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?

[JohnPaul]

.

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.

I have been told that at least some Orthodox Jews believe that the Holocaust was God's punishment to the Jews for abandoning some of the trivial Biblical laws, and therefore the Jews deserved it and the Nazis were only doing Gods' Will.

[dbohm]

.

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.

Command control ethics (or the Divine Command theory) may be prominent in some circles of theism but it is not representative of all and certainly not representative of the majority or best of Christian theology on the subject. Natural law theory is.

Natural law theory is the strongest rational foundation for ethics. The utilitarianism promoted by many secular thinkers as their rational basis for ethics fails critically as a complete rational foundation for ethics because it cannot answer 1. why we should be concerned for the greatest good of all and 2. exactly what the greatest good is beyond a superficial assessment of pain and pleasure. I would not go so far as say it's an irrational theory but it is certainly a non-rational theory of ethics. And it is no more rational than following the guidance of a book highly regarded by billions of people.

As Aladair MacIntyre points out in After Virtue once the final causes of Aristotle are discarded as they are by many modern philosophers we are left with no rational anchor for ethical thought. It is possible to hold to natural law theory without acceptance of theism. However if you do, you must have a good counter-argument to Aquinas' fifth way.

[Peter]

.

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.

You seem to be "belaboring" under the impression that there is some inconsistency between saying that humans decide how to treat each other properly and the fact that sometimes some humans decide to emulate a certain desert war god with a penchant for genocide. There is no inconsistency. We are free to treat each other in any way we wish but the consequences can be dire.

Also, please take note that since the holocaust was considered wrong then by the majority of humans and is still considered wrong today that we humans actually have a better moral compass than said war god.

Now I"ll say it again just to make sure you're thoroughly confused. If genocide was for some reason ever to be the accepted way to treat other humans then it would be "right" because that is the definition of "right".

You can substitute the arbitrary subjective rules of a dictator god but I don't see why that should make you feel any better than simply adopting the standards agreed upon by rational humans.

[otseng]

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.

I can basically agree to that.

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.

I'd disagree that there is no evidence of any god. But discussing that would be out of scope of this thread.

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.

In terms of objective moral values, I'm not so sure there is such a huge variation within Christianity. But, again, I'm not arguing for any particular religion, including Christianity. The only thing I'm arguing is that religion in general provides a basis for objective morality. As you mentioned before, the concept of God provides a reference point for while values are relative to. With God as the standard, morality becomes objective, not subjective. Could there exist something else besides God that can provide a basis for objective morality? I haven't heard of any other possibilities.

So where is this Christian objective morality?

Of course, as you suggested, for Christians, the Bible would be the standard.

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

Right, so in a world without free will, there would not exist morality.

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?

It means that we cannot put "blame" on the storm since it has no free will.

If another person kills a lot of innocent people, we can put blame on that person since he has free will.

Unless you believe that all storms and natural disasters are caused by the will of God.

I do not believe that God decrees everything, including storms. So, God would not be blamed for the storms killing people.

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.

I would still say that subjective morality is not really morality, but just preferences and culture. One cannot really say that anything is really right or wrong if it is determined by the majority.

Morality based on Actions, versus, Morality based on Intent

Morality would consist of things that we "ought" to do. And I would say it's a combination of action and intent. Without action, it's practically impossible to classify something as moral or immoral. Intent would also be a factor, but I don't think good intentions can nullify bad actions.

Like "Thou shalt not kill".

What if you accidentally kill someone, is that immoral?

I would think so. If someone accidentally kills your children, wouldn't you still consider it immoral?

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

Intent alone would be nearly impossible to judge. How can one really determine what someone else's intent was?

[otseng]

IMO being Christian and being a battered woman are very similar mental states. Christians are expert masochists but why try to foist that mentality on everyone else?

Strong claim you're making. You'll need to back up such a claim, otherwise it is just flamebait.

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.

I then rest my case.

[otseng]

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.

If selection is the operative law, then how can one say what they did was wrong? It is just selection in process. Also, it was not illegal in Germany at that time to exterminate Jews. So, one cannot say it was wrong for them.

[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.

Command control ethics (or the Divine Command theory) may be prominent in some circles of theism but it is not representative of all ...

I agree. But its impossible to argue against every possible idea simultaneously. I hope you didn't think that i was.

and certainly [divine command theory is] not representative of the majority or best of Christian theology on the subject. Natural law theory is.

I honestly don't know which is or isn't in the majority. I've seen many Christians represent both positions.

How did you determine that Natural law is the majority?

Natural law theory is the strongest rational foundation for ethics.

I have a feeling that Christians and theists who aren't natural law theorists would disagree.

The utilitarianism promoted by many secular thinkers as their rational basis for ethics fails critically as a complete rational foundation for ethics because it cannot answer 1. why we should be concerned for the greatest good of all and 2. exactly what the greatest good is beyond a superficial assessment of pain and pleasure.

There are couple of assumptions I find odd:
1) that there exists specific criteria that must be met to have an ethical system be considered a "complete rational foundation for ethics".
2) that you know what all the criteria for a complete rational foundation for ethics" actually is.

