But one objects, “The man is certainly different than a meteor.” He is in actual material, but not in approximate or type, as in natural material. Whether and amoeba pushes a small bit of dirt, a dog digs a hole, or a man pushes a rock the mechanisms are still the same. This means is that we cannot empirically measure the reason beyond simple stimulus and response. Hence the psychological study of Behaviorism. Behaviorism reduces all actions to cause and effect. The organism pulls back from fire because of heat, pushes a stone because it is in the way, eats because it is hungry. It says nothing about the consciousness, Free Will, or even mental states because they cannot be empirically tested. Which is why evolutionary psychology is a pseudo-science as we only know two empirical things about early man, they lived in groups and the females had babies. There is so little other evidence that anything beyond that is strict conjecture.
That is why Free Will from a naturalist standpoint must be an illusion. We are driven by two factors, heredity and environment in our universe, or bottle of fire. We cannot choose to exist in any other way since it is the way we do exist and because there is no other way to exist since the material is all there is forever. This is why in positivism we cannot know anything for fact beyond what can be empirically tested, everything else is simply conjecture and ultimately unknowable. The question, “Does God exist?” or “Do miracles happen?” are equally meaningless since it is outside of the realm of empiricism.
Yet this is where another problem creeps in. The positivist makes claims based upon things that cannot be tested. For instance the scientific method cannot be tested by the scientific method, yet the positivist certainly believes the method to be true. If it were untrue then the results would be suspect. In your work as a physician you wouldn’t trust a syringe that had faulty measurements, or a scale with out-of-order numbers. Truth, freedom, love, consciousness and ethics like you point out like the death penalty cannot be tested. So does that mean they cannot be discussed? Or are they rendered meaningless?
“We can discuss them,” comes the objection, “even if they are meaningless.” “We can apply existential values to them or use them in a utilitarian way.” This is true, but what about Free Will? To truly have Free Will it must be able to completely exist outside of the natural system and then come into the system, to be able to truly change the natural world. It cannot be dependent upon the natural system for it’s existence anymore than a bear must depend on its existence by having a leg caught in a trap. It must be able to move out of the system at its own volition. Once in the Natural World it is affected by it, but not trapped within it. It must be able to go into the Natural World manipulate it and then be able to leave. If no Free Will exists than we are simply atoms pushing atoms, which is meaningless.
Beyond that it also means that we cannot truly comprehend the natural world because we are caught within it. We are bags of atoms that try to comprehend other atoms in a naturalistic worldview, and as I have shown this is a fool’s folly. We cannot even trust the scientific method for it deals with truth, which cannot be tested empirically. For how does a collection of atoms truly manipulate other atoms if that is all there is? They cannot deliberately do so anymore than a wave deliberately pushes sand on the shore. This is the heart of Modernism, which we cannot know anything beyond what can be empirically tested. We cannot know good or bad, or God or anything that cannot be repeatedly tested.
This Free Will is the soul and supernatural. In my next post I will explain how the Great Soul, namely God works in the same manner.
Psalm89
