Secular Morality?

[seer]

Yes, minds are an emergent property of the non rational forces of nature, and the reason you should believe that is because that is what is observed through billions of years of evolution.

No Jim, no such thing was "observed." No one ever observed consciousness or rationality emerging from the non-rational forces of nature.

Your problem is in the assumption that determined minds can not be rational minds. You assume that your thoughts need be free in order for them to be rational. But if your thoughts are rational, if they comport with reality, it makes no difference whether they are free thoughts or determined thoughts, they are rational thoughts strictly based on the fact that they comport with the reality of the world they find themselves in.

Look Jim, I will explain this one more time. Your mind, in your worldview, was created by forces that did not intend to create rationality, and were not rational themselves. And these forces, that were not in any way rational, predetermined that your mind work in a specific rational way. But why? When you look at a working, accurate calculator the only reason it is accurate is because the engineer that designed and created it was rational. The calculator depends completely on a rational creator. No one would trust the answers of a calculator that was created by non-rational forces. Would you?

BTW everyone - that is my new grandson I'm holding - Isaac James...

[seer]

Determinism is the view that every event is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs and this includes human decisions and actions. Why is this not true? I'm waiting.

You want to claim that human behaviour is exempt from this causal stream and that we have actual free-will (as opposed to the illusion of it). But, to be taken seriously, you must provide credible evidence to support your claim. BTW: to reiterate, what you persist in presenting as determinism is in fact ‘fatalism’. There's a difference.

Webster, determinism: philosophy : the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism

But you know this not true. Again: in a determined universe we have the illusion of free-will, rather than actual free-will. The same applies to a chimpanzee choosing a banana from a tree. We and our fellow creatures think we have control over what we believe and do - we make choices and act accordingly. This is all that can be said with certainty. If you dispute this you must support your belief with substantive evidence. Otherwise why would anyone believe you?

If this is true Tass, then you are just as determined to spit out whatever, as a chimp spits outs grunts. You have no more control over what you think or believe than the monkey. You really don't understand how profound the question Darwin asked is, how it effects everything. Why on this model should I expect rationality? The forces that created you were not rational. Also, I have no reason to assume that we know enough about the universe to reject freedom of the will, especially in light of quantum inter-determinism, which we really do not know enough about. And the fact that there are paradigm shift in science. And the fact that I'm not a materialists.

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is questioning whether or not the mind has the capacity to do these things, the question is whether or not these actions are free. Physical law as we know it says no.

I believe this is an over statement of the current scientific evidence concerning the nature of human will. The current scientific evidence indicates that IF we have Free Will it is limited. My view is we have a will, but it is not necessarily free. It is apparent by the evidence that by far most of decisions are not truly free, but occur within a range of choices that show a chaotic pattern. By far most decision occur within the constraints of a cultural paradigm, and as a result are not free.

I personally believe that free will decisions occur in the fringes of human thinking (philosophy) and science where people think outside the box of human society, and are willing to accept change. This cutting edge of human will is where civilization advances.

[seer]

I believe this is an over statement of the current scientific evidence concerning the nature of human will. The current scientific evidence indicates that IF we have Free Will it is limited.

How can you say that Shuny, when you believe in a human soul that is not determined by the laws of nature?

[shunyadragon]

How can you say that Shuny, when you believe in a human soul that is not determined by the laws of nature?

Seer as usual you are misrepresenting me. We are not discussing the human soul. The nature of our will is determined by Natural Law. Natural Law is determined by God.

If you read my post correctly I am disagreeing with some, not all atheists, believe the evidence indicates we do not have Free Will.

I am citing the current view of science and to a certain extent my view as described. I have never asserted that humans do not have 'Free Will.' Please reread my post and cite me properly. The view among Christians is not consistent. If you believe in Calvinism, we do not have Free Will. If you believe in other views held by Free Will Baptists, Roman Church believers, or forms of Christian 'Open Theology' you likely endorse a view of Free Will. All believe in the existence of the soul.

