Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[JoshuaTree]

But if it was proven scientifically that there is no free will and you didn't believe it... you couldn't change your mind regardless of the evidence provided.

...and all the theists would be on the athiest forums trying to help out (@viole) and convince them otherwise.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Alternatively, if the evidence was of sufficient force, I'd have no choice but to change my mind. If it isn't enough, I'd have no choice but to not believe it.

Not having the free will to change your mind in light of all the evidence would certainly appear irrational.

 

[Polymath257]

Not having the free will to change your mind in light of all the evidence would certainly appear irrational.

If *all* the evidence was presented and was sufficient to change a mind, then there would be no choice but to change one's mind.

This is strange, because I never feel that changing my mind is a matter of will. It is a matter of whether I have been convinced by the evidence or not. It isn't a choice.

The rationality of the evidence *forces* me to believe if it is enough or doesn't so force me if it isn't. Free will just doesn't seem to enter at all.

 

[JoshuaTree]

If *all* the evidence was presented and was sufficient to change a mind, then there would be no choice but to change one's mind.

This is strange, because I never feel that changing my mind is a matter of will. It is a matter of whether I have been convinced by the evidence or not. It isn't a choice.

The rationality of the evidence *forces* me to believe if it is enough or doesn't so force me if it isn't. Free will just doesn't seem to enter at all.

Yup, it is strange... I was seeking to bridge the chasm between the irrational (folks of faith) and the rational (folks not of faith) with logic lol. I'll keep trying though (@viole). I am enjoying all the conversations here, thanks everyone!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My general impression is this:

- there are rational and irrational paths to atheism (to the extent that a "path to atheism" even makes sense as a concept, like a "path to the starting point").

- there are irrational paths to theism, but as far as I can tell, no rational paths to theism.

- the fact that someone has followed a rational or irrational path to their beliefs about gods is no guarantee that they'll be rational or irrational in other areas of their life,.

 

[atanu]

If *all* the evidence was presented and was sufficient to change a mind, then there would be no choice but to change one's mind.

This is strange, because I never feel that changing my mind is a matter of will. It is a matter of whether I have been convinced by the evidence or not. It isn't a choice.

The rationality of the evidence *forces* me to believe if it is enough or doesn't so force me if it isn't. Free will just doesn't seem to enter at all.

Free will is very much a factor, imo. Lack of it will likely impose some data on you and also would make decisions for you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Interesting article in a science mag!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.amp


Atheists aren not nearly as rational at some think they are. So says the article..... I have been saying that here on RF since i started . After all if you are in "religUS forums" reading this article and an atheist, it certainly is not for scientific rational reasons. Maybe atheists can give some non rational reasons why they are here. Then again that might be like asking a religious creationist to give a rational explanation for 7 day creation!!!!!!!

I can only imagine for some its a sense of superior reasoning over religion. Then again thats a bit like picking on the disabled so its only for gratification of the ego and that specifically is Not rational but rationalizing. .lots of that goes on here to say the least.

There are lot of decent atheists "out there" in the world. On religious forums, most of the loudest atheists I've encountered are lapsed Christians or even born again "backslidden" Christians headed straight to Heaven when they die. God is merciful!

 

[Polymath257]

Free will is very much a factor, imo. Lack of it will likely impose some data and notes-called you all data and also would also make decisions for so-called you.

I'm having difficulty making sense of what you wrote.

But, being convinced of something just doesn't seem like a choice to me at all. Either the evidence is convincing or it isn't. I have no choice in whether it convinces me or not.

Now, decisions are a different matter. That is when we are closest to talking about free will. And whether we have 'free choices' or not is very much a matter of definition and what constitutes 'we'.

 

[atanu]

I'm having difficulty making sense of what you wrote.

But, being convinced of something just doesn't seem like a choice to me at all. Either the evidence is convincing or it isn't. I have no choice in whether it convinces me or not.

Now, decisions are a different matter. That is when we are closest to talking about free will. And whether we have 'free choices' or not is very much a matter of definition and what constitutes 'we'.

It was my fault. I have edited the post.

 

[Polymath257]

It was my fault. I have edited the post.

I was able to see the post. But I had trouble making sense of what you wrote. I answered as best I could.

