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?

[10CC]

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.

Then would you agree that objective morality cannot exist in a secular worldview?

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.

Then likewise you cannot say that anything is really morally right or wrong. It would only be what's most popular and nothing more.

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.

Sure, but it still does not define how to determine morality.

Do you hear many people complain that without "objective" good health you could simply declare that vomiting all day was healthy?

I've never even heard of "objective" good health. Yes, people should be healthy. But objective good health?

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.

I was giving an example of where God decreed something to be bad. And even if a majority of people think something is acceptable, it would still be considered morally bad.

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.

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

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.

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

This entire post would seem to be YOU claiming that only YOUR god can determine what is right and what is wrong, am I right? Yes I have no idea how to ask this question without referring to you personally and that is against the rules, but I don't see any other way to ask the question. Yes the question is sincere, I just don't want a smack for referring to a poster personally.

[instantc]

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.

Then would you agree that objective morality cannot exist in a secular worldview?

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.

Then likewise you cannot say that anything is really morally right or wrong. It would only be what's most popular and nothing more.

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.

Sure, but it still does not define how to determine morality.

Do you hear many people complain that without "objective" good health you could simply declare that vomiting all day was healthy?

I've never even heard of "objective" good health. Yes, people should be healthy. But objective good health?

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.

I was giving an example of where God decreed something to be bad. And even if a majority of people think something is acceptable, it would still be considered morally bad.

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.

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

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.

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

This entire post would seem to be YOU claiming that only YOUR god can determine what is right and what is wrong, am I right? Yes I have no idea how to ask this question without referring to you personally and that is against the rules, but I don't see any other way to ask the question. Yes the question is sincere, I just don't want a smack for referring to a poster personally.

No, you misunderstood it. His point was to suggest that if God does not exist, then morality is just a referral to the popular opinion. It's YOU who claim in YOUR post that he made any claims about God actually being the judge of morality. So if YOU could stop reading other people's posts the way that YOU want to support YOUR straw man arguments, then YOU and everyone else would enjoy these debates more, do YOU not agree?

[10CC]

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.

Then would you agree that objective morality cannot exist in a secular worldview?

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.

Then likewise you cannot say that anything is really morally right or wrong. It would only be what's most popular and nothing more.

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.

Sure, but it still does not define how to determine morality.

Do you hear many people complain that without "objective" good health you could simply declare that vomiting all day was healthy?

I've never even heard of "objective" good health. Yes, people should be healthy. But objective good health?

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.

I was giving an example of where God decreed something to be bad. And even if a majority of people think something is acceptable, it would still be considered morally bad.

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.

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

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.

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

This entire post would seem to be YOU claiming that only YOUR god can determine what is right and what is wrong, am I right? Yes I have no idea how to ask this question without referring to you personally and that is against the rules, but I don't see any other way to ask the question. Yes the question is sincere, I just don't want a smack for referring to a poster personally.

No, you misunderstood it. His point was to suggest that if God does not exist, then morality is just a referral to the popular opinion. It's YOU who claim in YOUR post that he made any claims about God actually being the judge of morality. So if YOU could stop reading other people's posts the way that YOU want to support YOUR straw man arguments, then YOU and everyone else would enjoy these debates more, do YOU not agree?

Well perhaps we might enjoy debates more if we didn't have the the likes of you deciding that statements like this are not a claim that a god can be the only arbiter of a non existent "objective morality". Objective morality does not exist, witness war if you would like to see an example. But here is otsengs quote

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

Now if you can read this and still declare that he made no mention of his gods involvement in determining objective morality then it is you who has misrepresented me. Please don't do that in future.

Then would you agree that objective morality cannot exist in a secular worldview?

If objective morality cannot exist in a secular world (the separation of state and church) then it must by the posters claim exist in a theistic/religious/believers worldview. Are you suggesting that no god is involved in such a worldview.
Your argument is so nonsensical it can't even be addressed sans a dissertation worthy of a Phd.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[instantc]

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

Now if you can read this and still declare that he made no mention of his gods involvement in determining objective morality then it is you who has misrepresented me. Please don't do that in future.

I'm sorry but you are confused here. The only claim he made is that he personally believes that objective morality exists. He didn't make the claim that God exists and is the judge of morality, as you wrongly stated in your straw man argument.

