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?

[Sonofason]

Well, is there a 'random choice'? Or, are things predetermined by the state of the brain chemistry, the connections and the environment. If we 'rewound' a moment in time, and presented the same scenario (down to the quantum scale), would the choice always be the same?

How would we know? What test can we do to determine that?

If we can't. does the question have any meaning at all, from a scientific point of view?

Thank you Goat,

You have hit my point dead center square on!

That is precisely what I'm asking.

If the concept of Free Will Choice is a meaningless question in science, then surely the concept of Personal Responsibility is equally meaningless?

That is precisely the point I'm getting at here.

and Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Which , of course, is totally meaningless when it comes to the scientific justification for free will. For that matter, for the religious concept of free will either.

If my comment was intended to be something meaningful, this comment of yours might have been meaningful. But as it is, it isn't.

[Sonofason]

[q

I just wanted you to know that I think you are making a terrific argument against the idea of free will, responsibility and blame. At the same time you are cutting the legs out from under science. Bravo.

There is far more to this existence than what is known. There may be far more to this existence than what is even knowable. God bless your soul, the agent behind your free willed actions.

Now, isn't it interesting that you can't explain HOW I am cutting the legs from under science??? Then of course, you immediately go into the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'.

Do you often take credit for someone else's words?

[olavisjo]

.

Correct, "objective" morality cannot even technically exist in a non-secular worldview since morality would be subjectively dictated by some god or other.

When a theist talks about objective morality they define it like this...

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody
  believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried
  out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded
  in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
  
  Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-gras ... z2b5CEIFHo

So my question to you is "do you really want to go on record holding the position that if the Nazis had won the war and had succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, then the Holocaust would have been a good thing"?

I know in my heart that this is not what you want to say, but it is exactly what you are saying. Please help me understand where you are coming from.

[olavisjo]

.

Now, isn't it interesting that you can't explain HOW I am cutting the legs from under science??? Then of course, you immediately go into the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'.

Science makes predictions about what the world would be like if science were true, the predictions fail miserably, therefore science is clearly false.

Like I said.. nonsense... 90% of philosophy is over thinking nonsense.

Becoming philosophical Luddites is not the answer to the failure of science.

[Peter]

.

Correct, "objective" morality cannot even technically exist in a non-secular worldview since morality would be subjectively dictated by some god or other.

When a theist talks about objective morality they define it like this...

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody
  believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried
  out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded
  in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
  
  Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-gras ... z2b5CEIFHo

So my question to you is "do you really want to go on record holding the position that if the Nazis had won the war and had succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, then the Holocaust would have been a good thing"?

I know in my heart that this is not what you want to say, but it is exactly what you are saying. Please help me understand where you are coming from.

If the Nazis had convinced the majority that the holocaust was right then and the majority now was still convinced that it was right then it would be right. Similarly, if the majority thought a proper greeting was to punch each other in the face well then that would be right and proper too.

I'm so happy that the majority doesn't think it's proper to kill people for working on Sunday aren't you?

[help3434]

.

Correct, "objective" morality cannot even technically exist in a non-secular worldview since morality would be subjectively dictated by some god or other.

When a theist talks about objective morality they define it like this...

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody
  believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried
  out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded
  in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
  
  Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-gras ... z2b5CEIFHo

So my question to you is "do you really want to go on record holding the position that if the Nazis had won the war and had succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, then the Holocaust would have been a good thing"?

I know in my heart that this is not what you want to say, but it is exactly what you are saying. Please help me understand where you are coming from.

As far as I am aware that is how everybody defines objective moralitiy not just theists. In objectivie morality some thing is right or wrong independently of whether God believes it is or not. Would you agree that God was wrong to order to genocides He did in the Old Testament?

[help3434]

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

Then it would be "right" for that time and place. The fact that it would be considered wrong in this time and place is just personal bias.

No, it would still be wrong.

[Peter]

.

Correct, "objective" morality cannot even technically exist in a non-secular worldview since morality would be subjectively dictated by some god or other.

When a theist talks about objective morality they define it like this...

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody
  believes it to be so.

BTW, that definition is complete nonsense. Morals, agreements on how to treat one another, cannot exist independently of what you and I believe. In fact, morality doesn't even exist independently of conscious thought. Do rocks have a morality? Do trees have a morality? Work your way up the scale. Do ants, mice, cats, dogs have a morality?

Morality is simply how we agree to treat each other. We are all free to experiment at our own peril. Perhaps you could try punching people in the face when meeting them and get back to us with the result.

[scourge99]

.

Correct, "objective" morality cannot even technically exist in a non-secular worldview since morality would be subjectively dictated by some god or other.

When a theist talks about objective morality they define it like this...

• To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody
  believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried
  out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded
  in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

The difference between secularists and religionists is that secularists tend to have rational reasons for their moral claims. Whereas theists just assert "because god says so."

And this is precisely why the Nazis were wrong, because they cannot make a cogent rational argument that killing jews is right and there are counter argument against killing jews that are rational.

But you cannot explain why killing jews is wrong. The most you can do is say thay killing is wrong because "god says so" or 'my holy book says so." It is like a child who follows their parents orders, not because they understand why something is right/wrong but because they blindly follow their orders.

Secular morality is bound by reason and evidence whereas religionists morality is dependent on holy book interpretation and the unverifiable claims of prophets.

[olavisjo]

.

If the Nazis had convinced the majority that the holocaust was right then and the majority now was still convinced that it was right then it would be right.

I hate to belabor the point, but take a look at this video and tell me again that "it would be right". Tell me that the laws of physics conspired from the beginning of the universe to create this situation and humanity did not have the freedom to choose for this to not happen.

[youtube][/youtube]