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?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 68 by otseng]

A literal reading of the Bible is disproved by just about every field of science. Zzyzx's debate with you showed pretty well how geology has disproved the Noah's ark story.

[olavisjo]

.

I've been somewhat disingenous in describing humans as simply complex biological computers. The truth, like most truths, lies somewhere between computers and completely free agents. We have the limited ability to reprogram ourselves and to that extent some praise is justified.

So we must have the ability to transcend the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics etc, in order to reprogram the parts of us that obey the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics etc.

We must exist before we can deny that we exist. Likewise we need to invoke free will to deny free will. So a world without free will is absurd.

So if atheism were true and accurate, we would find ourselves in an absurd word. But we do not find ourselves in an absurd world, so atheism must not be true and accurate.

[ndf8th]

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

I've debated philosophic atheists daily for a whole year and
my wild guess is that the notion of free will is a philosophic term.

Phil know nothing about science. Science and phil is only related in that
some try to structure words that way. Free will is totally inside philosophy.

What science can do is research on actual human behavior and
phil knows absolute nothing about such phil only knows how to do
rhetorical logical reasoning on words for behavior.

So science can do research on human behavior and that makes it reasonable
to say that we treat each other socially and psychologically as if we have
some control over our behavior.

The constraints that makes control fail is for science to find out
because phil knows nothing without the help of science.

[Peter]

20,000 years ago there was no higher law than natural selection. Today there's precious little natural selection so, no, natural selection isn't the highest law. What we have today is artificial selection and the technology to wipe out vast swaths of humanity in an instant. Today the least fit reproduce the most but also die the most. We have completely subverted natural evolutionary processes.

So, humans are exempt from evolution because he has the ability kill a large number of people?

Exempt? No. Just pointing out the tiny roll "natural" selection has on us these days. The ability to wipe out a significant portion of the human gene pool is just one example of our ability to wield artificial selection.

Just like any life form, we will never be exempt from Evolution but the selective forces driving evolution which were natural are steadily being replaced by artificial selective forces.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 68 by otseng]

A literal reading of the Bible is disproved by just about every field of science. Zzyzx's debate with you showed pretty well how geology has disproved the Noah's ark story.

I never felt he really engaged in a debate in that thread. Here's a better thread where at least the participants took the debate seriously.

[otseng]

20,000 years ago there was no higher law than natural selection. Today there's precious little natural selection so, no, natural selection isn't the highest law. What we have today is artificial selection and the technology to wipe out vast swaths of humanity in an instant. Today the least fit reproduce the most but also die the most. We have completely subverted natural evolutionary processes.

So, humans are exempt from evolution because he has the ability kill a large number of people?

Exempt? No. Just pointing out the tiny roll "natural" selection has on us these days. The ability to wipe out a significant portion of the human gene pool is just one example of our ability to wield artificial selection.

Just like any life form, we will never be exempt from Evolution but the selective forces driving evolution which were natural are steadily being replaced by artificial selective forces.

I've never encountered a definition of evolution where it included artificial selection. But, no matter. How about we just use the general term "selection" and disregard whether it's natural or artificial? Wouldn't selection be the highest guiding principal then for all human behavior? My point is, if this is so, then would selection supercede morality?

[Philbert]

My point is, if this is so, then would selection supercede morality?

Indeed, this was essentially the Nazi position, which must be admired for it's clear minded honesty, if nothing else.

The whole business is rather troubling, because by rejecting the Nazi position we are essentially arguing against a natural order which has existed for a billion years, an order that, if one is a theist, was created by God.

So God creates the entire vast realm of life to operate upon the premise of ruthless selection, and then turns to humans and says, "Oh no, don't do that."

Troubling as it is to admit, there is actually far more evidence to support the Nazi position as representing God's will than there is for the Christian interpretation of that will.

[Goat]

20,000 years ago there was no higher law than natural selection. Today there's precious little natural selection so, no, natural selection isn't the highest law. What we have today is artificial selection and the technology to wipe out vast swaths of humanity in an instant. Today the least fit reproduce the most but also die the most. We have completely subverted natural evolutionary processes.

So, humans are exempt from evolution because he has the ability kill a large number of people?

Exempt? No. Just pointing out the tiny roll "natural" selection has on us these days. The ability to wipe out a significant portion of the human gene pool is just one example of our ability to wield artificial selection.

Just like any life form, we will never be exempt from Evolution but the selective forces driving evolution which were natural are steadily being replaced by artificial selective forces.

I've never encountered a definition of evolution where it included artificial selection. But, no matter. How about we just use the general term "selection" and disregard whether it's natural or artificial? Wouldn't selection be the highest guiding principal then for all human behavior? My point is, if this is so, then would selection supercede morality?

Really? 'The change in frequency of alleles over time' would include that. as well as 'descent with modification'.

[otseng]

My point is, if this is so, then would selection supercede morality?

Indeed, this was essentially the Nazi position, which must be admired for it's clear minded honesty, if nothing else.

We don't even have to leave the US. Human selection has occurred here in America as evidenced by eugenics.

Really? 'The change in frequency of alleles over time' would include that. as well as 'descent with modification'.

We can then include the eugenics movement as the scientific application of evolution to remove the unfit genes from the gene pool.

[Goat]

My point is, if this is so, then would selection supercede morality?

Indeed, this was essentially the Nazi position, which must be admired for it's clear minded honesty, if nothing else.

We don't even have to leave the US. Human selection has occurred here in America as evidenced by eugenics.

Really? 'The change in frequency of alleles over time' would include that. as well as 'descent with modification'.

We can then include the eugenics movement as the scientific application of evolution to remove the unfit genes from the gene pool.

Yes.. although that would be under the aquspices of 'Social engineering'. It would also include the development of new breeds of dogs, and pigeons, under farm husbandry.

Evolution makes more moral judgements, it just describes how populations change over the generations.

You do realize there is a difference between the definition of evolution, and the defintion of the theory of evolution, right??