Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Rational Atheist
Student
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #1

Post by Rational Atheist »

Here is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.

1. Our thoughts determine our choices.

2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.

3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.

I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.

Kylie
Apprentice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #21

Post by Kylie »

Rational Atheist wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:18 pm Here is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.

1. Our thoughts determine our choices.

2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.

3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.

I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.
If I was to come up and punch you in the face, breaking your nose, would you seek to have me prosecuted by law enforcement?

Kevin King
Student
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:25 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #22

Post by Kevin King »

There is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.

1. Our thoughts determine our choices.

2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.

3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.

I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.
------------------

Truly I say to you any discussion about free will is exceedingly difficult and complex. Religion, philosophy, and science all have weighed in over the millennia and the problem cannot be solved.

The Bible is clear that humans are responsible for their actions. For example, in Genesis 2:16-17 says “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Proverbs 16:9 states quite similarly "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps."

Science is mixed. First, there is evidence that the brain unconsciously "thinks" of an action before the person is aware of their decision (Schmidt & Lee, 2018). Conversely, if a person is depressed or anxious, psychologists are able to help patients identify thoughts that are not helpful and those that are constructive, implying there is some degree of free will or control over thoughts and actions (Wallace, 2016). The degree of free will also depends on personal experience, environmental influences, biological factors and the type of situation one is in at any given time.

All-in-all, given the factors mentioned, humans have responsibility for what they do and don't do. Without free will, there is no ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, or civilization. I disagree with Rational Atheist and declare free will does exist.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #23

Post by Miles »

Kevin King wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:02 pm
Truly I say to you any discussion about free will is exceedingly difficult and complex. Religion, philosophy, and science all have weighed in over the millennia and the problem cannot be solved.
The only "weigh in" I've seen from religion are proclamations. No arguments or explanations whatsoever.

The only "weigh in" I've seen from science is an acknowledgment of determinism, free will's philosophical foe.

Only philosophy has really "weighed in" on the subject.

The Bible is clear that humans are responsible for their actions. For example, in Genesis 2:16-17 says “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Proverbs 16:9 states quite similarly "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps."
Unless one is committed to believe everything the Bible says, all this immaterial. Why should a non-Jew or non-Christian care what the Bible says? They shouldn't.

Science is mixed. First, there is evidence that the brain unconsciously "thinks" of an action before the person is aware of their decision (Schmidt & Lee, 2018). Conversely, if a person is depressed or anxious, psychologists are able to help patients identify thoughts that are not helpful and those that are constructive, implying there is some degree of free will or control over thoughts and actions (Wallace, 2016). The degree of free will also depends on personal experience, environmental influences, biological factors and the type of situation one is in at any given time.
Hogwash. While science has indeed discovered the brain can exhibit decision making before one is conscious of it, there is nothing implying any degree of free will is at work. And, in as much as free will is an illusion, there is no dependency on personal experience, environmental influences, biological factors and the type of situation one is in at any given. The only thing the notion of free will depends on is gullibility fomented by need.

All-in-all, given the factors mentioned, humans have responsibility for what they do and don't do.
Only to the degree of assigning immediate agency, e.g. "Bruce didn't do it, Boris did."

Without free will, there is no ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, or civilization.
Quite an overstatement. :roll: The only perceived loss would be a false awareness of accountability involving morals. I fail to see why laws, philosophy, and civilization would cease to be. Care to explain?


.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #24

Post by Miles »

.


Post to put thread into queue.


,

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #25

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Miles wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:23 pm
Kevin King wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:02 pm All-in-all, given the factors mentioned, humans have responsibility for what they do and don't do.
Only to the degree of assigning immediate agency, e.g. "Bruce didn't do it, Boris did."
I see more agency than that. I assume that you can agree that there are different levels of determinism. Even if we're in a completely deterministic Universe, but we're not like puppets or mindless objects that have no say or ability to influence our actions. If that were the case, then we can say that would be one of the most stringent levels of determinism. But I think we're at a level of determinism that allows us to have a say in that we can bring about certain causes to bring about a certain effect. Just having knowledge of cause and effect and the ability to act on that knowledge gives us that ability.

For instance, adultery is wrong. There are ways to avoid adultery and I know about them. If I surround myself with all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior, then I'm likely not going to commit non-adulterous behavior.

