How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[Peter_Plato]

Morality exists whether you have free will or not.

Well, no. Morally accountability and moral agency do not exist “whether you have free will or not.” These both require autonomous agency.

Your portrayal (below) of “bringing someone up” simply hides what autonomy involves behind the wall of “the past” as if what an individual moral agent is is fixed by “being brought up.” Very sneaky of you, but not helpful or enlightening.

If you bring someone up to believe that stealing is wrong and they accept that, then that belief forms part of their moral outlook. So that person has, efectively, no choice in making a decision to take the money from the till when the shopkeeper turns his back.

All the facets of every decision that you have made, all the criteria, all the specific circumstances, were set in place before you made the decisions. You had no control over them. The world turned in such a way as to fix those circumstances in a particular way at the moment you made you decision.

Fallacy of retrospective determinism.

Whatever that decision was, if the circumstances were EXACTLY the same at any other moment, you would make EXACTLY the same decision. Because whatever call you made, you made one of a number of options. Even if the only other option was to do nothing.

Again, begs the question by hiding autonomy behind the decision made by an autonomous agent as if the decision had to be BECAUSE the agent finalized it.

If you insist that you could have made a different decision, then you need to explain to me why you would pick anything less than the best available option. It would mean that any decision you make is not necessarily the best one, but one you make…well, because you have free will and you want to exercise it. Which then becomes the best reason for that reason in itself.

What you are forgetting is that the agent forms their agency by the very decisions they make and actions they choose. Now there may be a little wiggle room in every decision which in the final analysis could make a huge (or yuge) difference.

Turning a large ship isn’t done “on a dime,” but with proper navigation skills and preparation even things so set in their ways as large ships can be piloted by the tiny (name removed by moderator)uts of relatively innocuous beings taking the wheel.

All of this, of course, assumes that human agents actually do take up the mantle and exercise free will. There is no presumption to be made that merely because human beings have a capacity for making free and autonomous choices, that they actually will.

Your portrayal could, in fact, apply to the majority of human beings who might have abdicated their capacity for making free choices without disproving that humans are capable of free will.

It may describe perfectly the predicament you find yourself in without, thereby, proving that free will doesn’t exist. You have to learn to speak for yourself rather than impose or project your MO on everyone around you.

Even the response that you make to this post is, as far as you are concerned, the best option considering all the circumstances. You cannot make another one.

Well, no actually. I can think of a hundred possible responses to “this post” which would have a myriad of possible consequences. None of which are necessarily “better” or "best.” AND I could days later come up with many others.

I have decided to do something else at the moment, so I choose not to answer your quick test (the one which follows) at your bidding but at my leisure and choice.

Here’a quick test for you. Tell your wife, purely in the spirit of a philosophical argument you are having, that if the circumstances were exactly the same in regard to you two meeting, there would be no guarantee that you would ask her to marry you again. I mean, if you have free will, you’d have that free will option.

After the obvious response, you could tell here, hand on heart, that it was the best option at the time. But free will dictates that if the situation were to be repeated, it might not then be the option you would choose.

Let me know how you get on.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words morality boils down to expedience. There is nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it. Is that what children should be taught?

Morality exists whether you have free will or not.

If you bring someone up to believe that stealing is wrong and they accept that, then that belief forms part of their moral outlook. So that person has, effectively, no choice in making a decision to take the money from the till when the shopkeeper turns his back.If we have no choice we are like machines which are not accountable for what they do.

All the facets of every decision that you have made, all the criteria, all the specific circumstances, were set in place before you made the decisions. You had no control over them. The world turned in such a way as to fix those circumstances in a particular way at the moment you made you decision.

Whatever that decision was, if the circumstances were EXACTLY the same at any other moment, you would make EXACTLY the same decision. Because whatever call you made, you made one of a number of options. Even if the only other option was to do nothing.

If you insist that you could have made a different decision, then you need to explain to me why you would pick anything less than the best available option. It would mean that any decision you make is not necessarily the best one, but one you make…well, because you have free will and you want to exercise it. Which then becomes the best reason for that reason in itself.

It is not necessarily the best reason because we are not infallible and often we are swayed by emotion. We can also choose to be unreasonable!

Even the response that you make to this post is, as far as you are concerned, the best option considering all the circumstances. You cannot make another one.

