• In total there are 30 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 29 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Question about free will

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

Hi Ant. It is a question of balance of probabilities.

A. Universe is consistent: all real evidence and logic agrees.

versus

B. Universe is inconsistent: no evidence supports, except for wishful thinking by religious fantasists.
Robert,

You are setting up a False Choice
You are a deeper thinker than this.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote: Also, how are you able to determine with certainty that the speed of light remains constant between point a on earth and point b, a billion miles away?
Please tell me how that is determined with certainty.
Let's not make any faith inductive leaps here, now. Tell me how yours and science's observational powers are that omnipotent. Thanks
You are putting the burden of proof in the wrong place -- you could just as easily ask, how can you prove that water is still liquid in every part of the ocean? Science has a framework to understand why the speed of light remains constant a billion miles away. Scientists will be rightly skeptical about any theory that suggests otherwise, but if there is enough evidence and theoretical progress, they will change their minds.

That's why claiming some kind of equivalence between science and religion in terms of faith is completely misleading. I'm not sure if that's your intention or not.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

That's why claiming some kind of equivalence between science and religion in terms of faith is completely misleading. I'm not sure if that's your intention or not.
Actually, that is clearly the intent of those that continue to argue that science refutes religion. They are both different realms of thought. Scientism = the absolute source of knowledge.

If someone feels they can speak on behalf of science and claim that there is most certainly no god, they automatically should carry the burden of proof, since they are making the claim.

Science reaches into a metaphysical realm when it boldly claims an intelligence beyond our observation/measurement/comprehension does not exist.
Too many armchair scientists take liberties that true science never would take in the first place.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote: If someone feels they can speak on behalf of science and claim that there is most certainly no god, they automatically should carry the burden of proof, since they are making the claim.
You are attacking a strawman in most cases. Even Dawkins admits he is agnostic if you really want to stress absolute certainty.

You can't say that my favorite deity, the Giant Sock Puppet in the Sky, doesn't exist. But most people would be fairly comfortable taking a strong position on his nonexistence. I see little difference when talking about God, especially when you're talking about a very specific manifestation of God. And that is what 99% of believers are talking about.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:
Hi Ant. It is a question of balance of probabilities. A. Universe is consistent: all real evidence and logic agrees.
versus B. Universe is inconsistent: no evidence supports, except for wishful thinking by religious fantasists.
Robert, You are setting up a False Choice
Far from it. Consistency versus inconsistency is a real choice. As an armchair scientist, I am continually astounded by the power of the assumption that the laws of nature are universally consistent. It continually proves to be totally reliable. Before the rise of modern science in the time of Newton, people had no basis to assume universal consistency, so fell back on the default of an arbitrary interventionist God who could do as he wished, as a personal being. So the false assumption of inconsistency has a powerful cultural hold as the basis of supernatural religion.

Science, in its discovery that our universe is actually governed by consistent rules that determine the behavior of matter, opened a new paradigm. Laplace summarized in well in his comment to Napoleon that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. On this basic axiom of universal consistency, the theory of relativity is a refinement of Newton's laws, showing that when Newton's assumptions are tested against observation, they break down at very fast speeds and in the presence of large lumps of stuff.

The principle of consistency was retained in the theory of relativity. Science has not yet fully explained how the universe is consistent because of the inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity, but even this difficulty should not lead anyone to give up by saying, oh well the universe is not materially consistent and God magics the difference between small and large scales. The powerful assumption of science, which I endorse, is that apparent inconsistencies are not real but are only due to human inability to fully understand what is happening.

I personally differ from the mainstream philosophy of science because I regard science as an absolute matter of faith. I just think science has cracked the secret of the universe in fields such as GR, QM and the periodic table, which each have such abundant consistency in their core observations that they should be regarded as absolutely true. Refinement such as through a grand unified theory should be expected as a bonus, not a radical revision.

The relevance to the discussion here on free will is that our psychological liberty of choice can be fully explained as consistent with science. Saying that determinism destroys freedom is irrelevant theological speculation. It does not. At the point of decision we are completely free, despite large processes of the universe proceeding in a remorseless mechanistic way.

Intruding a supernatural entity into the picture offends against Ockham's Razor, by postulating an unnecessary being. All supernatural mythology is mere fantasy, the corruption of earlier natural observation. Imagining a God who operates contrary to the laws of nature is just mud on the page, obscuring our ability to formulate a logical understanding.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

Dexter wrote:
ant wrote: If someone feels they can speak on behalf of science and claim that there is most certainly no god, they automatically should carry the burden of proof, since they are making the claim.
You are attacking a strawman in most cases. Even Dawkins admits he is agnostic if you really want to stress absolute certainty.

You can't say that my favorite deity, the Giant Sock Puppet in the Sky, doesn't exist. But most people would be fairly comfortable taking a strong position on his nonexistence. I see little difference when talking about God, especially when you're talking about a very specific manifestation of God. And that is what 99% of believers are talking about.
Are you an agnostic?
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:
Dexter wrote:
ant wrote: If someone feels they can speak on behalf of science and claim that there is most certainly no god, they automatically should carry the burden of proof, since they are making the claim.
You are attacking a strawman in most cases. Even Dawkins admits he is agnostic if you really want to stress absolute certainty.

You can't say that my favorite deity, the Giant Sock Puppet in the Sky, doesn't exist. But most people would be fairly comfortable taking a strong position on his nonexistence. I see little difference when talking about God, especially when you're talking about a very specific manifestation of God. And that is what 99% of believers are talking about.
Are you an agnostic?
If "atheist" requires 100% certainty that there is no God, then no one is an atheist, or rather no one should be, and very few would claim that they are. But then atheism would cease to be a useful word. If you want to stick to that, then I'm agnostic about your God, and you are agnostic about every other God.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

If "atheist" requires 100% certainty that there is no God, then no one is an atheist, or rather no one should be, and very few would claim that they are. But then atheism would cease to be a useful word. If you want to stick to that, then I'm agnostic about your God, and you are agnostic about every other God.
I see. For a second I thought you were certain there is no god.
I guess it's reasonable to a satisfying degree to conclude that if there is no sock pupet god then it follows there is no intellegence beyond our comprehension.
I mean, we have a clear understanding of things like socks and puppets. So, it's inevitable that science will rule out a god completely. All it takes is a leap of faith in favor of science.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Question about free will

Unread post

ant wrote:
If "atheist" requires 100% certainty that there is no God, then no one is an atheist, or rather no one should be, and very few would claim that they are. But then atheism would cease to be a useful word. If you want to stick to that, then I'm agnostic about your God, and you are agnostic about every other God.
I see. For a second I thought you were certain there is no god.
I guess it's reasonable to a satisfying degree to conclude that if there is no sock pupet god then it follows there is no intellegence beyond our comprehension.
I mean, we have a clear understanding of things like socks and puppets. So, it's inevitable that science will rule out a god completely. All it takes is a leap of faith in favor of science.
I assume this is sarcastic, not sure of your point.

But it seems to be the standard confusion about "faith" in science, and about proving a negative. Science is busy explaining stuff and plugging the gaps in our knowledge. What is religion doing? Re-reading a book?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”