Science, soul and free will
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
Free will is randomness, s_lone.
That was just a shortform, Anna. If you had bothered to read the next sentence, I was in a hurry to leave, and I expressed my thought in as few words as possible. Free will is intimately connected with randomness.
That was just a shortform, Anna. If you had bothered to read the next sentence, I was in a hurry to leave, and I expressed my thought in as few words as possible. Free will is intimately connected with randomness.
Relative to what is, science will never explain a lot of stuff or even an appreciable fraction of stuff because the head start enjoyed by the universe in the stuff and ever evolving new stuff departments is relentless.
The word free causes a lot of problems as SJP has illuminated, go ahead try and find one free thing in the universe including will. Yes I know the base meaning of the term free will, no matter nothing is free every action or thought must be paid for Maybe thew term needs renewal to something more rational like available will, or earned will, or exercised will, or intent. You think that breath was free, who paid for the lung work? Anyway science is a screwdriver not in the same class at all with the soul or it's will. I could be slightly wrong.
I don't care. You made that statement and then made a conflicting statement later when s-lone questioned you on it.
Your credibility approaches zero.
That is your opinion, Anna. Just as it is my opinion that you are a right wing nut. I take everything you say with a generous pinch of salt. I just cannot take somebody on the far right seriously.
I quite agree, darkbeaver. Personally I find it very difficult to decide whether free will exists or not. We just don’t know.
So what?
It was an observation. The opinion part is where your credibility is approaching nil. And it's supported by the evidence you leave from post to post. But I don't expect you'd know the difference, Chairman Mao.
Free is a concept only. To exercise our will we absolutely depend on our environment and our aquired skills and knowledge nothing can be done free or removed from those requirements. Further to that, is it not true that to exercise the will, free of all externalities would be to act from absolute ignorance and contempt? Try as we might we will never be free and we don't want to be. To be free means to be alone, to be free means to exist in the dark, to be free means you will never touch or feel or love.
Isn't independent the same as free AnnaG? All I'm trying to get at is that in truth we are never free and never independent and we can never be individuals. What kind of sound productive exercise of will would not advise that act of will with emotion and faith and logic? It's exactly the point I'm trying to make, that the best of our will depends on assembling the intent to action with the best available advice, we cannot exercise the will, free of input, and expect positive results can we?
lol criminals in prison can't be free, but they can be independent. Some sit in cells and read, others watch tv, some are outside exercising, etc.
This individual wanders around free. I go swimming, hiking, gardening, etc. And I am independent.
I can will myself to do these things, just as I can will myself to not harm people. And there are no constraints on me keeping me from doing this willing.
This individual wanders around free. I go swimming, hiking, gardening, etc. And I am independent.
I can will myself to do these things, just as I can will myself to not harm people. And there are no constraints on me keeping me from doing this willing.
Theology used to be considered the Queen of Sciences, because it had been thought that the study of God, by definition the source of all truth, informed and illuminated all other branches of knowledge.
In fact this attitude must prevail still if one is not to fall into mechanistic, purely materialistic, subjective and futile philosophical perspective.
These two form the contending perspectives of our universe..that of mechanistic materialism and that defined by a supernatural creative will. The latter implies not only a soul.. but a God.. and thereby Free Will. Choose the former and you have to reject all three.
The major fallacy of our time is that faith and science cannot coexist. The truth is they cannot be sustained without each other.
In fact this attitude must prevail still if one is not to fall into mechanistic, purely materialistic, subjective and futile philosophical perspective.
These two form the contending perspectives of our universe..that of mechanistic materialism and that defined by a supernatural creative will. The latter implies not only a soul.. but a God.. and thereby Free Will. Choose the former and you have to reject all three.
The major fallacy of our time is that faith and science cannot coexist. The truth is they cannot be sustained without each other.
The major fallacy of our time is that faith and science cannot coexist. The truth is they cannot be sustained without each other.
Coldstream, science and faith can coexist, if each stays within its proper sphere. Science tries to answer the questions ‘what’ and ‘how’. Science tries to answer the questions, what is the universe made of and how it works.
The proper role of faith is to answer the question ‘why’. Science deals with what is the universe, and how it works, faith should deal with why is the universe or mankind in existence.
Science has nothing to say about ‘why’, science can see no purpose behind all this. As long as faith sticks to this question, there is no problem. The problem comes when faith tried to intrude into areas which are the proper purview of science, e.g. is evolution the correct theory, when does human life begin etc.
It is when religion tries to abrogate the proper role of science (and then tries to impose its view on everybody, believer and nonbeliever alike) that the conflict arises between the two.
