Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: Alexander <alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:19:54 -0700
On Oct 7, 8:32 pm, urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Some people seem to be confused at the idea that could could accept
all the major scientific findings of our age and still believe in
God. Here's an argument I made up between myself and a fabricated
philosophical materialist which explains why I think my views are just
as reasonable as his:
It would also explain why the 'materialist' needed to be fabricated.
Philosophical materialist (PM): Science tells us that everything is
either predetermined or occurs by pure, indeterminate, statistical
chance. God and free will have no room in the scientific worldview.
Er ... outside of your imagined conversation - which scientist is
making this claim exactly.
Me: I believe that free will and God's effects (for lack of a better
word) in the universe are neither predetermined nor chance based. This
is not to say that the rules of physics are in any sense broken or
bended. Rather, I think that seemingly chance events can be secretly
driven by free will or God.
If it's 'secret' or driven by God it's not free will is it? Free will
has to be a conscious choice otherwise it's not 'free'.
PM: Could you describe the type of chance event you're referring to
which would allow "free will" or "God" to creep in?
Me: The neuroscientist Sir John Eccles (along with other scientists
such as cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller) argues for a scientifically
informed, updated version of dualism that accounts for modern
developments in physics and neuroscience. Here is a brief summary of
Eccles's philosophy of mind:
A brain's nerve cells fire when ions accumulate at a synapse, causing
it to release neurotransmitters. But the presence of a given number of
ions at a synapse does not always trigger the firing of a neuron. What
we have in this situation is a quantum superposition of states. In
some states, the neuron discharges and in others it does not.
Eccles, because of his philosophical leanings, would argue that free
will could cause a neuron to fire. The specifics of his philosophy of
mind center around the fact that because these neurons are networked
into groups, which are in turn all networked together with other
groups forming a whole, a conscious will is able to act through the
brain.
Eccles had a very specific theistic bias and favoured dualism.
Nothing wrong with that as a philisophical stance but the evidence
does rather contradict the assertion that the mind/brain division is
something other than biological.
Experiments on ho we process activities associated with attention and
how we process information show how the Dorsolateral Pre Frontal
Cortex and Anterior Cingulate Cortex are active as specific
predictions believed they would be. The biological basis of mind is
quite clear.
Simple things such as agnosia and unilateral spatial neglect strongly
indicate how lesions and specific brain damage can impact on this
process - never mind things such as memory. You can go back to
Luria's study with Dr P or a host of other medical observations since
then in order to see the link between the biological process and our
sense of self.
PM: But wait, if Eccles were correct, we would expect to see a
deviation from our expected statistical models of neuronal firing. In
other words, if such a thing as "free will" existed, we would be able
to see a statistical difference in the firing of neurons associated
with what they "willed."
Me: I disagree. It can be demonstrated that decisions can hide behind
statistical averages. For example, let's say we create the following
game:
I must pick 3 cards from a deck of cards. The rule is that they must
have a statistical mean of 7, with face cards and aces all equaling 10
for purposes of simplicity.
Now, needless to say, I could pick a huge number of combinations
without deviating from the determined and expected statistical mean of
7:
* 5, 7, 9
* 5, Jack, 6
* 4, 8, 9
*etc..
In other words, if I wanted to pick a 5 in my set of 3 cards, I could
do that without violating any of the game's rules, so long as I
balanced it out with other cards to make the mean be 7.
If we are to carry over the logic of this game to the realm of
neuroscience, we can see that acts of free-will (aka, certain firing
patterns) could potentially exist so long as they are balanced out
over the long term by other firing patterns that maintain statistical
averages.
If we are to carry the arguments I've made about neuroscience over to
theology, we can see that God could influence processes driven by
chance events without ever breaking the rules of physics.
Yes He could - but what kind of God is that? You've effectively made
God indistinguishable from natural processes. Also if He interjects
in this way we are still effectively denied free will due to His
influence. In addition he's kidding the faithful by denying the
experience of epiphany - if your only revelation is that nature is in
fact God then you might as well start hugging trees (nothing wrong
with that - but how many Christians want to declare themselves
panentheists?).
PM: Doesn't agreeing with your view of free will require that a
"ghost" enter the human body at the beginning of life, and that some
sort of "ensoulment" (as scientifically uninformed theologians would
say) occurs?
Me: No, it doesn't. In following with modern neuroscience, I recognize
that the mind emerges from the brain. What I am arguing is that this
mind is able to exert a free-will through the brain, not that some
"holy ghost" enters the brain out of nowhere at birth.
Then what's your point?
PM: But your argument for free will and God has no more evidence for
it than the materialistic explanation! Also, how could anyone in their
right mind see your crazy philosophizing as any sort of science.
Me: I never said my position had more evidence for it than the
materialist one. All I'm saying is that it's one of many reasonable
philosophical positions that one can take on the subjects of free will
and the existence of God as a force effecting the world.
Actually the materialist view has a lot more going for it than your
take on dualism. We can show how changes to the chemistry and
physical structure of the brain can impact on everything as diverse as
mood, emotional expression, memory, perception and awareness. We can
even show you those changes ... with pictures from fMRI.
Your take on free will doesn't wash as it still imposes an external
agency defining how we behave - regardless of when and how it's
imposed. Either God exists and influences our behaviours or it is (or
at least appears to be) an entirely naturalistic process.
Furthermore, I never claimed that my view was scientific. I would only
hope that you don't claim as much for yours-- philosophical
materialism is an interpretation of science, not a part of it.
[At this point one expects the argument to go in circles]
Yeah we do - theists have a habit of avoiding evidence.
Further reading associated with this argument:
Daniel Dennett - Consciousness Explained
John Eccles - How the Self Controls Its Brain
Kenneth Miller - Finding Darwin's God
Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: partso2
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: urthogie
- Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- References:
- Science, God, and Free Will
- From: urthogie
- Science, God, and Free Will
- Prev by Date: Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
- Next by Date: Re: Philosophical Truths
- Previous by thread: Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Next by thread: Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
