So this particular 'evil' was caused by neurology. Perhaps then free will and morality are dependent on the way our brains works rather than how Satan works.
Rather than how satan works?
If your trying to dismiss satan as a real entiy because you think it rediculous to believe such a thing that's fine, but to say tumors cannot be attributed to him because of neurology is forgetting about what and who caused the fall of man that was then followed by sickness and disease (according to what we know of him). This isn't a good case to make against him.
Also it's seems no different than is someone is on antidepressants for depression if they were to leave it untreated and the depression came back as a result of going off the medication how would that have anything to do with morals or ruling out satan as a cause?
Who's claiming this? I don't see how a physical symptom and behavioural changes reflects ones moral compass.
Don't you think Fred's moral compass was changed by the tumour?
I don't no. I don't think Fred had a whole new set of morals due to his brain tumor just like I don't think someone who goes on and off antidepressants for depression all the time wakes up every new day with a total new set of morals to guide them each and everytime some physical ailment threatens them.
It messed with Freds brain chemistry, not his moral compass.
You think im in an impossible situation here because you referenced a man (Fred) who was "normal" them got a brain tumor, then commited a crime(s) then got the brain tumor removed, then became "normal" again, then the brain tumor returned, then he commited a crime(s) again, then got it removed then went back to normal. Arguining against that that that alone doesn't disprove that that affects our moral compass leaves me in an impossiboe situation here?
Well if you say so. Also, just for laughs, do you have this mans entire history?
Do you know 100% that he never looked at child porn before the tumor?
This is a yes or no question Tangle. Yes or No?
Until he was 40 Fred behaved normally.
Are you Fred? If you're not Fred then excuse me for saying this but...how the hell do you know? Rahvin, feel free to jump in here...
he started looking at child porn - something he had not previously done and something we must suppose he found abhorrent both before the tumour grew and after it was removed.
I think i'll stick with this for a moment, not arguing that criminal activity doesn't mean you have no morals, just that this tumor COULD have caused him to DISMISS his moral compass for a time still KNOWING it was wrong. People williningly do things they know are wrong all the time. It doesn't mean the brain eliminates this with abnormalties.
Anyway, the quote above says:
must suppose he found abhorrent both before the tumour grew and after it was removed
Wow. Who says we MUST suppose this? You? On what grounds exactly? Im all ears Tangle.
So we know for sure that his brain made him do it.
Holy smokes dude. Even the greatest scientists who ever lived try to stay away from phrases like "we know for sure". Don't they?
We aren't dealing with geology here or math...It NOT for sure by any stretch.
This very strongly suggests that his moral compass (whatever that is) changed along with his brain
Really? Ok, well people do things all the time they don't agree with don't they? The married guy at the bar who's a little drunk who loves his wife more than anything is being tempted by an unbelieveibly beautiful woman who he ends up sleeping with against his better judgement...did his moral compass change because he did something "wrong"? Or did he just tune it out for the time being? The same with commiting crimes can apply.
how else could it have happened.
Seriously? Are you that much of a stand up flawless guy that you cannot fathom a person doing something against their better judgement unless their brain chemistry is altered by an abnormaility? Really? Seriously? It seems like you are the one arguing absolutes here.
If his morality did not change ie he knew that the thing he was doing was wrong but he did it anyway, why? And how?
Again, are you flawless? We're human after all aren't we?
In psychopathy, we know that they don't have whatever it is that makes normal people empathise, this results in them not understanding why it could be wrong to murder someone and eat their liver. Compass pointing exactly due South?
So you left this little tidbit out about Fred. Fred ate someone's liver too? Or are we on another subject all of a sudden like psychopathy and why some people end up this way?
Are we talking about Fred or this? Was Fred a psychopath? Why are you veering off course?
Re: We don't have to know everything to know something important
For starters I didn't say this:
etc etc including the other handwaving and smoke blowing that follows
You have me quoting that in my response to you..if your going to add to my responses atleast make note of it that you're adding something to it that you think im insinuating. Try not to misquote me.
Are you going to address any of my points in my post? Or just this:
quote:Functional MRI indicate that orbitofrontal, dorsolateral prefrontal and subcortical limbic structures are involved in behavioral deregulation and response inhibition, including the conscious regulation of sexual urges.
quote:Now, perhaps if you wish to say that it didn't, you'll explain why.
Geez, I thought I did? How about actually responding to my post where in fact I DO explain my reasons.