I have a feeling we will disagree on what the criteria for a complete ethical system must be. To me that sounds like you are engaging in a marketing tactic of inventing a problem and then offering a solution for it. Your criticism and your solution will evaporate if its pointed out that the problem you assume isn't actually a real or major problem to begin with. So perhaps you could start by convincing me that this problem you propose is actually a real problem.

Its similar to how some Christians claim everyone is going to hell (the invented problem) ... unless they believe in Jesus (the solution offered to the invented problem).

[scourge99]

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.

None of your response (pasted below) seems to address my post you quoted (pasted above). It seems to be an attempt to change the subject by turning the tables.

I don't mind offering a different perspective on this debate from the other non-theists that have answered, but lets not pretend you've actually addressed any of the criticisms I've put forth of Christian ethics.

If selection is the operative law....

Selection? You mean natural selection? Natural selection refers only to a process that causes organisms to evolve because of NATURAL pressures placed on groups of organisms in the environment.

Humans performing selective breeding, for example, such as eugenics, or to make tamer foxes, is NOT an example of natural selection.

Also, i don't know what you mean by "the operative law"? Seems like its a bit of loaded language. I have a feeling that if you explain what YOU mean by that i probably won't agree.

If selection is the operative law then how can one say what they did was wrong? It is just selection in process.

three problems with the above
1) Its the naturalistic fallacy. You are equating "good" with what is "natural". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

2) Nazi genocide is an example of artificial selection. Its not natural selection. Just as breeding foxes for tamer behavior is not an example of natural selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

3) Natural selection deals with genes. There is no Jewish gene. So it makes no sense to kill jews to select for non-jews.

Also, it was not illegal in Germany at that time to exterminate Jews. So, one cannot say it was wrong for them.

What is illegal/legal does not necessarily equate to what is right/wrong. While laws often reflect the ethics of a culture, it doesn't mean they are some type of unquestionable authority on ethics.

Your assumption seems to be that if a law says something is legal/illegal then it makes it morally acceptable/unacceptable. I think you are confusing two different but related topics. The first being ethics and the second being government.

[scourge99]

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

I argue for a compatibilist version of freewill. it is the only version of freewill that is both supported by evidence and is not contradicted by evidence.

The standard opposing viewpoint is the libertarian version of freewill which is contradicted by evidence and makes other claims that are untestable.

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

Freewill is "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

We all have the sensation of choosing and deliberating over various options. However, the compatibilist argues that our choice is deterministic (not to be confused with predetermined). This is clearly illustrated in the following example comparing libertarian freewill versus compatibilist freewill:

1) Compatiblilist: Given a specific situation, Jack chose X. If we were to rewind the universe and play the event millions of times, Jack would always choose X. He could not have chosen otherwise.

2) Libertarian: Given a specific situation, Jack chose X. If we were to rewind the universe and play the event millions of times, Jack sometimes might chose Y.

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?

Even though our choices are completely subject to deterministic processes we are still responsible for our actions because we are the perpetrator of our actions. For example, whether its a wild bear, an avalanche, or a serial murderer, we all understand that these things are dangerous and seek to prevent them from harming ourselves and others in society because of the real threat they present. However, if an avalanche or bear kills someone, we view it much differently than if a person intentionally kills someone. The difference is that we naturally regard the person "responsible" in a different sense because we believe they are the complete authors of their actions. That they could have done otherwise. In a sense, murderers are different than bears and avalanches, because bears and avalanches don't have murderous intentions. We regard conscious beings differently than non-conscious or primitively conscious beings. In the grand scheme of things, this is a mistake because whether its an avalanche, a wild bear, or a murderer, each are completely subject to deterministic processes. However, the extra layer of consciousness can trick us into falsely thinking that the murderer could have somehow done differently than he did whereas the avalanche or bear could not have done differently. But, as explained above, the murderer is still the perpetrator of his actions and is still, nonetheless, responsible for them. Even if he cannot have chosen otherwise.

[olavisjo]

.

Humans performing selective breeding, for example, such as eugenics, or to make tamer foxes, is NOT an example of natural selection.

In a deterministic world, human selective breeding is natural selection, because nature is all that there is. Even when you are arguing against human free will, you feel it necessary to assume human free will.

However, if an avalanche or bear kills someone, we view it much differently than if a person intentionally kills someone. The difference is that we naturally regard the person "responsible" in a different sense because we believe they are the complete authors of their actions. That they could have done otherwise. In a sense, murderers are different than bears and avalanches, because bears and avalanches don't have murderous intentions. We regard conscious beings differently than non-conscious or primitively conscious beings. In the grand scheme of things, this is a mistake because whether its an avalanche, a wild bear, or a murderer, each are completely subject to deterministic processes. However, the extra layer of consciousness can trick us into falsely thinking that the murderer could have somehow done differently than he did whereas the avalanche or bear could not have done differently. But, as explained above, the murderer is still the perpetrator of his actions and is still, nonetheless, responsible for them. Even if he cannot have chosen otherwise.

Are you determined to not see the contradiction in your reasoning or are you predetermined to not see it?

The standard opposing viewpoint is the libertarian version of freewill which is contradicted by evidence and makes other claims that are untestable.

Contradicted by what evidence?