 

[atanu]

But, being convinced of something just doesn't seem like a choice to me at all. Either the evidence is convincing or it isn't. I have no choice in whether it convinces me or not.

if everything is caused by material causation, then there is no room left for a ‘reason’ to cause something. The event is already fully explained in terms of the laws of nature. Where the question of 'being convinced' arises?

Now, decisions are a different matter. That is when we are closest to talking about free will. And whether we have 'free choices' or not is very much a matter of definition and what constitutes 'we'.

With a mechanical causation of consciousness, the unity of self, memory, and competence for reasoning cannot be explained.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With a mechanical causation of consciousness, the unity of self, memory, and competence for reasoning cannot be explained.

"We have no good answer to our question, so we need to make one up!"

 

[Polymath257]

if everything is caused by material causation, then there is no room left for a ‘reason’ to cause something. The event is already fully explained in terms of the laws of nature. Where the question of 'being convinced' arises?

'Being convinced' describes a certain type of physical process in the brain.

With a mechanical causation of consciousness, the unity of self, memory, and competence for reasoning cannot be explained.

I disagree. They can be explained, but their nature isn't what is usually thought. the unity of self, for example, is a sense that is processed in the brain. It can happen that such processing fails and people can lose a 'sense of self'. It can happen that the processing identifying our bodies as ours can fail and it can happen that they are seen as foreign.

The competence for reasoning *is* limited. As a math professor, it is very clear that logical thinking is hard for the vast majority of people. But, it is *possible* to learn and to train at it. The fact that we evolved to survive means we have at least an approximation that functions for human-sized phenomena. That is the lead-in to further understanding.

Memory, from what we can tell, is produced by increased connections and easier activation of neurons. The specific mechanisms (and the possibility that there is more than one mechanism, depending on location in the brain) is still being actively researched.

It seems to me that you are unaware of a LOT of modern research that does explain these types of things mechanistically.

 

[Polymath257]

"We have no good answer to our question, so we need to make one up!"

Even more: we don't have an explanation, so we should make one up and ignore what research has already been done!

 

[Woberts]

Then again thats a bit like picking on the disabled

That's an interesting way to word things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's an interesting way to word things.

Though not completely inapt.

Speaking for myself, it's a fairly frequent thing for me to pull back from a debate because a poster's religious beliefs seem rooted in mental illness.

Edit: I have no interest in "picking on the disabled," as @David T put it, but when I'm debating the devoutly religious, it's often hard to tell.

 

[atanu]

"We have no good answer to our question, so we need to make one up!"

Even more: we don't have an explanation, so we should make one up and ignore what research has already been done!

Why can we not simply agree that mechanical causation does not answer the question of subjective experiences of consciousness? Why the sarcasm?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why can we not simply agree that mechanical causation does not answer the question of subjective experiences of consciousness?

It's not really a question; it's a claim. In a roundabout way, you're claiming that "mechanical causation" can't cause consciousness, despite the fact that you have no rational justification to assume this is true.

Why the sarcasm?

Because you should know better. Because ridicule is an easy way to communicate that something is ridiculous.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure it has. It's called psychology and neurology.

No it has not, you only listed two disciplines, psychology, a behavioral science, and neurology a behavioral science, and not anything, nor references concerning this so called proof of no Free Will. Science does not 'prove' anything. 'Philosophers like Dennett propose compatabilism, and others argue for different degrees of Free Will, but it remains science has not proved anything.

 

[JoshuaTree]

...there are irrational paths to theism, but as far as I can tell, no rational paths to theism...

Rational paths to theism generally lead to frustration. Consider Nicodemus. Teacher of Israel. Followed the rational path of the Mosaic law. Asked Jesus what must he do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus told Nicodemus he must be "born again". Nicodemus could not rationalize what Jesus told him. How can a man be born again??? The point Jesus was trying to make was that there is no "rational" path to the Kingdom of heaven... there is no rational procedure or formula that can be followed ...that our "second birth" is like our first, at a place and time of God's choosing not ours. Although Jesus was powerless to persuade Nicodemus of this (at this time) Jesus was not frustrated by Nicodemus' lack of faith.

I personally find it mysterious that so many intelligent and creative folks can gather together to discuss things that make absolutely no sense in such a calm and peaceful way here. Great model for the world isn't it?