Of course I can! We are not biological computers but creative persons with imagination and emotions. I could write several books in answer to this post which would vary according to my insight and experience I have gained in the meantime. I have often revised my opinions in the light of discussion and information. At one time I regarded religion as sentimental and old-fashioned but then I realised it is the best interpretation of existence because materialism is obviously false. The power of the mind cannot be ignored if we are realistic…

Here’a quick test for you. Tell your wife, purely in the spirit of a philosophical argument you are having, that if the circumstances were exactly the same in regard to you two meeting, there would be no guarantee that you would ask her to marry you again. I mean, if you have free will, you’d have that free will option.

After the obvious response, you could tell here, hand on heart, that it was the best option at the time. But free will dictates that if the situation were to be repeated, it might not then be the option you would choose.

Let me know how you get on.

Your test is obviously unfair, Brad, because it introduces a personal factor. Even if I now believe it wasn’t the best option I could hardly say so. In other words your challenge amounts to a form of blackmail!

 

[Bradski]

Your test is obviously unfair, Brad, because it introduces a personal factor. Even if I now believe it ewasn’t the best option I could hardly say so. In other words your challenge amounts to a form of blackmail!

All decisions are personal ones. The fact that this one affects somone else is irrelevant.

And I wasn’t asking if you would NOW say that you wouldn’t have asked her to marry you. I was asking if you had a choice THEN. You didn’t. Otherwise you could at least admit as much to yourself as opposed to your wife.

But I really don’t know how you could phrase it. ‘I had a choice not to, but I could never have taken that option’.

If you had free will, you could have taken the option. If the circumstances were identical, then what changes? You make decisions based on the circumstances. And it’s the best available choice. Unless you want to argue that some decisions you make are purposely chosen to have an outcome that is not the optimum as far as you are concerned for all interested parties? That is surely bizarre.

And how many optimum choices are there, depending on circumstances and your mental condition at any one time?

One. The one that you made and the one that you would always make if all conditions were identical. Same (name removed by moderator)ut, same output. All the time, every time.

 

[Solmyr]

The version of morality you have described boils down to expedience.

I did NOT describe morality at all, so you criticism is premature. (Hopefully this will not be considered an unallowed “personal remark”.)

In the version of morality you have described there is still nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it.

Except for your “preconditioned” behavior - due to our upbringing. It might not prevent all possible crimes, more is the pity. BTW, does your version of morality stop people committing crimes?

I have never implied otherwise.

This was the first time - to my best knowledge - that you explicitly asserted that one’s freedom is not contingent upon other people’s crimes.

There is a vast difference between a natural ill-smelling (stinking) environment and** free will** which is a **personal **attribute which determines our whole attitude to life.

The point was that you do not miss what you never encountered.

The “small price” is the inability to choose what to think and how to live…

Please, don’t exaggerate. Your “freedom” would be somewhat limited, that is all. And sometimes, less is more. The lack of freedom to perform violent acts should be viewed as an improvement. Just look at the example in Orlando! Who would say that this kind of “freedom” is desirable?

There are bound to be defects in an immensely complex system which has developed over an immense period of time. The laws of nature cannot possibly cater for every contingency.

Your imagined God is not “omnipotent” - not even close.

 

[Solmyr]

If you bring someone up to believe that stealing is wrong and they accept that, then that belief forms part of their moral outlook. So that person has, efectively, no choice in making a decision to take the money from the till when the shopkeeper turns his back.

Exactly. Many of our actions are strongly predetermined by our “programming”, which happens during our formative years. When will the proponents of “free will” realize this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

All decisions are personal ones. The fact that this one affects somone else is irrelevant.

And I wasn’t asking if you would NOW say that you wouldn’t have asked her to marry you. I was asking if you had a choice THEN. You didn’t.

Effectively, what you are claiming is that you didn’t have a choice then BECAUSE you chose at that time to marry her.

In other words, your argument is that because you made a choice it couldn’t have been a free choice. Hello? Isn’t that self-contradictory? At the very least, it rules out the possibility of free choice at the very moment a determined choice is arrived at – whether freely or otherwise – simply because a choice was made.

There is then NO logical possibility that a free choice could have been made precisely because a choice was made. That is an absurd claim because it doesn’t argue against free choice, as much as it simply begs the entire issue by making the act of choosing and, therefore, determining an outcome by having a choice definitionally incompatible with free choice.

Clearly, the fallacy of retrospective determinism is being committed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you bring someone up to believe that stealing is wrong and they accept that, then that belief forms part of their moral outlook. So that person has, efectively, no choice in making a decision to take the money from the till when the shopkeeper turns his back.

This claim is clearly refuted by the fact that many individuals are “brought up” to believe stealing is wrong and yet do, in fact, frequently take money from tills or shoplift from stores.

