Can we be intellectually honest and believe in the freedom of man?

[Kullervo]

But unconscious decisions aren’t really free, are they? They are just random.

 

[Aquinas11]

But unconscious decisions aren’t really free, are they? They are just random.

Yes because while you may not choose to form the unconscious decision (I really want a burger right now!!) you do freely choose to act on the unconscious decision (Ok I am going to drive to get a burger)

 

[ForeverLearn]

I think there is much delusion as the the “amount” of free will that exists. An absolute form, I would say certainly does not exist.

 

[itsjustme]

I’ve never understood the doubting of free will.

The fact that you can choose to believe it or not is proof of itself.

Therein lies the problem. Can you actually choose to believe in free will? I don’t think that you can. Likewise, can you choose to love someone? Or are love and believing in things such as free will, choices that you don’t consciously make? You’re aware that you believe in them, but you never actually made a conscious choice to do so.

But as Aquinas11 pointed out, must a choice be a conscious choice in order to qualify as a free will choice? Personally, I would say yes. To qualify as a free will choice, it must be a conscious choice.

 

[SPBlitz]

I think biased might have been the wrong word for it - influenced would work better. What I mean is that, if you believe that naturalism is true - in that everything has to be accounted by physical processes, then you’d naturally conclude that the mind would have to behave the same way. If you don’t believe in naturalism (let’s say dualism) then you’d reach a different conclusion. It’s not that the naturalists conclusion is untrustworthy per se, but if their starting premise (that naturalism is true) is wrong then their conclusion is bound to be as well. That’s why it’s important that we first nail down our metaphysics. If we do t get that right, then we’ll very likely end up with a false conclusion.

 

[itsjustme]

If you don’t believe in naturalism (let’s say dualism) then you’d reach a different conclusion.

I don’t think that dualism solves the problem, it simply complicates it, without actually explaining anything.

 

[SPBlitz]

How so? And are you referring to Cartesian or Hyleomorphic dualism?

 

[TK421]

@Kullervo

There isn’t findable scientific evidence for a soul because a soul is spirit and something that is spirit is by definition not observable.

Our brains are matter just like our stomach or liver or kidneys.

I don’t see anything intellectually dishonest about believing in free will but it’s not something I would ever expect to find in studying human anatomy. It’s just like how you can’t find any scientific evidence for the Eucharist (except in instances when God allows it to be seen miraculously).

 

[Kullervo]

Yeah I agree and it bugs me. It’s not scientific to hold metaphysical believes. You can hold them as a private person, but as a scientist you should talk only about science and don’t mix it with your philosophy.

 

[Kullervo]

I don’t need proof for free will. I accept it by faith. My problem is if it is consistent with modern science especially neuroscience.

 

[Major]

I would rather say that it is hard to say disbelieving in free will is intellectually honest. In fact you cannot say then that there is such a thing as an intellectual honesty as it needs you to think about some truths and do it honestly. None of those things is possible if there is no free will.

Obviously we cannot choose to do something honestly or dishonestly when there in no free will but also we cannot think in the sense of rational pursuit of truth. All things happening in our brains are determined, they are only some experiences which sometimes can be even true but it is purely incidental.

 

[TK421]

I don’t need proof for free will. I accept it by faith. My problem is if it is consistent with modern science especially neuroscience.

Okay, so just as a thought experiment, how do you deal with teachings such as transubstantiation? Because this is not consistent with chemistry and we know a lot more about chemistry than we do about neuroscience.

 

[Vico]

I’m not sure I quite understand you. Do you suggest that God (because he’s above natural laws) can give us free will in spite of evidence that would suggest otherwise?

Each human conceived, after our first parents, lacks the gift of supernatural grace due to inherited original sin so the free will of human beings has been weakened by sin, hindered from good by the corruption of nature. Catechism 401 states “After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin.” and in Catechism 1739 “Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin.” However, with the supernatural grace of God, it is possible to remain free from mortal sin for an entire lifetime.

 

[Aquinas11]

My problem is if it is consistent with modern science especially neuroscience.

Here is another spin on that research. Our “unconscious” thoughts may arise without choice on our part, but that doesn’t mean we had no free will in forming them. For example, what if they are caused by prior voluntary free choices? For example, I decide to watch a violent TV show one evening and the next day I am having unconscious angry thoughts. They could have been easily caused by my prior free voluntary decision to watch the violent TV program. True, not all of unconscious thoughts are caused/impacted by prior voluntary decisions but I bet a fair chunk of them are.

 

[Kullervo]

The bread still tastes, looks, and smells like breads, but substantially it’s the body of Christ. The physical properties are the same, but if I had a device which would identify anything what it really is, it would identify the Eucharist as Christ himself.

 

[Freddy]

I don’t think it’s possible to intellectually honest and reject free will.

If all of our decision happen subconsciously, and are driven only by external factors with no choice involved, it should be impossible for a person to do something different than they used to. If a certain series of influences caused me to perform an action one time, given the same set of circumstances I should repeat that action. However, I am capable of choosing not to perform that action. Therefore, there must be something else that plays a role in my decision making.

Let’s be clear. ALL decisions are based on external factors. Else they would be entirely random. And it is undoubtedly true that a lot of decisions are made sub-consciously. The question is…to what degree is our sub-conscious involved. I believe that it’s a lot more than people assume.

And it’s not possible, even as a thought experiment, to consider the possibility of a different outcome in a decision making process. Because you need to imagine a set of circumstances exactly the same where you ‘change your mind’. So if you chose tea over coffee then having done that, all other circumstances being exactly the same, you next choose coffee. The key phrase is ‘all OTHER circumstances’. Because to fullfil the requirement of the exercise you need to imagine one decision having already being made. And that’s a factor that will influence the second decision.

Else you are reduced to saying ‘Well, I could have decided to have either’. Which is a trite statement which could be answered with another trite statement: ‘Yeah, but you didn’t’.

 

[STT]

Quoted from the article: “With contemporary brain scanning technology, scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether 12 subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice”. The accuracy should be 100% if the determinism is true.

 

[BlueMaxx]

There are a lot of arguments against free will out there. I find the ones derived from neuroscience especially persuasive.
It is official Church teaching that we are free agents.
It is also stated in the Catechism that there can’t be any real contradiction between faith and reason.
I am becoming more and more convinced that believing in free will isn’t intellectually honest. That would mean that there is a contradiction between faith and reason. This would disprove the teaching of the Church and thus Catholicism.
Can someone help me with this problem? Could we somehow be free agents, even if free will would be disproved?
Thanks for answers.

For your edification…

 

[Kullervo]

I listened to that. Twice in fact. They talk a lot about the philosophical part of the question, but my problem lies more on the scientific part of it.

 

[TK421]

I have no idea how free will could even be possible in a human body. Everything is electrochemical and run by cause and effect. It would have to be supernatural or nothing.