[seer]

Seer as usual you are misrepresenting me. We are not discussing the human soul. The nature of our will is determined by Natural Law. Natural Law is determined by God.

If you read my post correctly I am disagreeing with some, not all atheists, believe the evidence indicates we do not have Free Will.

I am citing the current view of science and to a certain extent my view as described. I have never asserted that humans do not have 'Free Will.' Please reread my post and cite me properly. The view among Christians is not consistent. If you believe in Calvinism, we do not have Free Will. If you believe in other views held by Free Will Baptists, Roman Church believers, or forms of Christian 'Open Theology' you likely endorse a view of Free Will. All believe in the existence of the soul.

Nonsense Shuny, we know that science is wrong on this issue. And you said:My view is we have a will, but it is not necessarily free. That is in contradiction with what your religion teaches.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, we know that science is wrong on this issue.

You do not believe in science, so what's new?????

And you said:My view is we have a will, but it is not necessarily free. That is in contradiction with what your religion teaches.

Selectively citing my posts. Read the whole post. I did not say we absolutely do not have free will. I do not believe a libertarian Free Will is a realistic conclusion based on the evidence.

Remember Christianity does not necessarily support in scripture Free Will. If your Calvinist, you do not believe in Free Will.

You do not believe in the Baha'i Faith, so it is disingenuous that you cite something you do not believe in.

[seer]

You do not believe in science, so what's new?????

Neither do you, since science, basically, denies freedom of the will.

Selectively citing my posts. Read the whole post. I did not say we absolutely do not have free will. I do not believe a libertarian Free Will is a realistic conclusion based on the evidence.

On what evidence Shuny? Does not your own faith teach that the soul of man, his rational abilities, are not subject to the deterministic laws of nature? Don't you agree?

Remember Christianity does not necessarily support in scripture Free Will. If your Calvinist, you do not believe in Free Will.

I'm not a Calvinist!

You do not believe in the Baha'i Faith, so it is disingenuous that you cite something you do not believe in.

But when your faith agrees with mine, or borrows from mine, I agree. And I agree with your teaching on free will: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-71.html

[firstfloor]

There is no theory of disembodied cognition. The famous mind / body problem in philosophy is premised on the naive idea of the disembodied mind.

And:

“There appears to be a rare unanimity among biblical scholars that the biblical picture of the person is non-dualist, and that the Bible gives little or no support to the idea that a person is essentially a soul, or that the soul is separable from the body. Dualists, of course, may reply that, regardless of what the Bible said about the issue then, dualism offers a convincing framework for Christian teaching now. Even so, they cannot get around the fact that, from a biblical point of view, dualism is very odd.”

[shunyadragon]

Neither do you, since science, basically, denies freedom of the will.

No it does not!! Individual research projects have at best demonstrated that human Free Will is limited, which I agree. The limit of determinism in science is that Natural Laws determine the natural of our physical existence, which is not rigidly mechanistic.

On what evidence Shuny? Does not your own faith teach that the soul of man, his rational abilities, are not subject to the deterministic laws of nature? Don't you agree?

No I do not agree. Our rational abilities and nature are the result of the deterministic Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature are determined by God. Our soul is Created by God as separate from our physical self and our rational abilities are shared between our physical self and our soul.

I'm not a Calvinist!

Did not say you were, case in point, not all Christians believe in free will based on scripture.

But when your faith agrees with mine, or borrows from mine, I agree. And I agree with your teaching on free will: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-71.html

I never asserted that humans are not capable of Free Will. I do believe that 90%+ humans are on auto pilot and do not exercise their potential of Free Will.

Again I do not believe libertarian free will is a viable option, or anything close.

[seer]

No it does not!!

Well according to Tass, and the Scientists he quoted, science certainly does deny freedom of the will. That free will is only an illusion.

No I do not agree. Our rational abilities and nature are the result of the deterministic Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature are determined by God. Our soul is Created by God as separate from our physical self and our rational abilities are shared between our physical self and our soul.

So you agree that our soul (which is the seat of our rational abilities according to your faith) is outside of the deterministic laws of nature.

