Scientist concludes that we don't have free will

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Please read the entire article to get a fuller picture: Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

Here's a fragment that pretty much proves that we don't have free will:

Imagine, he offers, a group of friends that goes to see a biopic about an inspiring activist. One applies the next day to join the Peace Corps. One is struck by the beautiful cinematography and signs up for a filmmaking course. The rest are annoyed they didn't see a Marvel film.

All of the friends were primed to respond as they did when they sat down to watch. Maybe one had heightened adrenaline from a close call with another car on the drive over; maybe another was in a new relationship and awash in oxytocin, the so-called love hormone. They had different levels of dopamine and serotonin in their brains, different cultural backgrounds, different sensitivities to sensory distractions in the theater. None chose how the stimulus of the film would affect them anymore than the sea slug "decided" to wince in response to a jolt.

For fellow adherents of determinism—the belief that it's impossible for a person in any situation to have acted differently than they did—Sapolsky's scientific defense of the cause is welcome.

"Who we are and what we do is ultimately the result of factors beyond our control and because of this we are never morally responsible for our actions in the sense that would make us truly deserving of praise and blame, punishment and reward," said Gregg Caruso, a philosopher at SUNY Corning who read early drafts of the book. "I am in agreement with Sapolsky that life without belief in free will is not only possible but preferable."

It was Arthur Schopenhauer who wrote: "Man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is because he already is what he wills." [Chapter 5 of On the Freedom of the Will] As paraphrased by Albert Einstein in his essay "My View of the World" (1931), it is put like this: "A man can do as he will, but not will as he will."

Free will is an illusion. Thoughts?

 

[Lamb]

So Luther was right

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

So Luther was right

What did Luther say? I'm not too familiar with his works.

 

[Lees]

Please read the entire article to get a fuller picture: Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

Here's a fragment that pretty much proves that we don't have free will:


It was Arthur Schopenhauer who wrote: "Man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is because he already is what he wills." [Chapter 5 of On the Freedom of the Will] As paraphrased by Albert Einstein in his essay "My View of the World" (1931), it is put like this: "A man can do as he will, but not will as he will."

Free will is an illusion. Thoughts?

My thought is: What is 'science' doing trying to determine if man has 'free will' or not"? Answer: It shows that science is highly affected by philosophy. Science was born out of philosophy and can never leave it's parent.

But of course, they love to give their 'theories' and 'hypothesis' and 'facts' as science is 'all knowing'. At least they like to think so.

Schopenhauer was a philosoper.

Point being, I don't give any weight to science's view of 'free will'. I may agree with them, but I don't agree because of them.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

What did Luther say? I'm not too familiar with his works.

Luther said the will is bound to sin. In terms of salvation, the will is not free.

But I guess I shouldn't have brought up Luther, because in making every day choices, he did feel that man is free to do so.

 

[Lees]

I have never been an advocate of 'free will'. Why? Because your will is based or acted upon by things that come into your life. Things which you have no control over. Your will is not free. Your will is forced to act upon things beyond your control.

Convince me that you control the things that come into your life that demand an act upon your will, then I will agree you have free will.

That you have a will, yes. That it is free, no.

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Wow! A Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of free will? This is not something one comes across very often. All the Christian apologists I've watched present the existence of free will as an a priori fact on which the entire Christian doctrine is based on. Except for Calvinism, I don't think I know any Christian denomination that denies the existence of free will.

 

[Stravinsk]

Wow! A Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of free will? This is not something one comes across very often. All the Christian apologists I've watched present the existence of free will as an a priori fact on which the entire Christian doctrine is based on. Except for Calvinism, I don't think I know any Christian denomination that denies the existence of free will.

I agree with the concept of free-will as priori fact upon the general population. Lack of free-will means possession.

It's free-will that is exercised regardless of circumstance.

Free-will chooses to:

Say 'yes' or 'no' when the opportunity to steal without being caught arises. Even if the object of theft is food, and one is hungry without the means to pay for it.

