I think the point is missed in argument between the spiritualist and the materialist: That point of course is, they both argue for the same team, that team is matter.
Matter is ephemeral; as we as humans are. To say we posses autonomy over the processes of creation and deconstruction of matter shows to all the absurdity of the point of the argument between them in the first place.

Nothing consisting of matter has freedom of choice, or autonomy over processes preordained by nature, and to stump up with argument against each other on these issues is usually the point at which the rest of us depart the scene.

The randomness of nature is also indefinable. There are theories of course; chaos theory being one. Attempts to force the hand of nature to disclose her intentions with the weather are clumsily incomplete, even with the hook up of supercomputers to assist in the challenge.

Autonomy, freedom, give us a break!

Dan

.

Dear diver dan, Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I understand your points of view which, though the arguments are different, arrive at the same conclusion : that there is no such thing as free will.

Imagining that to be the case, for the sake of the argument, then there can be no such thing as moral responsibility.

If someone charges us with, say, lying, and if we can convince him/her that it was simply not within our power not to lie, then we have done all that is necessary to absolve ourselves of responsibility for lying.

Without free will there is no moral responsibility. If moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he/she has done or for something he/she should have done but did not do. To be morally responsible for some act or failure to act he/she must be able to have acted otherwise, whatever else it may involve. To be able to have acted otherwise is to have free will.

Therefore, if moral responsibility exists, someone has free will. If no one has free will, moral responsibility does not exist.

If we are all programmed by nature from the cradle to the grave and can’t do anything about it, then we are all innocent of any crimes or misdemeanours that nature has programmed us to commit.

By the same token, we have no merit in any special prowess we may achieve : bravery in battle, scientific discovery, artistic creation or performance, self-sacrifice to save others from some calamity, etc.

No blame, no punishment – no laws, no justice – no merit, no rewards. No need for any of that. We are all programmed by nature to do what we do and to fail to do what we “ought to” do.

Do you both really believe we are all just some sort of humanoid robots ?

I am willing to believe that may have been the case when we separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees some 5 to 7 million years ago but, unlike our cousins, the chimpanzees, haven't we evolved since then ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Let me respond in brief now, then by God's grace I will have the time to answer in full later today.

Rest assured, we are NOT humanoid robots.

Only the human which we [mistakenly] think we are, is a robot.

No blame is warranted, but there are laws in this cosmos which carry consequences: physical laws affecting matter and moral laws affecting spirit.

If the hand of the human with which you identify hits another person or animal, then that human will attract nature's reaction. If you identify yourself with that human, then you experience that reaction as suffering.

Everything is pre-programmed by nature, but as long as you [mistakenly] consider yourself (rather than nature) to be the doer of actions, to that extent you will also experience the inevitable results of these actions, good or bad, to be your reward or punishment respectively.

While objectively there is no free will in nature, you are free to choose whether or not to associate yourself with nature or any part thereof (e.g. a human).

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « … there are laws in this cosmos which carry consequences: physical laws affecting matter and moral laws affecting spirit »

As I understand it, Yuyutsu, there are what we call “laws of nature” and “natural laws”. The former are of a scientific nature (e.g., the law of gravity), which, as you say, “affect matter”, and the latter are of a philosophic nature : a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

Modern “natural law” theory dates from the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) and became synonymous with the concept of natural rights.

Natural law theory was a key component of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen following the French Revolution in 1789, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations of 1948.

These laws and conventions affect not just “spirit” as you indicate. They affect human beings in their integrality just as positive law (statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles) affects them.
.

2. « Everything is pre-programmed by nature …[but] … while objectively there is no free will in nature, you are free to choose whether or not to associate yourself with nature or any part thereof (e.g. a human).»

That statement is highly contentious contradictory and incomprehensible, Yuyutsu.

I don't agree with your deterministic theory of human behaviour. As I indicated in my previous post, it may have been plausible 5 to 7 million years ago when we separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees, but it is certainly not plausible today. Unlike our cousins, the chimpanzees, we have since made tremendous progress and evolved exponentially due to the exceptional development of our human brain.

We now employ multiple-choice patterns and exercise our own free will by making our own judgments and our own decisions and putting them into effect.

.

To be born as a human being is a rare and wonderful thing. I can think of few grounds for justifying the destruction of an unborn being. That 80,000 defenceless young humans are killed each year is horrific.

Dear Banjo,

1.
«and the latter are of a philosophic nature: a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

Modern “natural law” theory dates from the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) and became synonymous with the concept of natural rights.»

This is interesting, but is not what I referred to.

This theory could possibly be DERIVED, as you say, from actual natural laws that affect spirit.
I'm not familiar enough with it to tell whether this is the case.

2.
«That statement is highly contentious contradictory and incomprehensible, Yuyutsu.»

Yes, sorry, I did not get around yesterday to explain further.

«I don't agree with your deterministic theory of human behaviour.»

Then you must assert that humans have some supernatural capabilities, that somehow they get exempt from nature's ordinary laws.
Do you?

All I noted was that humans are part of nature, which is governed by laws, that we live in a cosmos rather than in chaos.

"Deterministic" does not mean that we have the practical capacity to calculate and determine what a human would do in a given situation. Human behaviour can be extremely complex, nor do I not claim to know all of nature's secrets, but complexity is not a valid exemption.

«As I indicated in my previous post, it may have been plausible 5 to 7 million years ago when we separated from our common ancestor»

So far we discussed humans in an objective manner, but now you add to the mix the words "we" and "our", thereby seems to be the confusion.

Yes, humans separated from their ape ancestors some 5-7 million years ago - that is a fact which can be scientifically researched, verified or refuted, regarding humans, apes, chimpanzees, their evolution and their behaviour, so far so good.

But what has any of these facts to do with "we"?
We just happen to identify with a human, we figuratively "dwell" in its body, but our freedom does not imply the freedom of that human.