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?

[Peter]

.

So why call them natural rights?

It's more likely just majority human consensus.

So killing off a minority race is fine as long as you have a 'majority human consensus'.

Yes. Good luck getting that concensus though... I suppose that's why it's so hard to accept that's the way morality works because you can come up with scenarios that seem totally wrong.

Let me try. Killing babies for fun and profit would be right as long as you have a majority consensus. Ewww, that's hard to accept isn't it? Too bad it's true.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 246 by Divine Insight]

I think that people do have natural rights that transcend time and culture. Is that objective morality?

The words "I think" very clearly define it as subjective, not objective.

No, my level of knowledge, or confidence in my level of knowledge having nothing to do with whether something is objective or subjective.

Websters Dictionary
Objective:Existing outside and independent of the mind; treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudice.

By that definition "objective morality" has nothing to do with the existence of God since God is a mind.

[Peter]

So why call them natural rights?

Intrinsic rights would be more accurate. What rights do you have simply by existing? To end that existence seems to me to be the only intrinsic right.

[help3434]

What do you guys think about the lyrics of the Rush song Freewill?

[JohnPaul]

.

So why call them natural rights?

It's more likely just majority human consensus.

So killing off a minority race is fine as long as you have a 'majority human consensus'.

Would a command of God do it for you?

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an
inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

[Divine Insight]

So I believe in free will. Therefore, for me, personal responsibility is a meaningful concept.

How does free will work?

I'm picking up a color for my new car, I choose red, since I happen to prefer that color. My choice was determined by my preferences that I cannot control. How is this particular scenario different if you are a spiritual person and believe in free will?

I suggest looking into Buddhism for the answer to your question. Based on your comments they pretty much have your concerns very well covered.

[Divine Insight]

So why call them natural rights?

Intrinsic rights would be more accurate. What rights do you have simply by existing? To end that existence seems to me to be the only intrinsic right.

What do 'rights' even mean? Typically they mean that you have someone's permission.

For example, you have certain 'rights' by law. In this case it is the law that is giving you permission to do something without having to answer to them.

So with respect to nature what 'rights' do you have? You basically have the right to do anything you can get away with doing. Nature apparently doesn't place many restrictions on your rights other than the obvious physical limitations. For example you do not have the 'right' to fly away without the aid of technological equipment of some sort.

In nature you basically have the 'right' to do whatever you can do.

It's only going to be humans who are going to question your 'rights'.

[Peter]

So why call them natural rights?

Intrinsic rights would be more accurate. What rights do you have simply by existing? To end that existence seems to me to be the only intrinsic right.

What do 'rights' even mean? Typically they mean that you have someone's permission.

An intrinsic right would not require anyones permission.

[Peter]

What do you guys think about the lyrics of the Rush song Freewill?

Ah, my favorite band. Neil is declaring that he will not dance like a puppet on some gods strings but will choose (the illusion of) free will instead.

It's a superficial sentiment and doesn't delve very deeply into the concept of free will IMO.

[Divine Insight]

So why call them natural rights?

Intrinsic rights would be more accurate. What rights do you have simply by existing? To end that existence seems to me to be the only intrinsic right.

What do 'rights' even mean? Typically they mean that you have someone's permission.

An intrinsic right would not require anyones permission.

What makes it right then?

Human definition?

If so, then humans are giving their permission for this to be considered to be a right.


In fact, all of these concepts of rights, morality, and so on, are all just human inventions.

Free will, however, is something that runs a bit deeper. It's not merely a definition, it's actually a concept that is either true or false. And the problem is that we can't honestly say whether it's true or false.

All we can do is guess.