[Physicist]

Anyway, if you are an atheistic materialist, you believe that all things precede in cause-and-effect manner from the Big Bang. Thus, how can what a rapist, or a murderer, or a child molester do be described as "evil"? Their actions were pre-determined as much as a domino falling is predetermined by all the dominoes behind it.

First of all, it's an incontrovertible fact that not effect in the universe is caused. Fate has been ruled out by experiment, in consonance with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Second, even if it were true that Laplace's hypothetical omniscient genius could predict any future event, that wouldn't mean that people aren't responsible for their actions. The story is often told of the philosopher Zeno, who taught that every event of the world is preordained. One time he caught his slave stealing from him, and proceeded to beat him. His wily slave told him, "but master, I was fated to steal from you!" Zeno replied, "and I to beat you."

Finally, I don't agree that in a completely deterministic universe, free will doesn't exist. I submit that if our brains worked in a completely deterministic manner, it could just as easily "feel the same" to us as it does now. I don't want to retype the argument I made on this thread two years ago, but if you'll read through it, you'll see where I'm coming from.

[HumanaeVitae]

First of all, I'm not going to pick a fight with a professional physicist over quantum mechanics; however I'm familiar with the philosophical argument relating to quanta, which is known as indeterminism. The problem with the quantum argument is this: while it is true that quantum mechanics refutes hard determinism explicitly, it hasn't been established that hard determinism isn't still functionally valid. From what I understand, the specific location of a particle cannot be predicted, but it can be statistically estimated within parameters. So, hard determinism with 'fuzzy' connections. If I'm wrong, I'll take your word for it.

So, indeterminist philosophers have had a pretty difficult time trying to pry free will out of quantum mechanics. On the "feel the same" issue, I believe that's called "soft determinism"; i.e. there are so many myriad conditions that affect us, from genetics to gravity to the lunar tide cycle, that we simply don't have the ability to take it all in thus illusory free will. I believe this is the most widely held argument in the free-will/determinism debate. It's compelling, but still denies free will.

Still, it doesn't solve the materialist problem with libertarianism. Why are two people equal before the law? Why is someone with Down's syndrome be equal to you, a highly trained physicist? The person with Down's syndrome is a net drag on society, whereas you are a net plus. I'm a lawyer, so I'm at the top of the list of net-drags on society, but I digress. Anyway, under utilitarian ethics the child with Down's syndrome should be put to death at birth, shouldn't it? And Shakespeare would finally get his main wish regarding lawyers.

In my opinion, religious people like myself get a bad rap for moralizing (getting back to the original dispute), yet it seems that Judeo-Christianity provides the only solid answers to these questions. We have free will, and thus a difference between good and evil, because we have a soul from God that knows between right and wrong. People are equal before the law, because again we all have a soul and are thus ontologically equal, not just physically equal. The only problem: the soul can't be proven, yet. But assuming the soul makes for a good society. And if you assume either illusory or real free will, should society regulate those things that make it more likely to choose vice over virtue--drugs, porno, homosexuality, etc?

Yep.

Cheers, nice to have high-quality debate.