In a sense, what I'm saying is that we can choose what we allow to control or influence us.
Miles wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:23 pm
Kevin King wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:02 pm Without free will, there is no ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, or civilization.
Quite an overstatement. :roll: The only perceived loss would be a false awareness of accountability involving morals. I fail to see why laws, philosophy, and civilization would cease to be. Care to explain?
Laws and morals could still exist but expecting all people to follow them would be pointless. Those that are hardwired to not follow them would obviously fail. Throwing the failures into jail as if that would change them would be useless.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #26

Post by Miles »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am
Miles wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:23 pm
Kevin King wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:02 pm All-in-all, given the factors mentioned, humans have responsibility for what they do and don't do.
Only to the degree of assigning immediate agency, e.g. "Bruce didn't do it, Boris did."
I see more agency than that. I assume that you can agree that there are different levels of determinism. Even if we're in a completely deterministic Universe, but we're not like puppets or mindless objects that have no say or ability to influence our actions.
Why not? Why should we necessarily be exceptions? Because we don't like the idea? Yup.

If that were the case, then we can say that would be one of the most stringent levels of determinism.
The most common name for it is "hard determinism."
"But I think we're at a level of determinism that allows us to have a say in that we can bring about certain causes to bring about a certain effect.
How? How do you escape being directed by what preceded an act? How could you have done differently if all the preceding factors (answers to the question "why this rather than that?") leading up to act X were the same?

Just having knowledge of cause and effect and the ability to act on that knowledge gives us that ability.
And why would this necessarily be the case?

For instance, adultery is wrong. There are ways to avoid adultery and I know about them. If I surround myself with all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior, then I'm likely not going to commit non-adulterous behavior.
And just how did you come to know all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior? Sure you didn't miss one or two? Of course you're not. To do that you'd have to be a god.

In a sense, what I'm saying is that we can choose what we allow to control or influence us.
Yes, I know; however, in a deterministic world, one that controls what we will, choosing simply doesn't exist.

Miles wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:23 pm
Kevin King wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:02 pm Without free will, there is no ethics, morals, laws, philosophy, or civilization.
Quite an overstatement. :roll: The only perceived loss would be a false awareness of accountability involving morals. I fail to see why laws, philosophy, and civilization would cease to be. Care to explain?
Laws and morals could still exist but expecting all people to follow them would be pointless.
If free will came to be recognized as an illusion why would anyone hang on to morals, which are rooted in free will? Laws, on the other hand, have the ability to influence acts by their consequences. Even if everything I do, including my thoughts, are determined, because breaking law X has the consequence of putting me in jail for ten days, it could function as a deterring factor, along with all the other factors that go into my behavior, to not break law X.

Those that are hardwired to not follow them would obviously fail.
Those what? What laws or morals are hardwired into us?



.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #27

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am I see more agency than that. I assume that you can agree that there are different levels of determinism. Even if we're in a completely deterministic Universe, but we're not like puppets or mindless objects that have no say or ability to influence our actions.
Why not? Why should we necessarily be exceptions?
We're not mindless. We have the ability to know what controls our actions which is why we are able to modify our behavior.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 amIf that were the case, then we can say that would be one of the most stringent levels of determinism.
The most common name for it is "hard determinism."
Which type of determinism do you subscribe to?
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am "But I we're at a level of determinism that allows us to have a say in that we can bring about certain causes to bring about a certain effect.
How? How do you escape being directed by what preceded an act? How could you have done differently if all the preceding factors leading up to act X were the same?
I'm not trying to show that we can act outside of a causal chain, but rather my claim is that we can use the chain to achieve a certain goal or outcome. To use a computer analogy, imagine that we're programmed by code, and that we have the ability to modify or write our own code.

If anything, the goal or outcome can be considered outside of a causal chain because it can be anything that we can imagine. You can come up with a goal that adultery is okay or not okay. And then figure out what causes, factors, or inputs that would go towards that goal. Implement it accordingly to reach the target outcome.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 amJust having knowledge of cause and effect and the ability to act on that knowledge gives us that ability.
And why would this necessarily be the case?
There's already a practical application for it in science. We can manipulate our environment, biology, and psychology using technology and medicine. In terms of modifying our behavior or getting over arachnophobia, we would just simply control our environment (expose yourself to spiders) and our reactions to it. If you want an example from biology then consider 'gene therapy'.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am For instance, adultery is wrong. There are ways to avoid adultery and I know about them. If I surround myself with all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior, then I'm likely not going to commit non-adulterous behavior.
And just how did you come to know all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior? Sure you didn't miss one or two? Of course you're not.
Well first, being in a deterministic universe does not mean that you wouldn't know about all the causes and effects. It seems as if you may be assuming otherwise. I can just say that I know enough about the causes and effects or at least know about some of the crucial ones to be able to reach a particular goal or outcome.

Remember we're not mindless robots. We have self-awareness, we're able to question everything and explore many things.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 amIn a sense, what I'm saying is that we can choose what we allow to control or influence us.
Yes, I know; however, in a deterministic world, one that controls what we will, choosing simply doesn't exist
I'd expect that under hard determinism, but in a lesser form, some degree of choice exists. We have a say on what path to follow or we at least know about different paths. All that it takes to select a given path it's just to apply all of the inputs, factors, and causes into your life. I still wouldn't call this choice free will though because it's still actions or choices that are based on goals or just knowledge of something.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am Laws and morals could still exist but expecting all people to follow them would be pointless.
If free will came to be recognized as an illusion why would anyone hang on to morals, which are rooted in free will?