Say 'yes' or 'no' in acting out violently when one is presented with the opportunity to manifest their anger, hatred etc.

Say 'yes or 'no' to a decision to join the "peace corps" or join a "film making course" over something so base as *how they felt when they watched a film*. In other words, the feeling doesn't determine the action unless one chooses to let feeling alone determine action.

Insofar as persons who share Lee's view, I'd be wary of any such person. What they are saying is that their choices aren't controlled by them, but solely by outside influences - a position I find particularly dangerous.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Say 'yes' or 'no' when the opportunity to steal without being caught arises. Even if the object of theft is food, and one is hungry without the means to pay for it.

But it's not a free choice because one does not have control over what they value from a moral standpoint.

One could find herself considering that righteousness is of ultimate importance, while another could find herself valuing self-preservation (or pleasure or lack of suffering) more than anything else.

One could find himself valuing the principle that stealing is wrong under any circumstance, period. Another could find himself valuing the idea that, in a fallen world, those who had been dealt a bad hand are entitled to to circumvent the system and do anything to life a pleasurable life.

None of these people have chosen to have these worldviews and they are unable to change them by themselves. They can't even choose to assess opposing worldviews on their own because they consider them flawed and they find it illogical to study flawed perspectives.

the feeling doesn't determine the action unless one chooses to let feeling alone determine action.

Every single action we make is determined, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by feelings.

When we decide to harm another in order to gain something for ourselves, it's feelings that drive us to do that -- hate, envy, egoism etc.

When we decide to not do harm, it's still feelings that lead us to abstain from harming another -- empathy, love, respect etc.

When we engage in acting righteously, we think that we have control over our negative emotions, but in fact we are merely controlled by our positive ones. We are merely puppets in the hands of external and internal factors. We do not possess free will.

 

[Stravinsk]

But it's not a free choice because one does not have control over what they value from a moral standpoint.

One could find herself considering that righteousness is of ultimate importance, while another could find herself valuing self-preservation (or pleasure or lack of suffering) more than anything else.

One could find himself valuing the principle that stealing is wrong under any circumstance, period. Another could find himself valuing the idea that, in a fallen world, those who had been dealt a bad hand are entitled to to circumvent the system and do anything to life a pleasurable life.

None of these people have chosen to have these worldviews and they are unable to change them by themselves. They can't even choose to assess opposing worldviews on their own because they consider them flawed and they find it illogical to study flawed perspectives.

They sure do have control over what they value from a moral standpoint.

Every single action we make is determined, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by feelings.

When we decide to harm another in order to gain something for ourselves, it's feelings that drive us to do that -- hate, envy, egoism etc.

When we decide to not do harm, it's still feelings that lead us to abstain from harming another -- empathy, love, respect etc.

When we engage in acting righteously, we think that we have control over our negative emotions, but in fact we are merely controlled by our positive ones. We are merely puppets in the hands of external and internal factors. We do not possess free will.

I make decisions every day that aren't governed by feeling, so maybe the 'we' is you and people who think like you.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I make decisions every day that aren't governed by feeling

Ok. Give me some examples.

 

[Angel Michael]

Modern science will do everything to discredit God.
Same as "scientific" publications on gender study.
"Science"

Payed by LGBT lobbyist to make people believe that they are actually right.
It is nothing new people wage war against God and will do all they could to make them stop believing in one.

Bible warns us on this.

 

[Messy3]

Wow! A Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of free will? This is not something one comes across very often. All the Christian apologists I've watched present the existence of free will as an a priori fact on which the entire Christian doctrine is based on. Except for Calvinism, I don't think I know any Christian denomination that denies the existence of free will.

