Kenneth - you claim that "the time at which this (radioactive)decay will happen is not and cannot be known". It is true that we cannot predict when radioactive decay will occur but theoretically it may be possible, if we had sufficient information and understanding, to do so.

But that is beside the point anyway. I was saying that there cannot be genuinely free agents in a materialistic universe. Apparently random radioactive decay of particles and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle do not help establish the possibility of there being free agents.

Graham

Matilda,

You suggested that I try to “ imagine if our actions were not . . . the product of events in the material world” and you suggested that if were not so “that I would never know what action I would take next nor WHY I HAD TAKEN IT. My own thoughts and actions would appear to ME as random events.” Yes, if materialism is true that follows.

The problem for the materialist is that you have to abandon the possibility that reasons can influence our behaviour. Reasons are of course non-physical so they cannot have any causal impact upon the universe. So when a person goes to an auction and makes a bid, it is not because they have chosen to do so on the basis that they think this is a good buy, but simply because at this point on the long causal chain of physical events they are compelled to do so.

It is only if we have non-physical minds, or some such thing, that are at least to some significant extent free from the clockwork-driven physical universe that we can genuinely take reasons into account and thus allow rationality to play a part in what happens.

You claim that “we have ordinary levels of impulse control, the ability to revise our actions” and “we must experience ourselves as a single, more or less unified entity” while also claiming “materialism is really saying no more than that we are the sum of our circumstances.” Those claims seem to be fundamentally contradictory to me. How can entities, whose every thought and experience is only the product of prior physical states, be said to meaningfully have control over anything? Or that they “must experience themselves” as anything other than that which they happen to experience?

I am amazed (but appreciative) Matilda that you engage in discussion, but then I have to remind myself that if you are correct then you literally cannot prevent yourself and nor can I, given the state of the universe. (But it is very hard to shake off the feeling that reasons do count!)

GP: "I am amazed (but appreciative) Matilda that you engage in discussion, but then I have to remind myself that if you are correct then you literally cannot prevent yourself and nor can I, given the state of the universe."

You seem to be assuming that "oneself"/"yourself" is not part of the universe. If you're thoughts are in fact material states within the universe then these thoughts can have impact on the universe itself (i.e. one can literally prevent oneself from doing something). There are endless physiological studies that document the influence of external factors on both what & how we think so our thoughts are very much influenced by the universe and so the evidence indicates we do not have completely independent free will.

"Reasons are of course non-physical so they cannot have any causal impact upon the universe."

I see no reason why reason is "non-physical". Reason is just a form of information, which exists in and impacts the physical universe just like other forms of information.

"How can entities, whose every thought and experience is only the product of prior physical states, be said to meaningfully have control over anything?"

Why does control have to come from outside the physical universe to be "meaningful"? You have a circular argument where you say that material things don't have meaning because they're material things. You're using an assumption that there is some form of "extraphysical meaning" while trying to prove that "extraphysical" things exist.

Graham,
You said in your last post.
"But that is beside the point anyway. I was saying that there cannot be genuinely free agents in a materialistic universe."

What you actually said in your article was.
"since matter operates mechanically that leaves no place for the actions of genuinely free agents"

My point was that matter does not operate mechanically and that in fact at the atomic level it acts randomly.

You also said in your last post.... "but theoretically it may be possible, if we had sufficient information and understanding, to do so."(ie to predict the time of decay). I may not have made myself absolutely clear, According to physical theory, it is in not in theory possible to predict the time of decay even knowing all information about an individual atom. Furthermore I should have stressed that given two atoms identical in all respects,the theory says that they will decay at different random times. Since they are identical there is no room for any further information. The only way out of this is to claim that all uranium 235 atoms are different one from all the others. The current theory of physics says that it is not possible according to the theory to predict which of two identical atoms will decay first. The theory does not say that we do not yet have enough knowledge to make a prediction. The theory says that we can never know even "in theory" when it will occur.

Probability and randomness is the foundation stone of modern quantum mechanics. By the way if quantum theory were incorrect then the silicon chips in your computer would not work.

Finally how do you tell the difference between someone acting randomly within parameters predetermined by inborn instinct and environmental conditioning or upbringing versus someone acting according to free will?

Graham,

Furthermore it seems to me a great irony that you should write "atheism would suggest that we live in a totally deterministic universe" while at the same time other people find evolution theory distasteful because it suggests that life evolved through a series of chance mutations. In other words you say that atheists are trapped in a deterministic universe while for creationists the theory of evolution is not deterministic enough ie that the structure of life is not determined by some grand design.

Kenneth

Dave here In 1985 I tried to catch 1.2tonne of steel grid from 3.84 metres while I lay there I screamed to God if ever you were up there & if ever I needed you I need you now that's when my vision cleared & I was able to drag myself to the tractor & call for emergency help & then passed out this kind of convinced me. But I will give you the words of my father No-one can prove God exists & no-one can prove he doesn't if you live your life according to his rules & get to the end of your life & there's no God big deal you've lived a good life then again if you live your life according to his rules & you get to the end of your life & there is a God & he's who we say he is then you may have bought a favour or two & a favour or two in your hip pocket may be worth having. As I said Dad that's buttering your bread both sides & he replied nothing wrong with that you only get a greasy hand & you can always wash it.
Thanks for your time & may your Lord shine on you all well
God Bless Dave