Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t

NY Times ^ | 2 January 2007 | Dennis Overbye

[shrinkermd]

“Is it an illusion? That’s the question,” said Michael Silberstein, a science philosopher at Elizabethtown College in Maryland. Another question, he added, is whether talking about this in public will fan the culture wars.

“If people freak at evolution, etc.,” he wrote in an e-mail message, “how much more will they freak if scientists and philosophers tell them they are nothing more than sophisticated meat machines, and is that conclusion now clearly warranted or is it premature?”

Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Tufts University who has written extensively about free will, said that “when we consider whether free will is an illusion or reality, we are looking into an abyss. What seems to confront us is a plunge into nihilism and despair.”

Mark Hallett, a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.

“The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it,” he said.

That is hardly a new thought. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, as Einstein paraphrased it, that “a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants.”

[TChris]

I throw this out for what it's worth --

"The core difference between the Conservative Mindset and the Liberal, is that Conservatives believe in - and accept - "free will"; Liberals don't."

I prefer the explanations given by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions.

His thesis revolves around the concept of the "constrained" versus the "unconstrained" vision of the world. Conservatives generally accept that there are real constraints--absolute laws of physics, economics, etc, absolute good and evil, etc.--within which a person must function.

Liberals don't think that way, and that all such constraints are arbitrarily imposed by others. In short, they tend to deny/ignore reality and seek to operate in defiance of it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

“The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it,” he said.

What he means is that the Dems are in charge of Congress.

[Cvengr]

I've been performing some word studies in the anthropology of man in Scripture recently.

Here is one model I've found to be consistent:

The heart is recognized as that thing within man from which our outward work proceeds. Call it, the heart, an output stage.

God has created man in three components (first and second Adams were similarily created in Body, soul and spirit).

Our soul includes the mind and the heart.

Our spirit is discernible from the soul. Spiritual things are perceived in truth by the living Human spirit through faith in Christ.

Temptation occurs with a thought in the mind. The temptation alone is not sin. When we add volition or a will independent of God to the temptation, then we have a sin.

When we are in fellowship with Him, we are sanctified in a process where th LOGOS is preached and heard. The Holy Spirit makes the LOGOS perceptible to the human spirit. The Holy Spirit Makes the LOGOS heard become GNOSIS or an intelletual knowledge in our mind susceptible to rationalism and logic or reason. The Holy Spirit turns the GNOSIS into EPIGNOSIS in our heart portion of the soul. This is still without our volition other than our will placing our faith in Christ and putting on the mind of Christ.

When we then perceive situations in life upon which we may respond through faith in Christ, we utilize the tools in our heart and produce works. If our heart is influenced by past scarred 'wrong-thinking', our works are simply things of wood, hay and stubble which will be burnt up in Final Judgment. Those things which are of the heart from God, will be found good for rewards.

Our hearts may be evil or good, depending upon the amount of sanctification performed on them through faith in God the Holy Spirit. Interestingly in this process, all faith is from God.

[Tanniker Smith]

“how much more will they freak if scientists and philosophers tell them they are nothing more than sophisticated meat machines

Not at all. We are sophisticated meat machines. However, the sophistication is that we have SOULS and cows don't. God saw to that.

Have a happy.

TS

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The left can't accept the idea of free will, because they think that we are nothing but matter and that mind is an illusion. Leftists believe in materialism = that there is nothing more than matter.
Also, accepting the idea of free will would mean that people can be responsible for their actions. Leftism says that no one is responsible for his/her actions.

[mjp]

every physical system that has been investigated has turned out to be either deterministic or random.

So, does that mean that immaterial systems have to be either deterministic or random?

Not.

[Tax-chick]

I have free will. I'd rather not be around people who think they don't.

[ChessExpert]

Thanks in advance for posting your thoughts.

The left can't accept the idea of free will, because they think that we are nothing but matter and that mind is an illusion. Leftists believe in materialism = that there is nothing more than matter.

Also, accepting the idea of free will would mean that people can be responsible for their actions. Leftism says that no one is responsible for his/her actions.