Coldstream, science and faith can coexist, if each stays within its proper sphere. Science tries to answer the questions ‘what’ and ‘how’. Science tries to answer the questions, what is the universe made of and how it works.
The proper role of faith is to answer the question ‘why’. Science deals with what is the universe, and how it works, faith should deal with why is the universe or mankind in existence.
Science has nothing to say about ‘why’, science can see no purpose behind all this. As long as faith sticks to this question, there is no problem. The problem comes when faith tried to intrude into areas which are the proper purview of science, e.g. is evolution the correct theory, when does human life begin etc.
It is when religion tries to abrogate the proper role of science (and then tries to impose its view on everybody, believer and nonbeliever alike) that the conflict arises between the two.
Sir Joseph, neither can exist in a solitude. They must iterate with and inform each other. Western science, which is distinctive from anything the world has seen before, or that exists beyond its influence is indelibly marked by Christianity.
And it is not faith that has invaded science in our era, it is science that has invaded faith. Modern cosmology has become a belief system, remote from experiment and technology, from which real science derives its inspiration.
If that gains ascendancy, it will corrupt Western science, and it seems we are already in the process, at the philosophical level, of seeing that happen.
I disagree. I am not into religion any farther than discussing its baseless claims, but I also don't think science has explained everything.
That leaves me with stuff between religion and science. But I only wonder about it sometimes. I don't fret over it. But stuff comes along like the reincarnation thing and I have to question it rather than accepting it as mystical events. So things like that are NOT grounds for leaping into a conculsion about gods' deeds and I am left to think they are something science can't explain yet. I am in no rush to do the leaping or push science any faster than it goes. Haste makes waste.
So, no, I don't have to accept this "Queen of Sciences".
Besides, if I was to try the faith thing, I sure wouldn't leap into Christiannity. I'd shop around for something better. Taoism isn't really a religion but it's a heck of a guide to life. Same with a couple forms of Buddhism. They don't seem to demand that people not be humans.
It's not really topical.. but test the depth of the pool before you dive into it, Anna. This is what Pope Benedict has said of Buddhism
Quantum indeterminacy does not resolve the issue of free will versus determinism, at best it can produce only a random will. Determinism and free will aren't antonyms either, the opposite of free will is fatalism, which holds that the will is ineffectual. Strict determinism to many people implies absolute predictability, given sufficient knowledge, but the will is one of the things about which knowledge is required, and the whole argument rapidly becomes self-referential chaos that makes my head hurt. It is, however, possible to show that even if strict determinism is true, which essentially means there can be no uncaused events, there can still be unpredictable events, even given perfect knowledge and unlimited calculating power. I can't begin to make that argument myself, but I recall reading it as a conclusion of some pretty heavy duty analysis. I'll see if I can find a reference. But it's liable to be incomprehensible except to those few who delight in subtle semantic arguments. I'm not one of them.
To me, science is all about observation. The first thing I ever observed was the fact that I had a free will. How do I attempt to falsify this measurement? Well, I attempt to not make a choice. I just failed again--choice made.
Science: free will confirmed.
Pope Benedict's remarks on science in the 21st Century, and its relationship to faith is also noteworthy for this discussion.
The Pope considers the modern concept of science too narrow in the long run, because it allows the determination of "certainty" only from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements. "Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history,psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of science".
This limited view of scientific method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith, in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby, in the Pontiff's opinion.
Benedict acknowledges "unreservedly" the many positive aspects of modern science, and considers the quest for truth as essential to the Christian spirit, but he favours a broadening our narrow concept of reason and its application to include philosophical and theological experiences, not only as an aim in itself but so we may enter as a culture the dialogue with the other religions and cultures from a broader perspective.
Benedict is a brilliant man, even in the milieu of Popes, who tend to be very bright guys. His remarks shouldn't be dismissed because you don't accept him as your religious leader.
The Pope considers the modern concept of science too narrow in the long run, because it allows the determination of "certainty" only from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements. "Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history,psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of science".
This limited view of scientific method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith, in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby, in the Pontiff's opinion.
Benedict acknowledges "unreservedly" the many positive aspects of modern science, and considers the quest for truth as essential to the Christian spirit, but he favours a broadening our narrow concept of reason and its application to include philosophical and theological experiences, not only as an aim in itself but so we may enter as a culture the dialogue with the other religions and cultures from a broader perspective.
Benedict is a brilliant man, even in the milieu of Popes, who tend to be very bright guys. His remarks shouldn't be dismissed because you don't accept him as your religious leader.