Even without free-will, laws can play the role of providing order (assuming we are all hard wired to survive). Free-will would only be relevant when it comes to why or how we follow these rules.

Keep in mind though, that I agree with you when it comes to laws and morals still existing even if there's no free will. My disagreement is with your view that choices of any kind do not exist.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm Laws, on the other hand, have the ability to influence acts by their consequences. Even if everything I do, including my thoughts, are determined, because breaking law X has the consequence of putting me in jail for ten days, it could function as a deterring factor, along with all the other factors that go into my behavior, to not break law X.
And I assume that those are consequences that we put in place (jail time?). So then, do you agree that we can shape our behavior, and that applying consequences and rewards to certain behaviors , is one way to do that? If every level of our life was determined, which is what I thought you were claiming, then we would have NO control over our actions. Under your universe, if someone wanted to act by breaking law x, they would have no choice or control but to break the law.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am Those that are hardwired to not follow them would obviously fail.
Those what? What laws or morals are hardwired into us?
I was referring to behavior.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #28

Post by Bradskii »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am I see more agency than that. I assume that you can agree that there are different levels of determinism. Even if we're in a completely deterministic Universe, but we're not like puppets or mindless objects that have no say or ability to influence our actions.
That we live in a deterministic universe seems to me to be undeniable. There are events that are beyond our control that determine quite major aspects of our existence.

The fact that I am sitting here in Sydney writing this is a result of me being born in a particular place at a particular time for example. And there are other events which were totally beyond my control that have resulted in me being here. In fact, that number of events is effectively infinite. Some have only the smallest influence at any given point and they may take you on a very slightly different path but a path which ends up having a major influence. For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For the want of a shoe, the horse was lost. Then the fight, the battle, the war and the nation.

But what about the fork in the road when I had choices to make? Do I go to this particular pub on this particular night? Do I ask the good looking girl if she wants a drink? Do I eventually ask her to marry me? Do I suggest emigrating to Australia? Surely these are decisions I make with a free will.

But free will to me means that if you repeat an event a la Groundhog Day then you might make a different decision each time. But the decisions we make are based on reasons which are determined by past events. What reason would you have for making a different one? If you chose differently then it would be arbitrary - which discounts free will entirely.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #29

Post by Miles »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:25 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am I see more agency than that. I assume that you can agree that there are different levels of determinism. Even if we're in a completely deterministic Universe, but we're not like puppets or mindless objects that have no say or ability to influence our actions.
Why not? Why should we necessarily be exceptions?
We're not mindless.
Never said we're mindless or that lacking free will would render one mindless.

We have the ability to know what controls our actions which is why we are able to modify our behavior.
Yup, and we do so because those actions were determined by prior causes and the operation of laws of nature, and therefore couldn't be other than what they were. You couldn't modify any behavior unless you had prior causes making you do so.

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 amIf that were the case, then we can say that would be one of the most stringent levels of determinism.
The most common name for it is "hard determinism."
Which type of determinism do you subscribe to?
I'm a hard determinist.

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am "But I we're at a level of determinism that allows us to have a say in that we can bring about certain causes to bring about a certain effect.
How? How do you escape being directed by what preceded an act? How could you have done differently if all the preceding factors leading up to act X were the same?
I'm not trying to show that we can act outside of a causal chain, [sure you are] but rather my claim is that we can use the chain to achieve a certain goal or outcome.
Only to the extent the chain makes you do so.

To use a computer analogy, imagine that we're programmed by code, and that we have the ability to modify or write our own code.
Poor analogy because no one can choose to do anything including modifying or writing our own code.
If anything, the goal or outcome can be considered outside of a causal chain because it can be anything that we can imagine.
Can that anything include flapping my arms and flying because I imagine it?
You can come up with a goal that adultery is okay or not okay.
Only if prior causes come together and create that goal.
And then figure out what causes, factors, or inputs that would go towards that goal.
Only if prior causes come together and create that figuring.
Implement it accordingly to reach the target outcome.
Only if prior causes come together and create that implementation.

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 amJust having knowledge of cause and effect and the ability to act on that knowledge gives us that ability.
And why would this necessarily be the case?
There's already a practical application for it in science. We can manipulate our environment, biology, and psychology using technology and medicine. In terms of modifying our behavior or getting over arachnophobia, we would just simply control our environment (expose yourself to spiders) and our reactions to it. If you want an example from biology then consider 'gene therapy'.
And none of this without being determined by prior causes coming together make it be so.