Instead of misquoting me put my actual quotes in order like I did yours and proceed to answer them one by one like I did your post. Not citing the authors paper (we try to debate in our own words here, it makes for better debating) as to why you think im wrong without addressing my actual points.
Don't skip over my entire post and then quote from the paper and ask me to explain my reasoning AGAIN.
Here it is again: Message 59 If you don't want a back and forth say so and i'll stop posting wasting my time and yours. This is how it works. Not, "here...this is what the paper says."
You apperantly have no idea what free will is. Because someone may be addicted to something or has an emotion or urge (and that they even choose to act on it or not shows they have free will) or they may not be able to fight off has nothing to do with free will. No one is stopping them or making them do it. The whole "fact" (loosely used) that Fred actually turned himself in shows He has free will to do so.
You're arguing that our brain and the way it functions eliminates free will is really funny. What determines the way our brain works? What's to say nothing abnormal will happen or will happen? This isssue is nothing to do with free will as far as it's defined or what the Bible says.
Maybe this subject should be in the religious section because what you are arguing certainly isn't biology. What you are arguing is that you have no idea what free will is and are trying to find a physical attribute that refutes a non physical thing.
"So do you still feel that Fred could have stopped himself and how could he have done so? If he couldn't have stopped himself, how is he culpable?"
If he wasn't culpable then BY GOLLY! who was?
Also, it seems that he DID stop himself as you eluded to earleir:
It's admitted that he did know that at least some of the things he did was wrong - he turned himself in partly because he feared that he would rape his landlady
Apperantly he had a sense of right and wrong. If he did not have a sense of right or wrong then what are we discussing?
You're all over the board man, and your argument is full of glaring holes.
What is it exaclty you are trying to discuss here? What's your point you're trying to make?
That we don't have free will because Fred's a known pedophile?
That he had a brain tumor that caused him to make a very bad decision?
That he then, got rid of the brain tumor and didn't make that bad decision again?
That the brain tumor returned and so on and so forth...
It's clear Fred knows what's right and wrong due to the fact he admits he never had these wrong behaviors in the past.
Acting on them only proves we have free will. Addiction and wrong decision making doesn't reflect on one's free will or sense of morals only that we are all human and vulnerable to lifes circumstances.
Sorry but you're failing to show why Fred's actions refute free will.
As the title of the thread suggests, biology perhaps?
Uhhhh, sorry, I think we're on the wrong page. You seem to be in the funny papers, and im in the business section.
You need to address the fact that the tumour disrupted Fred's ability to choose between what he previously knew as right and wrong.
What, why? I think YOU need to show that Fred lost his ability to know right from wrong.
Just because he made a poor illegal decision due to the tumor has nothing to do with him KNOWING right from wrong. Don't you get this? We all do things even tho we know right from wrong, it doesn't mean we have lost out free will because we choose to exercise our options. Im mean really...can't you see you're wrong here?
Some wrong impulses he simply acted on, some he managed to fight off long enough to be operated on - who knows, perhaps if he hadn't been cured he would have raped too.
Yep, again, exercising his free will.
Are you really arguing that because his likes and dislikes changed due to a brain tumor that he lost his ability to choose?
Im not sure what you're doing but im sure you're commiting some sort of fallacy. I just don't know which one. How about we call it the " no one is responsible for their own actions because of that dam biology fallacy"?
BTW, im recently getting over a cold and am not responsible for these posts. No one is, actually they don't even exist.
Fred may have known that rape is just plain wrong at a gut level (what I'd call a real moral inhibition), or he may have known that society would punish him severely if he did it (no moral inhibition at all - simply self preservation). From the case study it looks like at least some of the latter to me - he actively wanted to rape, he felt driven to do it.
Word salad BS. Doesn't even make sense. If you were a creationist posting this dribble here in the Science forums you would be hearing this:
"Hi IamJoseph Tangle Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks."
If the brain tumour provided the irresistible impulse to do something, where has free will and moral choice gone?
If you don't know that then I can't help you. Im just glad you're not a Judge or a Governor. We'd all be in trouble.
This is your fault. You're the one creating the many rabbit holes that ravage this thread. You keep presenting quotes, situations, definitions that are all over the map simply to say free will and absolute morals don't exist (it seems).
What did you expect? It's your responsibility to keep things on topic and what it is you want to discuss but as soon as someone points out to you that some of your reasoning is flawed and tries to show you why all of a sudden it's a "rabbit hole".
Can you try and simplify this thread and say what you mean instead of sending everyone down the rabbit holes you are creating yourself?