Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- From: Kermit <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:16:52 -0700
urthogie 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
What exactly do you mean by free will?
If it is not a degree of randomness, what could it mean? Are you not
acting on a sum, so to speak, of various urges and desires? If so,
then you are determined. If not, then how is this "free" decision
different from randomness?
Some folks just don't like the idea that they are predictable, and
insist that they are "free" in *principle from having some
supercomputer predict their decisions, given enough input. But you
don't seem to be saying that. It's the more common, amorphous, "free"
which doesn't seem to be free of anything that I can tell (but who
doesn't want to be free?).
Determined behavior does not mean that it is predictable, nor does it
mean that we would be simple-minded automatons. What are you free
*from, if it is not simply an element of randomness, with no rhyme or
reason?
Kermit
.
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: Science, God, and Free Will
- Next by Date: Re: Talk.origins (Time for FBI/Google Investigation)
- Previous by thread: Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Next by thread: Re: Science, God, and Free Will
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
