The Truth About Evolution and Religion

There is no evidence, as you say. Evidence is the basis of scientific knowledge. There is no evidence that we dream when we sleep. We know we dream because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. This is called transcendence.

I am interested in explaining biology, especially evolutionary biology. To understand biology, you need to understand metaphysics and understand why biology only studies the bodies of humans. Most American biologists don't understand the biology of humans because if you ask them about the human soul they will give an irrational and misinformed answer. American biologists speak of dualism, monism, determinism, and materialism without knowing what they are talking about.

Then why would we even consider it? I'd say of all knowledge really. For if you "know" something that cannot be demonstrated to be true, what good is that knowledge? Actually there is. No, that is called memory.

Then why bring up souls and metaphysics? That has nothing to do with evolution. No you don't. Biology studies the natural world. If the soul is not part of that, then biology does not study it. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it. They don;t understand bbiology because they can't answer a question about something that has absolutely nothing to do with biology? What a weird position to take. Do plumbers not know anything about pipes because they can't answer questions about brain surgery? If tehy do talk about those things, then they talk about them on a personal note, and not as biologists (well, apart perhaps from materialism). Since none of those hhave anything to do with biology.

If you were a biology teacher and a student asked you if animals had free will, what would you say? This is a multiple choice question:
1) I don't know.
2) Free will is an illusion.
3) Ask your philosophy teacher.
4) Biology only studies the bodies of humans, not their souls.

Memory has to do with past and future. But the past and future are mental beings. Past and future only exist when a real being is thinking about the past and future. What are mental beings? Do mental beings have mass? Do mental beings take up space?

Probably 3. As a teacher I'd never tell them number 2 (which is my position, but as a teacher you can't say that to your students). Number 4 is nonsensical and number 1 is not helping them very much. The one to ask about free will is the philosophy teacher, since he is the one that specializes in those kind of things.

None of the above.I would say that libertarian free will is logically incoherent, and therefore cannot exist. The more intelligent animals - those that can be meaningfully said to have a will - likely have free will according to compatibilist formulations of the concept. And that includes humans.Of course the only point truly related to biology is the assessment of animal intelligence.

I agree that the choice is between 2) and 4). Your remarks are similar to Stephen Jay Gould's. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Gould spoke about his "private ideas" and you distinguish between what you say to children and what you think. I have no such conflict. I say what I think.People who say free will is an illusion live their lives as if they have free will. They apologize when they hurt someone, they feel guilty, and they promise not to do it again.

How about if someone wanted to answer "yes"? Or "no"? Or: "that depends on the animal"?

A curious idea which you have not tried to justify.

I'd say with just the past. I'd love to know if you have a method for remembering the future. Nonsense. They exist regardless of a "real being" (Whatever that is) thinking about them. For example, if nobody thinks about WWII, it will suddenly not have happened? Mental beings are something you made up.

If you understand that biology only studies non-metaphysical things, then you understand that you do not need to understand metaphysical things in order to understand biology.

Yes there is. That's how we know that we dream when we sleep.

I said I'd choose 3. My personal choice would be 2. 4 I wouldn't even consider, since that is not an answer to the question. I t makes no sense as an answer to the question. Of course. I am a teacher (in your example). Would they ask me for my personal oppinion, I would give it to them. But as their teacher it is not my place to tell them what they shoudl think. This is not talking from both sides of my mouth, this is taking my job seriously. As do I. But in your example I am a teacher, and so I have a certain professionalism I have to take into account. If you would teach only your personal oppinions to students, you would be a lousy teacher. Evidence? That's called taking responsibility, not free will. Free will doesn't exist., free choice on the other hand, does.