If objective morality cannot exist in a secular world (the separation of state and church) then it must by the posters claim exist in a theistic/religious/believers worldview. Are you suggesting that no god is involved in such a worldview.
Your argument is so nonsensical it can't even be addressed sans a dissertation worthy of a Phd.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

False dichotomy. Even if he claimed that objective morality exist and that it couldn't exist in an atheistic world, you cannot turn this around and accuse him for endorsing a specific personal God.

[10CC]

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

Now if you can read this and still declare that he made no mention of his gods involvement in determining objective morality then it is you who has misrepresented me. Please don't do that in future.

I'm sorry but you are confused here. The only claim he made is that he personally believes that objective morality exists. He didn't make the claim that God exists and is the judge of morality, as you wrongly stated in your straw man argument.

If objective morality cannot exist in a secular world (the separation of state and church) then it must by the posters claim exist in a theistic/religious/believers worldview. Are you suggesting that no god is involved in such a worldview.
Your argument is so nonsensical it can't even be addressed sans a dissertation worthy of a Phd.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

False dichotomy. Even if he claimed that objective morality exist and that it couldn't exist in an atheistic world, you cannot turn this around and accuse him for endorsing a specific personal God.

Are you paid well for being his guard dog? Theism and atheism are a false dichotomy. As Einsteins smarter brother I must reject such a spurious claim.
Atheism is a rejection of the theist claim.
The theist claim is the beginning of the discussion. Their is only support or rejection.
The claim of theists is that objective morality exists, because their god exists.
The rejection of that claim is based solely upon on the very real dichotomy created by the theist in his claim of a god.
THE CLAIM OF THE THEIST is that a god exists.
The dichotomy exists because the ATHEIST REJECTS THE THEIST'S CLAIM.
Where do YOU find a false dichotomy?
How can a non specific personal god proclaim objective morality? Can a deistic god declare objective morality, or a pantheistic or panentheistic god declare objective morality? But more importantly can a genocidal god declare objective morality?
False dichotomy between atheism and theism........pshawwwwwwww.
The theism claim of god/s is the very basis for the theist claim of OBJECTIVE morality.

[instantc]

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

Now if you can read this and still declare that he made no mention of his gods involvement in determining objective morality then it is you who has misrepresented me. Please don't do that in future.

I'm sorry but you are confused here. The only claim he made is that he personally believes that objective morality exists. He didn't make the claim that God exists and is the judge of morality, as you wrongly stated in your straw man argument.

If objective morality cannot exist in a secular world (the separation of state and church) then it must by the posters claim exist in a theistic/religious/believers worldview. Are you suggesting that no god is involved in such a worldview.
Your argument is so nonsensical it can't even be addressed sans a dissertation worthy of a Phd.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

False dichotomy. Even if he claimed that objective morality exist and that it couldn't exist in an atheistic world, you cannot turn this around and accuse him for endorsing a specific personal God.

Where do YOU find a false dichotomy?
How can a non specific personal god proclaim objective morality?

This does not follow:

YOU claiming that only YOUR god can determine what is right and what is wrong

From this:

I see. Yes, I believe that objective moral values exist (things that are black and white). If objective moral values do not exist, then it's simply culture or preference. One cannot say with any authority that anything is really wrong (or right).

There are plenty of different non-secular world views out there.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 333 by instantc]

I'm glad that we disagree on whatever it is we disagree on and it's been nice to chat with you in your position as a proxy for the person I questioned.
I really do mean thanks.
It's been great.

[pjnlsn]

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?

What I recall is that they're finding more and more that the way our minds work is a blend between complete free will and us being complete automatons. That's to say, in certain situations we have exception clarity of thought and choice but in others, say, when one's instincts take over, we, well have a lot less.

But I would suppose then that there is no or little scientific justification for the idea that humans have pure freedom of will in all situations ever.

[stevesonthebay]

If you had a group of people and put them together and let them get on with each other what would happen. If they never had any preconceived ideas, formed any values or had any beliefs what would happen.

