Do people have free will?

[heidler1]

It appears like humans are often stuck with a viewpoint be it right or wrong. It also appears like there is frequently a missing ability as to being able to change these views in the face of reasonable facts.

The Christian test of life for proof of worthiness to be accepted into Heaven, when human ability to Analise facts is marginal, appears flawed.

IMO this is becoming more obvious with nature winning out over nurture almost every time the subject comes up.

[TalkingDog]

1. If they don't, it would be pointless to discuss it.

If they do,it would be pointless to discuss it.

[Mythsaje]

2. This is actually a question to ask

on the about.com atheism and agnosticism boards. I encountered a couple of discussions about this very subject there and they invariably blew my mind.

What scared me is that some of them believed in determinism far more stringent than some religious viewpoints...that our attitudes and actions are often written in our genes. That we respond as we are genetically programmed to respond, with only a little value given to environment.

Thus free will is a complete myth.

Then there was the argument that TRUE free will would suggest we could do ANYTHING, and, since that was obviously not possible, our will could not be considered "free."

Or something like that.

Like I said, some pretty intense dialogue on the subject over there.

[heidler1]

4. The notion that we run on freewill whereas other animals run on instinct

seems to be slowly, but surely fading away. Genetic differences are common to both humans and other animals and present a more probable way of it all.

[Mythsaje]

7. I distrust anything that smacks of determinism

be it religious or scientific.

[longship]

3. Neocons have no free will

Everything in their life is predetermined by the ideology.

[Kailassa]

5. will I, won't I?

I'm still tossing up about whether or not to post a reply ........ no ... no ... nooooooo :dilemma:

Drat, I just can't stop myself.

[heidler1]

6. Perhaps the rule is that we can resist anything but temptation.

Of course somethings are not very tempting. I am quite sure that what what is tempting to one is not tempting to all.

[davekriss]

8. We have free will

(I'm gonna' take an amatuer's crack at this...)

I don't believe anyone suggests that genetics (nature) does more than create narrowed ranges of probable expression, such as a prediliction for various shades of blue. That same ranged genetic expression does not result in specific decisions to drive to the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk, an act of free will, or to use the words "free will" in a sentence one chooses to write on a computer screen.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine, a PhD and practicing clinical psychologist. He likes to share that brain science today can trace the experience of the Godhead to a certain area of the brain, suggesting that it is cause-and-effect, i.e. chemical and electrical triggers cascading in this region to produce in the subject a deeply moving mystical experience. He implies that, therefore, since it had its source in the physical cause-and-effect, these religious ecstasies have no more validity than any other emotional brain state (which isn't to say they have no validity -- they're just not any more valid, to my friend, than "love", "anger", "hatred", or "joy").

However, he missed the boat I think. The experience, and the evidence for it in the brain, arise simultaneously. One does not cause the other but inseparably reflects the other within the limitations of its own domain.

I admit that our "free will" is constrained. It is constrained by the actions (free will) of others, by the slow-to-change-socio-historical circumstances we find ourselves in at every present moment, by how effectively our highly individual mind-brains function, even by our own past decisions (every opened door walked through closes doors behind us). I can not, by a single act of will, become President in 2008; I have to freely choose to act in numerous ways, overcoming many obstacles, and for many many years, before I'd have a chance at success. Despite my truly free will, the free will of every other challenges and tests my desired outcome.

There are levels within levels that ground our experience, too. There's the biochemical soup of our bodies, where a protein can be shaped like an open catchers mit until it receives an oxygen atom in the lung where it closes around the atom like a baseball caught tight, to be carried around the body where the mit opens again and the oxygen is released where needed. There are the predictable workings of organic chemistry, and beneath that of sub-atomic particles. On top of the biochemical soup is consciousness, memory, language systems, mimetic evolution; emmersion in culture; planetary systems, empty space and star formation. It is just as niave, I think, to insist that our thoughts and will spring from the deterministic actions of biochemical reactions as it is to say our thoughts are those of the stars, though all levels are integrated in some greater whole some call "god". From whence our "free will" springs within these interrelated spheres is not known by science, but I suspect it arises out of the whole.

Getting back to your Christian challenge (the original post): Even though it is constrained and we don't know from whence it springs, we have free will. We also have a religious tradition where there is one decision, one act, we must will forth to secure a place for ourselves in the kingdom of God. And that one act: Call on the name of the Lord in full admission of our sins and acknowledgment of the power of the redemptive death of Jesus Christ. Achieve that, then when we die, when the entirety of the outward world falls away, when we are brought forth to the seat of judgment, all the Father sees when He looks our way is the loving glory of Jesus Christ, who mercifully covered our sins for us. And at that moment Jesus will read our names from the Book of Life. But it doesn't stop there -- He goes on to name the good works we've done in our lives, credits it to our good, adding joy upon joy to our eternal reward. It can happen for you in a nanosecond, and the results last for eternity. Open your heart and call on Jesus -- He'll step right in and yours will be a life transformed.