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am For instance, adultery is wrong. There are ways to avoid adultery and I know about them. If I surround myself with all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior, then I'm likely not going to commit non-adulterous behavior.
And just how did you come to know all of the environmental and psychological factors (causes) that would lead to non-adulterous behavior? Sure you didn't miss one or two? Of course you're not.
Well first, being in a deterministic universe does not mean that you wouldn't know about all the causes and effects.
If all the deterministic causal factors needed to produce such knowledge didn't come together you certainly wouldn't.

It seems as if you may be assuming otherwise.
I'm claiming otherwise.
Remember we're not mindless robots. We have self-awareness, we're able to question everything and explore many things.
And the only reason you would ever form such questions, whatever they may be, is because particular deterministic factors caused you to do so rather than not.
Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 amIn a sense, what I'm saying is that we can choose what we allow to control or influence us.
Yes, I know; however, in a deterministic world, one that controls what we will, choosing simply doesn't exist
I'd expect that under hard determinism, but in a lesser form, some degree of choice exists.
So what would this "lesser form" look like? Would determinism only operate sometimes?
We have a say on what path to follow or we at least know about different paths. All that it takes to select a given path it's just to apply all of the inputs, factors, and causes into your life.
Problem is, you have no choice in what you say or apply. What you say or apply is strictly determined by prior causes coming together to create your doing A rather than B, and if B happened to be following path XYZ, you never had a chance in following that particular path.

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:41 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:57 am Laws and morals could still exist but expecting all people to follow them would be pointless.
If free will came to be recognized as an illusion why would anyone hang on to morals, which are rooted in free will?
Good question. We would do so because particular deterministic factors caused us to do so rather than not. Personally, although I'm a hard determinist I still operate as if I can actually chose between A and B. Why? Because for whatever reason this is how I am constructed: those particular deterministic factors that control my thinking hide the truth of my inability to choose, but instead leave me thinking I do. Perhaps it's a survival mechanism I was caused to develop. Image

And I assume that those are consequences that we put in place (jail time?). So then, do you agree that we can shape our behavior, and that applying consequences and rewards to certain behaviors , is one way to do that?
ONLY if particular deterministic factors caused us to do so. There's no choosing to do so.


If every level of our life was determined, which is what I thought you were claiming, [it is] then we would have NO control over our actions.
Not by choosing anything, but because we're caused to do so. As operating agents we control which way we turn at an intersection not by choosing to go west instead of east, but because all the causal factors leading up to the time of turning determined we would to go west. There was no such thing as ever choosing to turn west or choosing not to turn east.

Under your universe, if someone wanted to act by breaking law x, they would have no choice or control but to break the law.
And, they would have had no choice in that wanting. They had to want to break law X.


.

Kevin King
Student
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:25 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

Post #30

Post by Kevin King »

[/quote]The only "weigh in" I've seen from religion are proclamations. No arguments or explanations whatsoever.

The only "weigh in" I've seen from science is an acknowledgment of determinism, free will's philosophical foe.

Only philosophy has really "weighed in" on the subject.[/quote]

------------------

True, religion only gives expectations, not explanations at times. Whether you think religion is true or voodoo magic, texts such as the Bible offer many descriptions of people making controversial decisions between alternatives in life (free will)

True again, science is deterministic, but sometimes studies in neuropsychology or cognitive neuroscience does reveal humans have the capacity for free will when tasks are oriented toward choice (Gazit, et.al., 2019).
Truly I say to you any discussion about free will is exceedingly difficult and complex. Religion, philosophy, and science all have weighed in over the millennia and the problem cannot be solved.
Miles: Do you see anywhere in the statement in which religion or science rendered an opinion, either way at that point, on the subject? No! I just pointed out the subject of free will was discussed by these writings. Your rebuttal, has no merit.
Unless one is committed to believe everything the Bible says, all this immaterial. Why should a non-Jew or non-Christian care what the Bible says? They shouldn't.
Perhaps not! Don't forget the Muslims - they have just as many prescriptions for life as the Christians and Jews. My comment was to point out Biblical truth - what is written. It is up to each person whether to accept it or reject it. Ergo: Free Will.
Hogwash. While science has indeed discovered the brain can exhibit decision making before one is conscious of it, there is nothing implying any degree of free will is at work. And, in as much as free will is an illusion, there is no dependency on personal experience, environmental influences, biological factors and the type of situation one is in at any given. The only thing the notion of free will depends on is gullibility fomented by need.
There are experts through out medicine and psychology who support the idea that personal experience, environment and biology all influence behavior. What are you talking about that these things don't matter? You might think "Ah-Ha! - Got'cha, how can anyone have free will if you have all those influences?" B

Post Reply