If you want to do the thing you're being "coerced" to do, are you really being coerced? You're using language that implies that the forces of nature are going against our will while talking about a situation where you say we'd have no will at all; this is conflicted.
It is not my intention to confuse the language, and I apologize if it seems that way. I don't think the point is conflicted. We can use a different word, maybe compelled seems less manipulative. But, the overall point is that, as far as will goes, somehow one dominant desire rises to the top and becomes the only possible will. And this is not, at this point, a rational process.
If you have a definition of will that you prefer we can go with that. I think we need to agree on a definition of will, and also free will if you see that as different, before we proceed. As I said in another post, if you are content with 'the ability to choose' as the complete definition of will, then we can't go any further.
I don't really see ethics as being dependent on free will. Even in a completely deterministic setting, ethics have their place: we could just see ethical actions (whether they be modelling ethical behaviour or responses to unethical actions by others) as the "cause" that creates a more ethical "effect" in future.
This is fine - our ethics are a useful social construct not dependent upon free will. This also implies, I think, that agents (people) have moral responsibility even when they have no ability to do otherwise. The free will defense has never gotten anybody out of jail!
Is this rational, or just 'reasonable' because it is what works?
I thought you were giving reasons to believe in God; no? Or are you just trying to create a large enough philosophical hole that you can put God in it?
As I said previously, I am exploring why it is reasonable to believe in God (at least as reasonable as the alternatives). You seem to be asking for empirical evidence (as demonstrated for your request for testable hypotheses in order to be convinces). I don't have that. There is another thread for evidence for God. I believe my entry was 'chocolate.'
I think that it's largely irrelevant, frankly. I don't think we need to spend a lot of thought on the question of whether quantum physics allows for free will, because it seems to me that biology undercuts free will to the point that whatever's left probably couldn't be called "free will" any more. There's no point of asking whether quantum mechanics allows for our urges, desires and will to be the expression of some "soul" if we can trace those urges, desires and will back to some hormone; if a "soul" is in that equation at all, it a soul of the hormone, not the person.
OK! That actually looks to me like a pretty clear position - you do not think free will is possible.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth - just trying to see if I am clear on your position.
And if that's what you're getting at, then try to be clearer. All I meant was that creatures that express will need not be rational. For instance, an ant can choose which direction it's going to go, but I'm not about to argue that its reasons for making that choice must be good ones.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make sure I understand your point. You seem to say that will is separate from reason, and reason (if present) acts after will arises, or acts on the products that will puts forth and picks the 'best' one. And that when reason is present (in a human, as opposed to a sponge), reason may be more or less faulty, resulting in better or worse choices. If I am not getting you correctly I would be happy to work from your explanation.
Meaning what, exactly? How is the "will" of a rock expressed?
We'd need to discuss process philosophy to get into that. I'm happy to put that aside or we can start a different thread.