If you were correct, everyone brought up to believe stealing is wrong would NEVER steal. The fact that many who do steal have been brought up not to but that simply doesn’t form their moral outlook indelibly or without their assent.

One explanation for that could very well be that free will is operative. You kind of sort of imply that by your if “they accept that” qualifier. What is it that amounts to “accept” if not the possibility of free will or choice operative over time?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly. Many of our actions are strongly predetermined by our “programming”, which happens during our formative years. When will the proponents of “free will” realize this?

Proponents of free will have lived lives and through personal experience know that they have autonomy and (name removed by moderator)ut into what happens in “our formative years.”

It may be that those who refuse to accept free will are those who, likewise, refuse to accept personal responsibility for their choices through time and use denial of free will (and denial of personal autonomy) as a way to excuse the (name removed by moderator)ut they have had into their own moral formation, choices and actions.

Perhaps “realizing” or acknowledging that fact is more difficult than you care to admit?

 

[magnet]

When nature’s laws were established, apparently predatory behavior was considered OK. This is because ecologists have noted that when a lion kills a zebra, the latter becomes a victim. This is OK because a lion has to eat. The zebra did not give approval for his sacrifice so the conclusion is that the lion was morally wrong.

But when a starving person steals produce from a produce vendor, this is not OK. Was Jean Valjean justified in stealing bread because his sister’s children were starving? Apparently Inspector Javert did not buy the argument that Valjean was justified in his crime.

So when does morality trump necessity?

 

[Solmyr]

Effectively, what you are claiming is that you didn’t have a choice then BECAUSE you chose at that time to marry her.

Nope, his argument was different. But you did not understand it.

This whole nonsense of “free will” is irrelevant. To ascertain that one’s decision was “free”, the following experiment needs to be performed.

1. take a full snapshot of the universe in any specific moment.
2. “rewind” the universe to some previous moment of time.
3. let the events unfold again and see if the same choices are made.

If at least one of the choices is different, then it was “free”. If all the choices are the same, then the question is still undecided. Of course this experiment is impossible to perform. So we have no proof either way. We assume that the choices are “free”, because we “think” that they are free.

But that is not the proper way to talk about free choices. There are three criteria to decide if we have free will:

1. there is something that the agent wishes to achieve.
2. there are at least two ways to achieve it.
3. the locus of decision rests with the agent, it is not determined by some external agent or force.

The “internal” workings of the agent are irrelevant. How he reaches the decision is irrelevant. The agent is simply a “black box”. By the way, if all three conditions are met, then the agent has free will in that specific respect.

Proponents of free will have lived lives and through personal experience know that they have autonomy and (name removed by moderator)ut into what happens in “our formative years.”

How much “autonomy” did you have from the age of one to the age of four or five. None, I would say. And yet that is the time when your “moral” foundation was set. Can you, today, go out and murder someone to get his money? Just think about it. It looks like that you overlooked the word “MANY” in my post. I did not say “ALL”.

It certainly looks like that we have a certain amount of freedom in our choices. Too much freedom in my opinion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When nature’s laws were established, apparently predatory behavior was considered OK. This is because ecologists have noted that when a lion kills a zebra, the latter becomes a victim. This is OK because a lion has to eat. The zebra did not give approval for his sacrifice so the conclusion is that the lion was morally wrong.

But when a starving person steals produce from a produce vendor, this is not OK. Was Jean Valjean justified in stealing bread because his sister’s children were starving? Apparently Inspector Javert did not buy the argument that Valjean was justified in his crime.

So when does morality trump necessity?

I would suppose that one person killing and eating another would be considered by any human being with a well-formed conscience as heinous and immoral. That would be because human beings view themselves as being autonomous moral agents, while lions do not exhibit any such capacities. They act consistently and instinctively with no capacity to transcend their environment – which is why the life of lions has endured basically unchanged since lions began their quest for survival.

Human life, on the other hand, has led to a plethora of creative activities – works of art, literature, drama, technology, philosophy, architecture, etc., etc. Now you might argue that lions have been too busy hunting to have time for any of these pursuits. I would respond that lions do have a great deal of time on their hands – witness all the photos of sleeping lions and napping cats – but have NO capacity for such pursuits. Creativity positively requires the ability to transcend the causal order, which, in turn, requires consciousness, intentionality, rational intelligence and free agency.

The evidence that humans alone exhibit such capacities exists all around us and has been available historically over the past several hundred thousand years.