Would they get on, would there be any guilt or common realization that there were certain lines not to cross. If a person slaps another then that person will feel some pain. Normally that pain will hurt because of the nerve senses. I would imagine that this action would be something that the people dont want to happen. But then only the people that had felt the pain would have that point of view. They only know it feels uncomfortable and is not a pleasurable feeling because they experience it. So everyone may eventually experience the slap and they all come to an agreement that this action is not one that they want to have happen. So now they have a choice to not do it or cross the line of agreement to not do it and slap someone. If we can get stressed or we are tired and not feeling well can we become upset or angry. Can something that someone does or say upset us. Do we then feel like slapping them as a reaction. Do we then have a choice to slap or not slap or just jump up and react with a slap. I'm not sure if this is right as i am not a psychologists or psychiatrists. But i dont think religion has come into it but i also dont think it is a completely scientific answer either. There maybe chemicals in the brain that are triggered such as in fight or flight that over take us and take that ability to have choice in certain circumstances. You may have a 3rd choice as well in that you dont run or dont fight and choose to negotiate if you can depending on the situation. So it is a complex thing and maybe it is hard to explain.

God says we all have this inherent nature of good and evil or right and wrong. Perhaps peoples individual perspective of what is right and wrong in certain situations may differ. A person who is born with an imbalance in their hormones and may have more feminine tendencies are they morally wrong to be attracted to the same sex. Is the child of an alcoholic who is brought up with that influence more substitutable to becoming one themselves. Statistics do show that families with problems such as crime and addiction have a higher chance of producing a child the same. Do those children have as much say when it comes to addiction as someone not from that situation. Are they as morally wrong as the next person. Maybe they definition of what is right and wrong is more consumed with stopping the addiction as it is causing them harm and not whether they go to church on Sunday. But i would say they have a conflict within them and their own set of responsibilities that they know they should be doing. They will have options and opportunities presented that will allow them to make changes eventually and its up to them to take it.

I think everyone has a conscience and each has a certain level within themselves that knows when they have done something that is not right or good. It will sit uncomfortably with them. But i dont think you can judge everyone with the same brush. As far as God being omnipresent and all knowing therefore we cant have free will. Well because god may know everything that happens doesn't mean that he controls it either. And because he doesn't control it doesn't mean he is unkind when bad things happen. I think the very fact that we are made with free will is because god doesn't intervene unless we ask him and thats how we are made. If he did then we would be robots being controlled to avoid things and the this would take away the very dimension of us being an individual person who is fully self knowing as well as knowing what is around us and that freedom to be who we are and what we are. If god started to intervene then he is starting to change the very fabric of what life if. It is all connected and things have consequences and those consequences are part and parcel of what makes it life.

What we have to realize is that there are forces in this world that go beyond the physical and they do have an influence in our lives. The fact that we can hate, kill and hurt or love and help others says it all. But to have the power to overcome the sin which leads to the taking, the hurting and the self interest we need god. We can try many different ways to feel good about ourselves and to overcome the things we dont like or that control us and some may work for a while. But the only one true way to win and overcome sin is through Christ and following his teachings. He set the example and paved the way. Satan wants us to think we dont need god and that we are gods and control our destinies and have the power to decide what is right when it comes to self. He wants mankind to be in charge and have all the capabilities of god. He wants to be able to create man and bring him back to life like God. But he cant and only God can through Christ and he knows it but he will always will try and win right to the very end.

[Elvis Trout]

Fantastic discussion!

I personally have not yet seen an explanation for 'free will' as it is commonly understood.

Therefore I don't believe we can 'hold people responsible' for their actions whatever that means. You can certainly try to influence someone's future behaviour. We work very well towards incentives, therefore you can incentivise behaviour both positively and negatively. However you cannot hold any body responsible for anything.

I believe your 'slapping' analogy is probably how we came to have cultural moral values in the first place. And if you have ever spent time amongst young children you will know that they have to be taught that causing pain is bad.
However the 'choice' not to slap someone is by no means a free choice. There are many implications to that action that our brain will weigh up, the social cost (slapping could have ramifications on your social standing), the cost of your relationship with the slappee, and the potential benefits of slapping them (asserting dominance, expressing disdain for their behaviour etc) and it will simply weigh the benefits against the risks whilst taking into account things like genetic tendencies towards risk taking and aggression and cultural values such as non-violence.

You say that people have a sense of right and wrong, however I would question whether this really is innate or is some thing that is learnt?

The problem with god's omniscience and omnipresence is that if you take a deist view, such that god sets things running and then sits back and does not interfere god is still implicated in controlling things because when he set creation in motion he knew what everything would do and therefore everything is a result of what he set in motion at the beginning so even if he is no longer controlling it then he knew at the beginning exactly what every single would do. How can you have meaningful sin when god knew that you would sin and still put the world in motion knowing that. Unless you then go on to claim that our free will is impenetrable to god's powers of foresight in which case god isn't really omniscient.