Basically, I think you are right. Just a little hair splitting in this paragraph. There are complications, because neither left nor right are monolithic. There is the religious left, and the agnostic/atheist right. But they are a small percentage of the population. The atheist left and religious right are highly populated. Generally speaking, the first places it’s faith in Government, the second places its faith God. Your statements apply to the agnostic/atheist left, in my opinion.

The ironic thing is that the atheist left denies free will but is very willful! Perhaps post 41 provides an explanation. Conservatives accept constraints. They are part of the great design. This includes both physical and moral constraints. The left is unmoored. If everything is a “construct” of the individual human mind, all is possible. If everything is material in origin, there is no reason to condemn anyone for their actions. Yet many will condemn President Bush. No, they are not consistent. Consistency is just another (moral?) constraint that they ignore when in suits their emotions, or their “passions” (18th century usage).

[TruthSetsUFree]

Thanks for sharing the results of your study. Man is indeed a multi-faceted creature and how those components work together are as mysterious and difficult to understand as the Trinity. How God's sovereignty and the free will He gave to man works together is something we will forever seek to understand this side of heaven. But I do believe that studies such as yours help us to understand it a little better. Thanks again for sharing.

[Elsie]

Editing errors on my part.

Nah....

You are programmed that way.

[Delta 21]

It was no joke, and you are right. Thats why the angels rejoice when a mortal man chooses to believe.

[Elsie]

Punishment changes the perspective.

Gee.... ya think??

NIV Proverbs 10:13
Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.

NIV Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

NIV Proverbs 22:15
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.

NIV Proverbs 23:13-14
13. Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
14. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

NIV Proverbs 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

[freedomfiter2]

Punishment changes the perspective.
Gee.... ya think??


It generally works for me. I keep one eye on the speedometer and one on the edge of the road.

[Mack the knife]

The debate on "free will" vs. "predestination" predates Christianity by several hundred years. I believe it was the Greek philosopher Demosthenese who first popularized the concept that men's lives were "predestined".

And of course, there is a story that Demosthenese found his slave stealing from him, so he proceeded to beat him.

The slave cried out, and said, "Master! Master! Why do you whip me? Don't you teach that men's lives are predestined? Perhaps I was predestined to steal from you."

Demosthenese thought for a moment, and responded, "Yes, you were predestined to steal from me, and I was predestined to whip you." And he continued to whip him.

This is the heart of the arguement against predestination. One cannot advocate the "truth" of such a proposition - to be consistent, one can only say, "My genes and environment compel me to make this arguement". One cannot claim that it is "truth", because any concept of truth requires the ability to make a decision which is not predestined.

[metmom]

This makes for an interesting debate. Fatalism or free will, and how it pertains to the debate on evolution.

Someone asked Richard Dawkins a question about that recently. His answer was interesting.

Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book?

His molecules made him do it? Then the book itself is utter nonsense and he has nothing of value to say himself.

[BlueDragon]

If he believed that, how could he be capable of writing those words? It's like all those leftists, published in paper, TV, and internet, saying that America stifles their free speech.

You may or may not have gotten it into the "ten" ring, with that one...my eyes aint what they used to be.
But I'm certain it's "on the paper". I heard the break.

[Doctor Don]

The main weakness in God's creation of man is that He gave us free will. Pagans simply do not understand ......... or they
exercise their free will and choose not to believe!

[AndrewC]

What seems to confront us is a plunge into nihilism and despair.”

It seems to me that this is the "rut" of the problem. But I can only "speak" for myself, not being a nihilist nor being despairing.

Dr. Wegner of Harvard said: “We worry that explaining evil condones it. We have to maintain our outrage at Hitler. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory of evil in advance that could keep him from coming to power?”

He added, “A system a bit more focused on helping people change rather than paying them back for what they’ve done might be a good thing.”

Again, speaking for myself, I think that the Dr has proposed a skeletal definition of evil. Because, in the final analysis, who defines "evil" or "good"(IOW, the Schickelgruber himself used that skeletal definition to derive the final solution.)

[Elsie]

AMEN!

I, too, have been, shall we say, 're-adjusted' in MY thinking by various figures of authority in my past.