[T_i_B]

9. As a Christian I would have to say YES

But then I'm not a Calvinist. Here's a passage from the Bible that shows why. From the letter from James.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202%20;&version=31;

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

[PatsFan2004]

10. As a person of faith, I would say yes with a but.

As I study the Bible and God's relationship to His creation, I see that man has the ability to choose but it seems that God is always in control.

For example, the Lord told the disciples to go into all the world and preach the good news to everyone. In the Book of Acts, only a few Christians took up that commandment. Most Christians stayed at home in Jerusalem. But we now know that Roman persecution eventually scattered most Christians across the world. And there is the story of Jonah who did not want to preach to certain non-believers.

Of course, this point of view has the problem with understanding the problem of pain. C.S. Lewis wrote an interesting book about that.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. "The Christian test of life for proof of worthiness"?

Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. What is the "test of life for proof of worthiness to be accepted into heaven"?

Do you think that if people don't automatically change their views when you give them new facts, it means that they lack the ability to change their views altogether? If so, why?

Can you direct me to where it has been shown that nature beats nurture?

I am sensing a lot of underlying assumptions that have not been made explicit.

[heidler1]

12. Because my faith in my view of life tends to be from my own observations

of humans and other animals my view is not based on any book including the Christian Bible. However I do try to make adjustment to my view as science makes new discoveries. One of the most compelling observations is how identical twins adopted and separated at birth will develop in very similar ways even when raised by diverse families.

IMO The way our likes and dislikes function in the brain seem to be a electro chemical function that is controlled by genes. This is a relatively new science and all of the facts are still not known. The trend of discovery is much like any religion when it comes down to what the trend implies and proves to each person.

When I look at history I see that religion has generally stood in the way of change like in the case of Galileo and Copernicus when they presented the way that the solar system really worked.

Currently we have a problem with the function of stem cells and whether science has the right or duty to see how it works. What appears to concern some religious people is this will gut the miracle of birth even more than cloning which religion has also tried to stop. Don't fret I'm sure that intelligent design can be re-spun to include this flexibility.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. On identical twins...

“We find that genes play a 50 percent role in fashioning personality, which means that half is also fashioned by the environment,” says Segal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/14/48hours/main583820.shtml

on the electrochemical function of likes and dislikes...
"If there is something in the human body that can fairly be called a soul, it is surely that ineffable electrochemical web of connections that was partly bequeathed to us by our genes and partly records a lifetime of experience -- including, of course, the cultural preferences we absorbed from our parents and teachers."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2003/12/02/the_chemical_mind_binds_us_together/

These quotes make it clear that the nature of humanity is much less deterministic than you have been saying. If you disagree with my sources, please post your own, so that I can learn another point of view.

As far as history is concerned, it is no surprise that religion would be used to fight back against threats to the powerful (which change is). Religion itself predicts that it would be used in this way. It is the very nature of idolatry to worship one's own power, and use all available means to extend it. Idolatry is banned by the First Commandment.

I still do not see answers in your post that will help me understand what you meant by:

"The Christian test of life for proof of worthiness to be accepted into Heaven, when human ability to Analise facts is marginal, appears flawed."

Also, you still have not answered this question:

Do you think that if people don't automatically change their views when you give them new facts, it means that they lack the ability to change their views altogether? If so, why?

[trotsky]

14. Even if genes "determine" only .000001% of our decisions,

then "free will" is bogus.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. You have a right to your own opinion

[trotsky]

16. Explain, please.

If even one tiny decision is made for us by genetics, then how can you say that we have totally free will?

[More Than A Feeling]

17. Where in the posts above have I said that "we have totally free will"?

I am just trying to get some answers from the original poster so I can understand what is being said.

Look at the very first post in this thread, and see if it is a coherent set of thoughts that logically flow from each other. I think it is not, so I asked for clarification. The poster responded with that long statement, which did not answer my questions.

Now you have posted a single statement that you failed to back up with any facts or authorities (which makes it an opinion, and I named it as such), then you ask me to refute your opinion of a statement I have not made in this thread. I respectfully decline on the grounds that the potential argument here does not have a fruitful conclusion, and will benefit neither of us.

[heidler1]

18. Where in the posts above have I said that "we have totally no free will"?

The poster that said free will is bogus if only a small fraction of any decision is under genetic control is logically correct. all decisions to act are a compound process with many checks and balances.
For instance sexual attraction is controlled by sight, oder, perceived attitude and many more. Some of these are instinctive and arousal is affected.

