Browsed by
Tag: Free Will and Determinism

Rejecting Knowledge for the Sake of Science?

Rejecting Knowledge for the Sake of Science?

Jerry Coyne and others may think it makes sense to reject knowledge for the sake of science. They’re wrong. Here’s a great case in point, though, from a transcription Coyne provided of a talk given by Michael Gazzaniga. “If you think about it this way, if you are a Martian coming by earth and looking at all these humans and then looking at how they work you wouldn’t—it would never dawn on you to say, ‘Well, now, this thing needs…

Read More Read More

Our Problem: To Explain the Human Condition

Our Problem: To Explain the Human Condition

From the series, Ten Turning Points That Make All the Difference Genesis 3 tells how humans first entered into what I’m calling our problem. Some people find the story there hard to believe on account of the talking serpent and the seemingly magical fruit. We’ll come back to that. For now I want to show what it is in Genesis 3 that makes more sense than any other explanation I know of for the human condition. Consider this, after all:…

Read More Read More

Our Problem: Illusion or Reality?

Our Problem: Illusion or Reality?

From the series, Ten Turning Points That Make All the Difference What’s our problem? No, seriously. What’s wrong with us? Maybe nothing’s wrong with us. Sure, it seems like something’s not right with humanity, but maybe it’s just an illusion. There are modern naturalists/materialists who say consciousness and free will are human illusions. They’re not the only ones who place common-sense human experience in doubt. “Christian Science” (which is neither) teaches that evil is unreal, and that our only real…

Read More Read More

The Image of God Under Attack

The Image of God Under Attack

From the series, Ten Turning Points That Make All the Difference The image of God in humans is under attack. Evolutionary doctrine leads many thinkers to conclude that there is no essential difference between us and and any other organism. (By “evolutionary doctrine,” I am referring specifically to the version of evolutionary theory that says all organisms have come to be through blind, unguided processes of random variation, natural selection, and other statistical population effects such as genetic drift. Although…

Read More Read More

Can Science Disprove Free Will?

Can Science Disprove Free Will?

Premiss 1. If libertarian free will (LFW) exists, it operates such that natural law does not determine its course or its actions, nor is it a matter of chance. (Definition of libertarian free will) Premiss 2. Science’s competence (meaning the empirical, physical sciences) is strictly in the study of events and entities in conjunction with, in relation to, or as determined by natural law or by chance. (From generally accepted definitions of the natural sciences) Conclusion 1. If  some function…

Read More Read More

Coyne Responds on Free Will

Coyne Responds on Free Will

Jerry Coyne has responded to my piece (and others’) yesterday on his Free Will article in USAToday. He begins, Predictably, at his own website the Thinking Christian says that the assumption of natural laws that absolutely determine our choices is an unjustified a priori conclusion, not supported by science itself. (Nope, it’s a conclusion based on experience.) I’m disappointed that he didn’t notice what I wrote about that. I’ll try again. First, in a paragraph beginning “Now, certainly those laws,”…

Read More Read More

Jerry Coyne: “Why you don’t really have free will” – USATODAY.com

Jerry Coyne: “Why you don’t really have free will” – USATODAY.com

Jerry Coyne, who knows a lot about biology, doesn’t know nearly enough about other things on which he claims to be an authority. If what had written were only on his blog I would ignore it, but USAToday published it online: “Why you don’t really have free will.” It includes, Now there’s no way to rewind the tape of our lives to see if we can really make different choices in completely identical circumstances. But two lines of evidence suggest…

Read More Read More

“On naturalism, or: Good and bad extrapolations in science | Uncommon Descent”

“On naturalism, or: Good and bad extrapolations in science | Uncommon Descent”

Just a small problem here: In his opening article, Eric McDonald highlights a critical flaw in Coyne’s scientific case against free will: scientists haven’t put forward any arguments in defence of determinism [From A very revealing post on naturalism, or: Good and bad extrapolations in science | Uncommon Descent] Oops.

%d bloggers like this: