Re: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

I see a small problem in that free will has to be a capacity to choose
both good and evil. A husband is free to "forsaking all others, keep thee
only unto her" as in the classic marriage ceremony. It has to be a
freedom, however circumscribed, to choose among available alternatives of
every sort.
Dave

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Christine Smith
<christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hello all,
>
> Burgy writes:
> "> Free will, which I assert I have, is simply the
> > capability to make a
> > decision regardless of what "particles are hitting
> > particles" in my
> > brain. Much of what I do, and I presume that much of
> > what other humans
> > do, is "go with the flow," and, as such, is probably
> > NOT exercises of
> > free will. But there are times, and I suspect for
> > most these times might
> > comes many times during a day, when free will is
> > exercised. That means
> > simply this -- no scientific investigation, even in
> > principle, could
> > possibly tell in advance whether I will choose A or
> > B (or something
> > else)."
>
> Though I'm not firm in this position, I think I would
> define free will a bit differently. I would define it
> as a God-given capacity for us to choose something
> contrary to God's will, something which is sinful
> (thus, it is tied to our awarness of the moral law).
> This is in contrast to something you might term "free
> choice" or "freedom of action", which I would equate
> to simple decisions that have no moral aspect to them
> (should I buy a blue car or a red car?) Thus, I would
> say that animals have only freedom of choice, but not
> free will, whereas we have the capacity for both;
> consequently, humans have fallen, but animals have not
> (and cannot).
>
> In Christ,
> Christine
>
> --- Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Moorad posted: "I do not equate using human
> > rationality to understand and
> > solve problems with the scientific method
> > necessarily. The latter needs
> > the former; however, the latter does not exhaust all
> > the problems that
> > the human mind is confronted with. In fact, deep
> > fundamental questions
> > are often not scientific at all in nature. I
> > believe that kinds of
> > knowledge must be characterized by a subject matter
> > and the subject
> > matter determines what kind of evidence is used to
> > establish the truth or
> > falsehood of statements in that particular kind of
> > knowledge. The reason
> > religion is not the purview of science is that it
> > deals with the exercise
> > of human free will, which cannot be reduced to the
> > purely physical. "
> >
> > I can buy that.
>
> I'm good with that too :)
>
> >
> > Dave posted: "This allows psychology, sociology and
> > related studies to be
> > scientific
> > despite the fact that they deal with the activities
> > of human beings."
> >
> > Such, when they deal with statistical probabilities,
> > probably qualify.
> > But I maintain that when they address an individual
> > person, they cannot,
> > even in principle, predict how that person will
> > decide on something.
> >
> > Moorad asked (of someone else): "You tell me what is
> > free will."
> >
> > Free will, which I assert I have, is simply the
> > capability to make a
> > decision regardless of what "particles are hitting
> > particles" in my
> > brain. Much of what I do, and I presume that much of
> > what other humans
> > do, is "go with the flow," and, as such, is probably
> > NOT exercises of
> > free will. But there are times, and I suspect for
> > most these times might
> > comes many times during a day, when free will is
> > exercised. That means
> > simply this -- no scientific investigation, even in
> > principle, could
> > possibly tell in advance whether I will choose A or
> > B (or something
> > else).
> >
> > I attribute to God the fact that I became a
> > Christian at age 31. It was
> > not my decision -- it was His. But once I was a
> > Christian, it was a
> > series of the exercise of my free will as to what I
> > would do because of
> > this new relationship. Knowing very little about t
> > he Christian faith, I
> > remember pondering this question, and coming up with
> > just two decisions
> > (to start with). One was that I would be in church
> > Sunday mornings and
> > two we would begin at once to adhere to the biblical
> > tithe. Other
> > decisions would come later; two were enough to start
> > with. I had the free
> > will to decide otherwise.; to add all sorts of
> > auxiliary positions. But I
> > did not.
> >
> > Moorad wrote: "I personally would not characterize
> > psychology, social and
> > related studies as scientific."
> >
> > While I sympathize with that position, I think it
> > comes down to a simple
> > question of definition. Most of the world does see
> > them as sciences;
> > arguing otherwise is just an argument over
> > definitions.
> >
> > As a physicist who barely made it through a
> > beginning psychology course
> > at Carnegie Tech in 1952, I did not see it then as
> > "scientific." More as
> > mumbo jumbo. <G>
> >
> > Finally: Dave posted (to me): " yours is a common
> > definition, but it
> > applies to what is better understood as strict
> > determinism, that is,
> > everything occurs within an inexorable causal nexus.
> > However, my
> > decisions fall within a causal domain, but it is not
> > inexorable."
> >
> > I'm sorry. I just do not understand what you are
> > talking about.
> >
> > "There are some psychologists and sociologists who
> > have claimed that our
> > decisions are simply part of the inexorable causal
> > nexus, that freedom is
> > a delusion. But this means that their thoughts are
> > not any more rational
> > than the flight of a rock (velocity, gravity, air
> > resistance, etc.), and
> > so without reason. Our reason has to be a kind of
> > initiative cause to
> > produce rational events."
> >
> > At least we can agree on this part. <G>
> >
> > "Indeterminism is a random matter, which cannot
> > produce rational
> > consequences except by accident--the famous monkeys
> > producing
> > Shakespeare. It doesn't matter whether it is totally
> > random or occurs
> > within statistical bounds. If there is a text
> > produced, it is not
> > detectable by the indeterminate producer."
> >
> > Again, this seems to be off my point.
> >
> > My point is this (I may be repeating myself): When I
> > exercise my free
> > will to choose between A and B, I am doing so
> > non-naturally
> > (supernaturally, if you prefer that word). No set of
> > observations and
> > mathematics can, even in principle, predict which I
> > will choose. The
> > material universe changes in a wholly new direction,
> > and I'm to blame (or
> > praise).
> >
> > Burgy
> > www.burgy.50megs.com/one.htm
> > My review of ONE WORLD, by Polkinghorne
> >
> > "Any one thing in the creation is sufficient to
> > demonstrate a Providence
> > to a humble and grateful mind." --Epictetus
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 18 15:51:26 2007