I'm not a calvinist, but there are evangelical churches that say this too. Paul says it in Romans 7. I do what I don't want. The scientists only look at the brain. Of course the flesh does not have free will and unless you get set free your soul and spirit don't have free will either. The demoniac from the Garadenes did not have free will. People who are not saved are blinded by satan and when you bind these powers that blind them and share the Gospel and pray that God will open their eyes, then they can chose to follow God or not, but then still if you get saved your spirit is free, but there can be strongholds in the mind. The Truth sets you free. We have to renew our mind with His Word.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

People who are not saved are blinded by satan

Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not believe that salvation is a one-time moment in this life, but rather a process that takes place over the course of our entire life and ends when we die.

Are Catholics and Orthodox blinded by satan? If yes, then let's move on to our next question.

Protestantism started in 1517. Until Martin Luther came, there weren't any writings to support the idea of salvation as occurring in a moment during our lifetime. Did God allow all Christians to be blinded by satan for 1450 years?

 

[Angel Michael]

The more and more you stray from the God with new denominations of Christianity, the more twisted ideas you get. The Bible is so much altered since Ortodox Christianity by Catholics, lutheranism, jehovah's witnesses... What else to expect other that wrong conclusions.

 

[Albion]

In fact, writings such as the Bible itself (!) affirm the concept of a salvation experience as opposed to a lifelong struggle to live in a way that would be judged by God as sufficient to merit a person eternal salvation.

What's more, it doesn't matter which version of the Bible is used--Douay, KJV, RCV, NIV, ESV, NAB, Catholic or Protestant. They all attest to this same truth.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

In fact, writings such as the Bible itself (!) affirm the concept of a salvation experience as opposed to a lifelong struggle to live in a way that would be judged by God as sufficient to merit a person eternal salvation.

It most definitely does not. Take it from Jesus Himself: to enter life, keep the commandments. Those who endure till the end will be saved.

Then there's Paul constantly telling the people to struggle, to endure, to work out their salvation, going as far as to say that he keeps his body into subjection so that he himself might not be a castaway.

Then there's James who says that faith without works cannot save. The goats from the parable are judged by their works, not by their faith. Even the demons believe in God's existence. It would be irrational for God to save someone for simply having cognitive belief about His existence.

Plenty of ex-Christians who used to have "Christian experiences", prayed everyday, studied the Bible till they learned it by heart, spoke in tongues, did missionary work, and believed with all their heart, ended up deconverting.

The more and more you stray from the God with new denominations of Christianity, the more twisted ideas you get. The Bible is so much altered since Ortodox Christianity by Catholics, lutheranism, jehovah's witnesses... What else to expect other that wrong conclusions.

Did you... call Orthodoxy and Catholicism new denominations?

 

[Messy3]

Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not believe that salvation is a one-time moment in this life, but rather a process that takes place over the course of our entire life and ends when we die.

Are Catholics and Orthodox blinded by satan? If yes, then let's move on to our next question.

Protestantism started in 1517. Until Martin Luther came, there weren't any writings to support the idea of salvation as occurring in a moment during our lifetime. Did God allow all Christians to be blinded by satan for 1450 years?

I was not talking about christians. Christians' eyes are opened. I was talking about the ones who don't chose for God, because they can't believe He even exists.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Christians' eyes are opened.

Then why do they have some absolutely conflicting opinions on doctrine? Why do Catholics believe that one has to be purged in the afterlife? Why do some Protestants believe that all you have to do is to believe and you're saved forever? Why do Orthodox think that salvation is a process, not a moment in time?

One would think that when two people have their eyes open and look in the same direction, they see the same things.

 

[Messy3]

Then why do they have some absolutely conflicting opinions on doctrine? Why do Catholics believe that one has to be purged in the afterlife? Why do some Protestants believe that all you have to do is to believe and you're saved forever? Why do Orthodox think that salvation is a process, not a moment in time?

One would think that when two people have their eyes open and look in the same direction, they see the same things.

Yes we see dimly because we're not like Him yet in total unity and there can be blindness to some topic in the Bible, but that's not total blindness.