Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:34:11 -0500 Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
writes:
> <snip>
> Here is an offshoot question: will the mechanism by which
> "choice" is
> made, (should freewill exist -- and I take it that all of us here
> are
> committed to that axiom?) remain forever beyond scientific
> scrutiny?
> If so, does this necessitate our thinking of every choice as an
> (albeit
> mundane) miracle (i.e. in that it has no accessible explanation
> even
> in theory)? How does an EP explaining group selection origins
> for
> morality OR others using selfish-gene-selection "morality") escape
>
> Lewis' old criticism of materialism in which any so-called "evil"
> act
> could no more be criticized as such than we could admonish a rock
> for
> having rolled down a hill? Explaining how morality came to be
> (even
> successfully) is not the same as constructing an "ought to" for
> myself
> for the future, is it?
>
> Lastly, how do you maintain methodological naturalism while still
>
> remaining committed to free-will? Somebody may have to
> acknowledge a
> "black box" beyond our reach somewhere. This seems like something
> in
> which explanation would kill not only the thing explained, but maybe
>
> even the explanation itself.
>
> --merv
>
I fear you're forgetting that there are many topics which are not
amenable to scientific study. Why is there something rather than nothing?
What is the basis of morality? What are the intrinsic values? What is the
nature of human freedom? How does logic function? Etc. All the really
fundamental problems cannot be addressed by science. Indeed, the
scientific method depends on nonscientific assumptions. You kill the
explanation when the basis has to be fit into the resultant.
Dave
Received on Wed May 3 15:50:19 2006