Free will requires total control to be effective where as instinct only requires one nay to block the thought chain. True, free will can also block the thought chain, but the ways of man IMO show the bulk of the power went to instinct just like other animals. Our veneer of civilization is mostly a facade. We all see this over and over why do we pretend otherwise

[More Than A Feeling]

20. According to my sociology professor

(Professor David Boden, Lake Forest College) Human beings have no instincts because we have no unlearned complex behaviors like those of, for example, beavers building dams. Instead we have culture to teach us the norms and values of the society in which we live. We are shaped and in turn shape the culture in which we are born into.

Where is the dividing line between the shaping and the shaped? I don't know. I'd be surprised if anyone knows.

[trotsky]

19. I used "you" in the generic sense.

Most Christians believe that humans have complete free will to choose their god or reject it. If you don't believe that, then fine. This "theory" is all fine and good, but if even a tiny fraction of our choices and preferences are determined by our genes, then how can we be judged on them?

You can refuse to answer, if you wish. I realize there is no easy way to resolve this problem in Christianity.

[shrike]

21. I was taught, as a Catholic, that I have free will

And can choose the right or the wrong way.

One thing that struck me in the book, "Slaughterhouse Five," (one of my favorite novels of all time) was that the aliens who met with Billy Pilgrim chuckled at the human notion of free will. Humans were the only beings in the universe, they said, who believed in free will.

Not that the aliens brought any sort of God into it, mind you. They simply felt that things happened the way they were going to happen and there was little anyone could do about it.

[Az]

22. Yes and no

Our identity seems to arise from our brains and as they are the result of natural laws it would follow that our thoughts are deterministic. But our minds cannot pierce this veil... that is we cannot percieve the physical realities of the arisal of our own thoughts. Therefore the illusion of existance ecompasses the entirety of our perception. It is an illusion we cannot pierce.

Our sense of freewill comes from this perception. Given a large enough computer and a complete enough dataset one could predict the choices and thoughts of any individual. But even if such a device were available it would merely lay the truth of our deterministic brains before us as evidence. It would not convey an experience of knowing what we are thinking before we think it. Thus the illusion continues to exist.

Thus we are creatures with the sense of freewill that can never pierce the veil before us to percieve that we are all on set paths. As we cannot percieve the path we are on the experience of freewill is maintained.

[heidler1]

23. I agree, but this view does blow a big hole in many cherished beliefs.

It's a bit like survival of the fittest and not knowing ahead of time just who is the fittest? Only our past reveals the truth and the survival rules change constantly so the past is likely un-projectable.

[Az]

24. Chaos

It makes things interesting. All the rules and parts are in play... if only we could project far enough ahead we would know everything that was coming.

We are trapped in an illusion. Its one we cannot escape from let alone want to escape from. We fool ourselves into believing we are something other than the universe comtemplating itself and this gives us identity.

[shockingelk]

41. Sounds like you're a fan of Amit Goswami

I've read The Self-Aware Universe, and although I don't believe he sufficiently supported his thesis, it's still a great argument against determinism: the random nature of how coherent superpositions resolve themselves makes the future indeterminate.

[Igel]

25. No, but we don't know it.

However, God knows we don't; but he can enable us to have it.

At least that sums up some traditional views in non-traditional language.

[craychek]

26. Well here's my take on it from a science point of view

The universe and everything in it is governed by a set of laws and even when those laws are broken there are laws that govern the things that break the laws of the universe. Thus, everything must follow certain rules and regulations throughout existence. this being true, randomness, entropy, is just a myth. Everything has an order even when it appears that it doesn't. When it comes right down to it, our actions, our thoughts, our very existence was determined at the momment time began when the first atoms started bouncing off each other or even forming. Not only that, what we do in the future during our existence was determined long ago because we still must follow those immutable universal laws. Atoms are still acting the same as they did at the beginning of time, they have just come together in groups that we call plants, animals, earth, stars, and humans.

K for those of you who need an example of what I'm talking about lets use some basic physics here. Say you have a rubber ball that you're bouncing off the garage of your house or any kind of vertical wall for that matter. When you throw the ball you see where it is going and you can predict where it's going to hit on the wall and what direction it is going to travel after it hits the wall and where it will end up in the future. You are able to do this because you know that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. You also take into account wind and gravity to predict with percision where this ball is going to be.

If you knew the starting points of every atom in the universe and could apply the universal laws to all of them, you could predict where they all would end up in the future. We are made up of atoms, so, in essense we have no free will, because we are governed by those atoms which are just reacting to reactions that occured long ago and will continue along their predicted path until the end of time.

[shockingelk]

42. You present Laplace's idea

That if one knew the location and velocity of every particle in the universe, one could predict the future.

This, though, we know is wrong because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: one cannot at the same time know the location and velocity of a particle.