The essential identity of every human being is a rational and immortal soul, which is “entirely out of the order of the physical creation

[shunyadragon]

Well according to Tass, and the Scientists he quoted, science certainly does deny freedom of the will. That free will is only an illusion.

I have reviewed the research, and I believe that the research that was cited demonstrates that there are limits to 'free will,' but this research has not shown that humans are not capable of free will choices.

So you agree that our soul (which is the seat of our rational abilities according to your faith) is outside of the deterministic laws of nature.

Yes, though the nature of our will is an observable phenomenon in the physical world we live, and reflects a harmony with Natural Law. All of Creation Spiritual and physical is in harmony and not in conflict.

[seer]

I have reviewed the research, and I believe that the research that was cited demonstrates that there are limits to 'free will,' but this research has not shown that humans are not capable of free will choices.

So you disagree with Tass that all our choices are predetermined and that free will is an illusion? BTW - Tass, quoted a number of scientists - can you quote scientists that agree with you?

Yes.

So if science claimed that no such thing as the soul existed you would disagree with science. Good...

[shunyadragon]

Concerning the present scientific research and conclusions concerning the nature of human will the following is a good starting point for discussion, but in no way conclusive.

Source: Disputed relevance of scientific research

In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. It has been suggested that consciousness mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious,[7] so its role in decision making is experimentally investigated. Some thinkers, like Daniel Dennett or Alfred Mele, say it is important to explain that "free will" means many different things; among these versions of free will some are dualistic, some not. But a variety of conceptions of "free will" that matter to people are compatible with the evidence from neuroscience.

Free Will as Illusion

It is quite likely that a large range of cognitive operations are necessary to freely press a button. Research at least suggests that our conscious self does not initiate all behavior. Instead, the conscious self is somehow alerted to a given behavior that the rest of the brain and body are already planning and performing. These findings do not forbid conscious experience from playing some moderating role, although it is also possible that some form of unconscious process is what is causing modification in our behavioral response. Unconscious processes may play a larger role in behavior than previously thought.

It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious "intentions" have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation with causation by believing that conscious awareness necessarily causes the body's movement. This possibility is bolstered by findings in neurostimulation, brain damage, but also research into introspection illusions. Such illusions show that humans do not have full access to various internal processes. The discovery that humans possess a determined will would have implications for moral responsibility. Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris believes that we are mistaken in believing the intuitive idea that intention initiates actions. In fact, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. Harris argues "Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion".[15] Philosopher Walter Jackson Freeman III nevertheless talks about the power of even unconscious systems and actions to change the world according to our intentions. He writes "our intentional actions continually flow into the world, changing the world and the relations of our bodies to it. This dynamic system is the self in each of us, it is the agency in charge, not our awareness, which is constantly trying to keep up with what we do."[16] To Freeman, the power of intention and action can be independent of awareness.

Disputed relevance of scientific research 'Research Inconclusive'

Some thinkers like neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain are involved before decision making. In contrast, Haggard believes that "We feel we choose, but we don't".[10] Researcher John-Dylan Haynes adds "How can I call a will 'mine' if I don't even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?".[10] Philosophers Walter Glannon and Alfred Mele think some scientists are getting the science right, but misrepresenting modern philosophers. This is mainly because "free will" can mean many things: It is unclear what someone means when they say "free will does not exist". Mele and Glannon say that the available research is more evidence against any dualistic notions of free will - but that is an "easy target for neuroscientists to knock down".[10] Mele says that most discussions of free will are now had in materialistic terms. In these cases, "free will" means something more like "not coerced" or that "the person could have done otherwise at the last moment". The existence of these types of free will is debatable. Mele agrees, however, that science will continue to reveal critical details about what goes on in the brain during decision making.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

So if science claimed that no such thing as the soul existed you would disagree with science. Good...

Science cannot claim anything that cannot be falsified by scientific methods. The nature of soul is beyond the capability of Methodological Naturalism to determine anything.