Unfortunately, an abdication of these capacities by supposed “progressives” who, in reality, are regressively insisting that human autonomy is only apparent and, yet, insist on “progressing” the social agenda under the pretext that mere hedonistic sentience and not rational thought is all that is necessary for human beings to thrive. The Earth will soon be de-civilized and society become dysfunctional in short order. This is the time Jesus warned us about – the time of the dry wood.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope, his argument was different. But you did not understand it.

This whole nonsense of “free will” is irrelevant. To ascertain that one’s decision was “free”, the following experiment needs to be performed.

1. take a full snapshot of the universe in any specific moment.
2. “rewind” the universe to some previous moment of time.
3. let the events unfold again and see if the same choices are made.

If at least one of the choices is different, then it was “free”. If all the choices are the same, then the question is still undecided. Of course this experiment is impossible to perform. So we have no proof either way. We assume that the choices are “free”, because we “think” that they are free.

But that is not the proper way to talk about free choices. There are three criteria to decide if we have free will:

1. there is something that the agent wishes to achieve.
2. there are at least two ways to achieve it.
3. the locus of decision rests with the agent, it is not determined by some external agent or force.

The “internal” workings of the agent are irrelevant. How he reaches the decision is irrelevant. The agent is simply a “black box”. By the way, if all three conditions are met, then the agent has free will in that specific respect.

Uh-huh. And assuming the agent is merely a “black box” isn’t circular reasoning?

How is it possible to know with any certainty that all three conditions have been met without privileged access to the “internal workings of the agent” which you claim are irrelevant and the agent is simply a “black box?”

How much “autonomy” did you have from the age of one to the age of four or five. None, I would say.

You can say “None,” all you want, but that doesn’t demonstrate anything. I would claim the individual had as much autonomy as they had consciousness of the world around them and of their “internal workings.”

As Socrates claimed, an unexamined life is not worth living, especially – I would assume he entertained the thought in the back of his mind – when that life is kept unexamined in a black box.

And yet that is the time when your “moral” foundation was set.

Well, on this we simply disagree. No one’s moral foundation is ever “set” while they are alive and conscious. Now, I have no reason to suppose that moral agency couldn’t be abdicated or left unused by some potential moral agents, but, that too, would be a determined choice on their part.

Perhaps this might be what you mean by someone’s moral foundation being “set” – i.e., they have abandoned their own moral development and left it still-born.

Can you, today, go out and murder someone to get his money? Just think about it. It looks like that you overlooked the word “MANY” in my post. I did not say “ALL”.

Ah, yes, but you nowhere address the question of WHY I would not go out today and murder someone as if the reason for that would simply be the result of complex causal determinants and nothing to do with the moral choices of an autonomous or free agent.

Again, you are begging the question by assuming that the “reasons” have nothing to do with free will. There are, after all, many individuals who do go out and murder others for their money. That, at least potentially, being a “reason” and not a cause. Let’s not beg the question, once again, and assume only causes exist or that all reasons are merely causes.

It certainly looks like that we have a certain amount of freedom in our choices. Too much freedom in my opinion.

AND… we do a complete 180°

No autonomy from the age of four or five, but, suddenly and inexplicably, “too much freedom?”

Pick a side and stick with it might be more conducive to a reasoned discussion. Arguing that free will does not exist but – at the same time – that humans have too much of it will simply give your readers a kink in their medulla oblongatas.

 

[Solmyr]

No autonomy from the age of four or five, but, suddenly and inexplicably, “too much freedom?”

No autonomy for some individuals, who have been properly educated / indoctrinated. For the rest there is too much freedom. What is so difficult about that? I would be unable to rape someone - due to my upbringing. For others it is quite possible, due to their upbringing. You seem to have a one-track mind - either all or none. Reality is much more complicated than that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No autonomy for some individuals, who have been properly educated / indoctrinated. For the rest there is too much freedom. What is so difficult about that? I would be unable to rape someone - due to my upbringing. For others it is quite possible, due to their upbringing. You seem to have a one-track mind - either all or none. Reality is much more complicated than that.

So you lose autonomy by education and upbringing, but gain autonomy by no upbringing or education?

I see.

So feral dogs, horses and cats are “autonomous,” but domesticated or trained (indoctrinated) ones are not.

A very peculiar definition of autonomy you have there.

I would argue that freedoms come from the capacities to do more things. Virtues, talents, powers, and capabilities permit us to do more things in greater variety with much greater opportunity for success. This empowerment is precisely what it is that enables any freedom to choose and act, whatsoever.