[StellaBlue]

27. Unless you accept the concept of 'original sin'

This is a pointless question.

[Az]

28. I actually think its a very interesting question

And I don't happen to believe in sin, original or otherwise. The notion of freewill takes us to the core of identity. Self. There are few subjects so close to us that still contain as much mystery as this subject. Meaningless? Far from it.

[StellaBlue]

29. Without the Christian frame,

what does 'free will' mean? We think of this term in light of its Christian meaning and history, generally, right? 'We' being Americans.

Outside of Christianity, the question 'do we have free will?' seems to have an obvious answer: Yes, within the bounds of our human nature. I.e., we cannot FLY.

[heidler1]

30. I look at freewill in terms of genetic control. Some people believe that

genetics are the minor control and nurture is the major control I believe that what we like and dislike are mostly controlled by our genes. So called freewill enters the judgment call at every crossroad but the boss is your genetic make up.

Our sex drive for instance is to a great deal controlled by our relative health, in men especially. Our IQ effects earning power and judgment. Thus, nutrition, life style and where we live are all effected. All five of the senses are effected by relative health. Health care is effected by earning power. These and other genetic facts dictate what road to take. The same road would be too bumpy for many others who realize this, so that road is not taken. Yes, many roads are mistakenly taken.

[T_i_B]

31. determinism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=determinism

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

This is the belief in question here I suppose. Determinism v Free will argument is not confined to Christian theology. As has been mentioned earlier on this thread it pops up in a number of beliefs, atheism included.

As such it does need to be discussed down here by people of all faiths (and those of none). And if the subject seems obtuse then please feel free to ask questions. Goodness knows I don't understand ideas such as Calvinism all that well, and I'm one of those who likes to keep bringing that theology up round here.

[heidler1]

33. I doubt this all or non way of looking at free will, IMO it is at least

partly under direction of our genetic makeup, yes each of us have genetic differences except for identical twins. This causes them to behave very similar even if put in different homes at birth. This is the best proof of my view. However, nurture does play a part in each of us, but if our genes ordain for some of us, so effected, that any and all religion is bs. Then the promise that: "Who so ever shall believe in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life." is rigged.

[Old Mouse]

32. I think most people don't even know what "free will" is.

It's a concept just as ethereal as fundamentalist heaven. What is free will? A choice of chicken or beef? More of human behavior is complex instinctive triggers impacting against conditioned reflex than we care to admit.

[heidler1]

34. Yes.

[Az]

35. One could even imagine

That the inability to discern the difference between those complex triggers and freewill is exactly what gives rise to the experience of freewill. Perhaps freewill is just ignorance of the complexities that create our mind.

[T_i_B]

37. Wikipedia to the rescue!

If I were feeling cheeky I might suggest that free will is a lot easier to understand then determinism, but I'm not feeling cheeky and in any case, free will v determinism arguments are not easy to understand in my experience. Therefore I would agree that some explanation is usually needed.

Anyway, here's the Wikipedia entry for more info about Free Will theology and philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[heidler1]

38. Thank you for finding this. Obviously this has been kicked around for a

long time especially in theology. However, with the recent discovery of genetic influence which appears to prove that there is a considerable lock on free will through our genes that hasn't made it to the theological level yet.

[T_i_B]

39. I'm not sure I want genetics and theology mixing

all that brings to mind is Eugenics and Nazi Germany. The sort of thing that Theology needs to move away from.

Mind you, there may still be one or two Calvinists out there who might cite genetics as evidence of God's predestination.

[heidler1]

40. The hunt for superiority is relentless. So much of it is BS, but genetics

might hold promise. This will happen whether we like it or not if there is an advantage to one side or the other. To block it for religious reasons will end up like what happened with Galileo, Intelligent Design is probably going to end up discrediting religion for the same reason.

[T_i_B]

44. Christianity has been far more discredited...

...by the acceptance of the Nazi third reich and the likes of Torquemada who were very keen on genetic superiority, bloodlines and all that then we ever could be by ignoring genetics and treating all people as equals regardless of their genetic makeup.

Come to think of it, genetics is something that has just as bad an effect on organized politics as it does on organized religion. Be it Nazi eugenics or hereditary monarchy attempts to mix genetics with politics and religion usually end up looking pretty messy.

[struggle4progress]

36. It's like critical consciousness: you can develop it day by day or ..

.. you can allow yours atrophy through disuse ...

[shockingelk]

43. Restating the original question

Most replies in this thread assume freewill is possible (ie, nature vs. nurture).

Here is the original question rephrased:

Can you choose your opinions or are they absolutely determined by some combination of your genetic makeup and environmental influences?

[heidler1]

45. Well put. Perhaps the varity of answers tends to support my view?