I am particularly intrigued by Tom Pearson, who said in response to my
remark::
>>As a Christian, you must surely believe free will plays a part
>>in the evolution of human thought and culture.
Tom:
>Could you say more about what you mean by this, Bertvan? As a Christian
>who is doubtful about any robust notion of "free will," I'm not sure what
>is the scope of your claim here. Just what is it that you think Christians
>"must surely believe" about "free will"?
I've often talked with people who believed "free will" was an illusion, that
our actions were the result of physiology and environmental conditioning.
Until now, all those arguing such a position were admitted materialists and
atheists. In fact, rejection of free will seems to me the only logical
conclusion of materialism, determinism and atheism. However I thought
Christians were supposedly free to choose God or reject him, to choose good
or evil. It is difficult for me to understand a god who urges people to
follow a certain course, but then leaves them no choice about the decision.
(I do not in any way intend this as a criticism, merely a failure on my part
to understand.)
As an agnostic, my acceptance of free will and design have nothing to do with
god. It merely seems the most obvious. To decide what appears to be reality
is really an illusion seems tortious reasoning to me. The universe looks
designed to me (as well as to Dawkins) and I have no desire to wonder if it
is an illusion or speculate about the nature of any designer. I personally
experience free will, and not being constrained by materialism, have no
reason to decide it is an illusion. In fact, I see no reason to deny that the
most primitive life forms have some small measure of free will. How can we
possibly know what goes into determining whether a paramecium turns right or
left? Whether an organism fights or flees? Whether a mammal stays put, or
explores and tries some new behavior? For that matter, how can we know what
determines when a particle leaves the nucleus of an atom? All we know is
that follows some pattern which allows a large collection of similar atoms to
do so at a predictable rate. To me, it seems simplistic and premature to
decide some of the relationships of nature which we have discovered in the
year 2000 are "ultimate truths". (No desire to convert anyone, but you DID
ask.)
Bertvan