Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
... I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
I appreciate the simplistic way that you've approached this topic, but unfortunately things are not this cut and dry. I am certainly not qualified to be discussing quantum mechanics and matters of the such, but what I can tell you and what others will tell you is that there are still gaping holes that need to be reconciled before we can start drawing vast conclusions like you have here. Keep in mind that it is the theory of quantum mechanics, not a law. Good discussion though.
A law is not something that is believed to be more true than a theory.
A theory is a general framework that explains a particular set of phenomena. A law is simply a mathematical equation that describes some aspect of that phenomena, i.e. a law is a (small) part of a theory. Laws, like theories, can be correct, merely approximations, or completely wrong.
Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory in the history of science.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
... I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
I appreciate the simplistic way that you've approached this topic, but unfortunately things are not this cut and dry. I am certainly not qualified to be discussing quantum mechanics and matters of the such, but what I can tell you and what others will tell you is that there are still gaping holes that need to be reconciled before we can start drawing vast conclusions like you have here. Keep in mind that it is the theory of quantum mechanics, not a law. Good discussion though.
A law is not something that is believed to be more true than a theory.
A theory is a general framework that explains a particular set of phenomena. A law is simply a mathematical equation that describes some aspect of that phenomena, i.e. a law is a (small) part of a theory. Laws, like theories, can be correct, merely approximations, or completely wrong.
Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory in the history of science.
Forgive me if i am wrong about this but aren't there actually over 10 more or less solid theories about quantum mechanics all relying on basically the same observation that both, place and speed of a partical can never be known which is merely the only law of quantum mechanics so far? I've heard that the empiristic evidence of QM is sort of overwhelming but at the same time a huge amount of QM's principles are yet to be discovered and for the time being just subject of speculation?
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
It falls back on the fact that as of now, science is not holistic and it really isn't an issue that different fields of physics have different understanding of what he theory of quantum mechanics actually means.
The fact of the matter is, even the people at the forefront of physics have not ruled out freewill due to their findings so i dont see how the OP can claim that free will definately does not exist, when the experts on the subject he claims proves it does not exist, say they cant prove that...
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
Yes I know, you said that to me. That's an inadequate response if you're going to continue to insist that it's irrational that one assert free will exists as I've just very clearly explained how it rationally can.
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history.
Link? I had heard GPS has made relativity the most tested theory of all time. Is that what you meant?
P.S. I liked this thread more when it was about free will, before the OP got back and turned it into an attack on religion.
Well that is sort of implicated when you start talking about harris. You start with a discussion about free will, you state that there is none, then you go raging about religion to finally find yourself determined to first oversimplify and second judge everything you dont want to understand. It's determination man, free will would induce morality and who would want to be held responsible for such misanthropic pseudo-science...
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
Yes I know, you said that to me. That's an inadequate response if you're going to continue to insist that it's irrational that one assert free will exists as I've just very clearly explained how it rationally can.
I'm saying "free will A" doesn't exist.
You're saying "free will B" exists. I agree that "free will B" exist, as does probably everyone on the planet. But "free will A" still doesn't exist.
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history.
Link? I had heard GPS has made relativity the most tested theory of all time. Is that what you meant?
P.S. I liked this thread more when it was about free will, before the OP got back and turned it into an attack on religion.
Well that is sort of implicated when you start talking about harris. You start with a discussion about free will, you state that there is none, then you go raging about religion to finally find yourself determined to first oversimplify and second judge everything you dont want to understand. It's determination man, free will would induce morality and who would want to be held responsible for such misanthropic pseudo-science...
I've read Harris' arguments on free will. He doesn't usually invoke religion. I do.
If you actually have an argument to make against my points, then make it.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists.
I do not see why anyone would try to demonstrate that free will exists, that in itself would be absurd. The use of the quantum fluctuations is to point out that based on the same initial state, alternatives to the final outcome exist. A single experiment that is not determined is enough to leave room for choice.
That gap is all that is required to allow for any decision making process we can imagine
There is no gap. The gap is already filled by fundamental randomness. If humans can fill that gap with their will, then it is no longer fundamentally random, contradicting quantum mechanics, which brings be back to the point in the OP: the existence of free will is inconsistent with what we currently know about the universe.
It's pretty much a fact that the universe is random.
Theory does not have a gap, because it fills in indetermination with randomness. Theory is accepted because this randomness is largely verified through experiment. My point is that such randomness cannot be proved/disproved as far as human decision is concerned. The fact that universe is random is "pretty much" a fact.
The scientific argument here is to state: everything we have been able to test so far is in agreement with theory, from stars to particules; there is nothing we have ever found that could go against this theory. If free will existed as a mean to select the outcome of a quantum event, it would introduce a bias in the global randomness, which is a measurable effect.
Fact is: we cannot measure something like "decision randomness" to identify if this bias exists, because there is no reason any quantum state change could exist to be identified as a "decision trigger" and no way to select it for measurement if it did.
Our model of the universe requires randomness, yes. Through our model, we predict any event we cannot measure behaves randomly. Until measurement can be made, even such a weird free will is a matter of belief in the model or in the exception. (as long as I don't put on the light, I cannot know there isn't a monster under my bed. In fact, it makes delicious chocolate cookies. Not too sure where he gets the chocolate though)
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
The sheer fact that we have not reached a grand unified theory shows that our science is not perfect, therefor inconsitency is expected at this stage. And so far our science shows that not all things that apply to the small scale of things works on the macro scale. So its altogether possible, not suggesting probable or more consitent or anything, that free will exists. You can not prove it does not exist, and so can not state that it does not. But even if it does not exist we cannot base our actions on that assumption anyway. To quote Stephen Hawking:
' I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.'
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
The sheer fact that we have not reached a grand unified theory shows that our science is not perfect, therefor inconsitency is expected at this stage. And so far our science shows that not all things that apply to the small scale of things works on the macro scale. So its altogether possible, not suggesting probable or more consitent or anything, that free will exists. You can not prove it does not exist, and so can not state that it does not. But even if it does not exist we cannot base our actions on that assumption anyway. To quote Stephen Hawking:
' I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.'
I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe.
Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.
You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies
EPT
