it's still subjective morality. It's simply a subjective morality that no one else is permitted to refute.

You don't need Free Will for absolute morality to exist. You only need Free Will to allow for blame.

But what you do need for absolute morality is a God who has subjectively decided what is moral or immoral. So that absolute morality would ultimately be subjective anyway. It's simply subjective to God. The rest of use have no say in the matter.

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

For this thread, if other's can also reach your same position, I'm happy with that.

Well, supernatural does not imply there there needs to be a top dog egoistical God. Nor does it imply that there needs to be any such thing as absolute morality.

On the contrary we could all be individual supernatural spiritual beings. Morality could be different for all of us. It could be contextual. What's right for me may not be right for you. And what's wrong for me may not be wrong for you.

Morality doesn't need to be absolute.

We might all ultimately be individual supernatural "Gods".

Physical incarnation may be some sort of game we play with each other.

After all, consider this:

If there can be one supernatural being, then why not infinitely many of them?

Where does this idea that there can only be ONE God come from to begin with?

Why should that be the case?

If there can be one God, why not infinitely many Gods?

Why should there only be one God?

People often say that we are the "Children of God".

Well if that's true then shouldn't we ultimately grow up to become Gods too?

Why should God's children not become like God themselves?

Our children become adult humans.

Moreover, if we never become Gods, then why call us God's "Children"?

If we are going to eternally remain inferior to God and forever subject to God's superior being, then wouldn't we be far more like pets than children?

[Peter]

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.

I'd agree also. I believe that God knows everything, but I do not believe that God has decreed everything. If there is only one single path that everything can follow, then free will is an illusion.

If god knows what I will choose am I free to surprise god? Logically, how does that work? It seems to me that if a god knows everything that will come to pass we are merely acting out a movie with, at best, an illusion of free will. If your omniscient god exists there can be no free will.

[Peter]

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.

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

[otseng]

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

Please provide one and we can discuss it.

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.

Those are not the only two options. Actually, I've run across few Christians that actually believe that God has predetermined every decision. For those that do believe that, I think their belief is also incoherent.