Evidence for God from Science

And how is it with animals? Do they have free will?

The best we can do is to obtain some observation, but be it one way or another it will be impossible to conclude on a universal basis, since we can't know the behavior and make precise judgments on every species that exists and following general plan for all of the millions of them is probably not the best way to evaluate.

In my own pov,I don't think how free will, if granted to animal would be a problem. on the other hand, it also depends what does free will means. if by free will we are talking about the abstraction of philosophy then it is hard to imagine in animals. but on the other hand if free will simply means do what you will then, Yes, certainly animals have those.

neo-x wrote:

And how is it with animals? Do they have free will?

The best we can do is to obtain some observation, but be it one way or another it will be impossible to conclude on a universal basis, since we can't know the behavior and make precise judgments on every species that exists and following general plan for all of the millions of them is probably not the best way to evaluate.

In my own pov,I don't think how free will, if granted to animal would be a problem. on the other hand, it also depends what does free will means. if by free will we are talking about the abstraction of philosophy then it is hard to imagine in animals. but on the other hand if free will simply means do what you will then, Yes, certainly animals have those.

I have heard it said:
A dog can go into a room, and a few hours later come out, and it will be the same dog.
A man can go into a room, and come out a few hours later an entirely different man.

The idea from this is that a person can DECIDE to be different, do so by an act of the will, a dog cannot really think anything through to decide, and so cannot do this. So people have free will simply because unlike dogs, they have a will.

I have heard it said:
A dog can go into a room, and a few hours later come out, and it will be the same dog.
A man can go into a room, and come out a few hours later an entirely different man.

The idea from this is that a person can DECIDE to be different, do so by an act of the will, a dog cannot really think anything through to decide, and so cannot do this. So people have free will simply because unlike dogs, they have a will.

Animals display a lot of characteristics that could be argued to be free will, what animals lack is self awareness and reason to the point where they can be sentient. Free will is free will, a dog can decide to bite you as well as not bite you, the biting is instinct, the decision is not.

neo-x wrote: In my own pov,I don't think how free will, if granted to animal would be a problem.

I wonder what Scriptures have to say.

neo-x wrote: what animals lack is self awareness and reason to the point where they can be sentient. Free will is free will, a dog can decide to bite you as well as not bite you, the biting is instinct, the decision is not.

There are some animals that are self aware. They recognize themselves in the mirror.
As to the decision. Let's take bottlenose dolphins who rescued humans from shark.
It was their decision to help humans.

First let us lay down a fact that there is no apparatus or method available to settle the question about free will.

neo-x wrote:
In my own pov,I don't think how free will, if granted to animal would be a problem.

I wonder what Scriptures have to say.

That being said, I can't recall any scriptures mentioning free will granted to animals or not. It seems to me that the Bible generally is mute upon the subject.

neo-x wrote:
what animals lack is self awareness and reason to the point where they can be sentient. Free will is free will, a dog can decide to bite you as well as not bite you, the biting is instinct, the decision is not.

There are some animals that are self aware. They recognize themselves in the mirror.
As to the decision. Let's take bottlenose dolphins who rescued humans from shark.
It was their decision to help humans.

I'm not saying that animals are completely ignorant of themselves, they show intelligence and reasoning but not enough to qualify to a level equated to humans. Secondly the behavior in dolphins can not taken as a general defacto stance for other animals. For example, if hyenas attacked you and there are lions around, I'm sure that one of them will eventually eat you. You could say, no and that may be dependent on a lot of factors. But you do get my point. Either they eat you or save you, the decision to is certainly theirs. No doubt about that. So I would say, logically, it makes sense that animals have free will to the extent that they are not organic robots. they form plans, they reason, they recognize human language to some extent. They recognize emotions as well, happiness, sorrow, fear.
Hyenas and other predators, even chimps do a lot of planning by making sounds and eye contact. But this is followed in guidelines to some instinct and I guess there is a fine balance that keeps it that way.

