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

Different people may have different definitions of free will, which may
contribute to the debates about free will. Much of the discussion on this
thread has focused on the ability to choose between good and evil.
However, when I freely choose one good choice over another good choice, I
think that I am also exercising my free will.

I would ask a couple of questions whose answer may be affected by one's
definition of free will.

1. Does God have free will?
2. Will we have free will when we are with Him in heaven?

I claim that the reason that God does not lie is to be found in His
nature, not in some deficiency in His ability, and I praise Him for His
good deeds even though I know that He never does what is not good.

Gordon Brown

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 19 12:55:50 2007