Not being able to speak, read or write a language does not make you free to use that language. You are incapable of doing so and, therefore, are not free or autonomous to do so precisely because you cannot.

Empowerment is the basis of freedom. That is what education and training do for individuals. You might as well argue that being able to do anything whatsoever is the greatest evil because the ability to do stuff is what makes people do evil. Ergo, just cut off hands, feet, tongues, and brains; and voila you have your Utopia. Thanks, but no thanks.

The capacity to do stuff is not evil, it is the choice to do evil things with your capacities that is the evil.

Sure, evil presupposes freedom – free agency is a necessary condition for moral evil.

However, (and this is where your logic is faulty) freedom is not a sufficient condition for evil. An evil will – the choice to misuse whatever capacities you possess is the problem.

Those capacities, freely engaged, enable human beings to do great things in the arts, the sciences, technology, ethics, politics, philosophy, etc., etc.

Remove freedom and you remove the possibility for great things being created by human beings.

You may argue it isn’t worth the price. On the contrary, I think it is. And judging by the fact that God is merciful AND very patient, He does, as well.

You may not be able to handle human freedom, but you are not in charge, are you?

Funny how you will fault God for not stepping in when great evil occurs, but from the other side of your mouth you will criticize the documented cases of when he did (the Flood, the Exodus, Conquest of the Promised Land,Sodom and Gomorrah, the Incarnation.)

In order to know for certain that you would be competent to do a better job at monitoring creation than God, you would have to know for certain all the repercussions of every event, choice and act through all history to the teleological end of the universe.

Are we to believe you have that kind of capacity to know and certainty that comes with it?

Call me skeptical.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would be unable to rape someone - due to my upbringing. For others it is quite possible, due to their upbringing.

No, you cannot be made “unable” to rape because of your upbringing, unless you want – yet again – to beg the question.

How would you know that it was someone’s upbringing that made them “unable” to rape?

Easy – they didn’t rape because they were brought up not to.

That, my friend, is a classic case of begging the question and it totally ignores the plethora of individuals with very much the same upbringing who do and don’t rape.

Well, then – you will insist – there MUST have been some difference in their upbringing to account for this.

There is no way to falsify that claim, is there?

You have rigged it so you MUST be correct.

The “rigging" has a name: it is called circular reasoning.

And all the while you thought you had a bullet-proof argument.

Try this on for size:

Men who are brought up or taught never to rape, are unable rape.
Freddie was brought up or taught never to rape.
Therefore, Freddie is unable to rape.

Raise your hand if you find this a convincing argument. :doh2:

Ah, yes…

“Reality is much more complicated than that.”

 

[Bradski]

Effectively, what you are claiming is that you didn’t have a choice then BECAUSE you chose at that time to marry her.

It seems you are not following the argument. You didn’t have a choice because of the conditions current at that time. If the situation is repeated and the conditions are EXACTLY the same, then the decision will be identical.

What you seem to believe is that if conditions are EXACTLY the same, then there could, somehow, because of free will, be a different outcome. It seems you need to argue that the thought processes that you go through to reach any given decisions are not part of the conditions.

Men who are brought up or taught never to rape, are unable rape.

No. Men who are taught that rape is wrong and believe this to be true will have that belief as part of the conditions that are current at any relevant time. If they hold it to be true in all conditions, then they have no choice in the matter.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly. Many of our actions are strongly predetermined by our “programming”, which happens during our formative years. When will the proponents of “free will” realize this?

Why “Many”? Why not “All”?

A loophole seems unnecessary if our formative years override all other factors…

 

[tonyrey]

I did NOT describe morality at all, so you criticism is premature.

? :

Your error is that you disregard that humans are social animals, so our behavior is not solely contingent upon our individual desires, but also on the community we live it. There are no categorical imperatives, criminals are entitled to their VIEWS, but NOT to act on those views.** Morality is a CONVENIENT convention**, and smart people balance their personal ambitions with the needs of others. (No one is an island.)

!

 

[tonyrey]

The point was that you do not miss what you never encountered.

1. Are scientific explanations restricted to what we have encountered?
2. Should “missing links” and exceptions to a rule be ignored?
3. Wouldn’t people wonder why animals are killed but not persons?
4. What explanation would there be or would it remain an unsolved mystery?

 

[tonyrey]

Men who are taught that rape is wrong and believe this to be true will have that belief as part of the conditions that are current at any relevant time. If they hold it to be true in all conditions, then they have no choice in the matter.

If **everything **we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live you have no choice in your belief that everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live… Why should your belief be superior to others who disagree with you?