A reply to the original idea of wanting to know more about science. Well, one thing is to know the scientific method. Most people who think they know about science do not know the method. A simple way to exdplain the method is "show me". You say that a smaller, lighter rock will fall slower than a larger, heavier rock, show me (Galileo did, they both fell at the same speed). Basically, if someone says "scientists believe", check out if they actually tried to show it to be true, or false. Also, the method goes through careful steps to make sue about it, like describing the steps to test whether the idea is true or not so that others can try it also (if only you can do it, perhaps you are just biased and seeing the results you want to see).

If you see 'scientists" saying things like "we believe" and "if" and "maybe" and suchlike, well, that aint science. Science is about actual experiments to see if it is true or false, not belief. An example, the news or magazine articles where 'scientists believe" that such and such will happen if "global warming" is not stopped. Example, all the polar bears will be come extinct. What is unscientific about it? Well, it starts with an assumption, that there will be global warming, and lots of it, in the future, but then never shows that that is certainly true, only says 'we believe", you really need to find out, not just beleive. Then, you need to not just believe about polar bears, you need to actually go out and count polar bears. result, in the 1950's, there were 5,000 polar bears counted, right now, 20,000. Conclusion, by the scientific method, the idea that "global warming" is endengering polar bears has been falsified (thats scince speak for "what were you thinking you moron!").

If you can understand the difference between 'scientists believe" and what has actually been proven (and how well it is proven), you will be way ahead of most people in your understanding of science.

BTW, if you want to see an example of the "show me" attitued, there is this site http://wattsupwiththat.com/ , a site about "global warming", where they actually looked at what has been shown or not shown as true about "global warming" and found a lot of actual evidnece from experiments and observations that says that it aint so. It is chock full of actual major scientists and a lot of very talented amatures as well.

Has anyone read this

In an event widely reported by the media, a two-year-old UK Rottweiler named Jake owned by Liz Maxted-Bluck was recognised for his bravery by the RSPCA. The dog was out walking with his owner when they heard screams. Jake chased off a man as he molested a woman on Hearsall Common, Coventry, in July 2009. He located the attacker and his victim in thick scrub, chased off the attacker, led his owner to the scene, then stood guard over the victim until police arrived. The attacker was convicted of serious sexual assault and jailed for four years. Jake was nominated by police for the bravery award and medallion after the incident. Det Con Clive Leftwich, from Coventry police station, said: "From our point of view Jake the Rottweiler stopped a serious sexual assault from becoming even worse."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11413740

Seems pretty clear to me that the Dog acted on will

neo-x wrote:Seems pretty clear to me that the Dog acted on will

What's the difference between will and free will?

the same between speech and free speech

sorry to be picky but what's the difference between speech and free speech?

I don't mind honestly, but I think you could skip the rhetoric and make your point, that will be easier to follow and I could answer your point more accurately than shooting blind

Proinsias wrote:sorry to be picky but what's the difference between speech and free speech?

Being able to make sounds doesn't mean they are able to freely choose to make that action. I think thats what neo-x is getting at, right?

neo-x wrote:I don't mind honestly, but I think you could skip the rhetoric and make your point, that will be easier to follow and I could answer your point more accurately than shooting blind

Just curious how you differentiate will from free will. If a dog is observed doing the above you ascribed it to will, would a human displaying similar behaviour be due to free will or merely will? Does the dog have a degree of freedom in regards to will in the above example and if we establish a scale is the free will of humanity on par with that of God, if not then it doesn't seem that it is free will, it's more the master bestowing a lesser degree of freedom than that which the master has on the subjects created in the masters image.

The free speech thing threw me a little as I see free speech as the right to express opinions without fear of punishment. For the record I'm not an advocate of free speech and nether are most people, forums, governments etc. There are limitations imposed. Free will on the other hand is the right to do what you want as long as you accept eternal punishment is one the cards.

We think of speech as free when it is devoid of punishment and will as free when we have faith it will in many cases lead to the most severe punishment imaginable.

Free will requires a conscience of being able to distinguish between right and wrong and between instinct and consideration.
An animal that reacts to a given situation is going on instinct and we truly don't knwo enough about animals to debate will, much less free will.
So, on to humans.
Free will is our unique ability to NOT go strictly on instinct but to analyse and decided what to do and accept the consequences.

I honestly thank you all for your responses, it looks like I have a lot of studying to do. It turned out to be quite an interesting discusion between you people. Thank you all.