Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I may be getting my philosophers confused, but I believe that Sarte would have said that it comes from our responses to the world. If we feel bad about starving kids in China, then we have responsibility for them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Atheists believe in free-will?
- Thread starter SPLogan
- Start date
I may be getting my philosophers confused, but I believe that Sarte would have said that it comes from our responses to the world. If we feel bad about starving kids in China, then we have responsibility for them.
I was thinking of responsibility in the context of being accountable for one's actions.
I'm curious how you reach that conclusion.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I think it means he would have a more agreeing audience in a rock quarry.
gmelrod
Resident Heritic
I have read over this thread and I think that it is time for a healthy dose of Spinoza!
Baruch de Espinoza was a philosopher who lived in the Jewish comunity of Amsterdam born in the year 1632. The most influential of his works was the book "Ethics" which he wrote in a geometric proof style. The Ethics is an attempt to formulate a system of human actions starting with metaphysics instead of morality. While there is no need to go into a complete treatment here (though I could) I think you might enjoy some of the highlights.
God is infinte. The universe is infinite, if there is something outside of either of them they would not be infinite. So God and the universe must be the same thing. (Yes I know there are degrees of infinity but Spinoza preceded set theory. Plus he considered both the God/universe as Substance, an absolutly universal thing. Clearly Spinoza was a pantheist.)
All effects are the ersult of a cause. every event is the result of a chain of causes stretching back to infinity. There are no random or uncaused events in the universe. This must include human actions. Emotions are a cause and can only be replaced by anothe emotion. This denies the conventional definition of free will as an uncaused action but Spinoza offers a diffrent definition of freedom.
Freedom for Spinoza is not uncaused acts but understanding. Humans as rational being are unique in that we can examine the causes of our actions (thougu in a limited sense) and through such examination can introduce new antercedent causess. Once a person becomes aware that the are not "free" they can reflect on what holds them in bondage. The master for Spinoza is emotion, external causes. People are too often dominated by external forces acting on their will. Fear, Hate, Pain, Greed and others including Love and Honor. Spinoza says we can only be free when we understand that everything has a cause. The bad things that happen are not a result of bad luck but of a system of causes that could not have happned otherwise. If it could not be diffrent than it is how could we be mad.
Some people criticise that this abrogates personal responsibility and in a way it does. We can no longer moraly advocate punishment or retribution. But we can see peoples wrong actions as the result of unhealthy antecedent causes that made the crime happen. So the person has to be restrained and new caused introduced into their identity until they understand. The focus of prison is then reform and rehabilitaition instead of punishment and vengence.
I have seen many Spinitizt posts in this thread and I hope you find somthin you like. If not post your disagreement and I will be glad to go into more detail. But in essence the conflict of freedom stems from the nature of the definition of what it means to be free.
(So that you know I am not making this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
Baruch de Espinoza was a philosopher who lived in the Jewish comunity of Amsterdam born in the year 1632. The most influential of his works was the book "Ethics" which he wrote in a geometric proof style. The Ethics is an attempt to formulate a system of human actions starting with metaphysics instead of morality. While there is no need to go into a complete treatment here (though I could) I think you might enjoy some of the highlights.
God is infinte. The universe is infinite, if there is something outside of either of them they would not be infinite. So God and the universe must be the same thing. (Yes I know there are degrees of infinity but Spinoza preceded set theory. Plus he considered both the God/universe as Substance, an absolutly universal thing. Clearly Spinoza was a pantheist.)
All effects are the ersult of a cause. every event is the result of a chain of causes stretching back to infinity. There are no random or uncaused events in the universe. This must include human actions. Emotions are a cause and can only be replaced by anothe emotion. This denies the conventional definition of free will as an uncaused action but Spinoza offers a diffrent definition of freedom.
Freedom for Spinoza is not uncaused acts but understanding. Humans as rational being are unique in that we can examine the causes of our actions (thougu in a limited sense) and through such examination can introduce new antercedent causess. Once a person becomes aware that the are not "free" they can reflect on what holds them in bondage. The master for Spinoza is emotion, external causes. People are too often dominated by external forces acting on their will. Fear, Hate, Pain, Greed and others including Love and Honor. Spinoza says we can only be free when we understand that everything has a cause. The bad things that happen are not a result of bad luck but of a system of causes that could not have happned otherwise. If it could not be diffrent than it is how could we be mad.
Some people criticise that this abrogates personal responsibility and in a way it does. We can no longer moraly advocate punishment or retribution. But we can see peoples wrong actions as the result of unhealthy antecedent causes that made the crime happen. So the person has to be restrained and new caused introduced into their identity until they understand. The focus of prison is then reform and rehabilitaition instead of punishment and vengence.
I have seen many Spinitizt posts in this thread and I hope you find somthin you like. If not post your disagreement and I will be glad to go into more detail. But in essence the conflict of freedom stems from the nature of the definition of what it means to be free.
(So that you know I am not making this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
determinism = mechanism = all the judgment of a rock: it is the inevitable result mechanism or mathematical probabilities and not judgment at all.
As for Spinoza...He had some good ideas, but I'm much more impressed by what the unknown author of The Cloud of Unknowing had to say (once I got past the references to Christ). I do wonder, however, what meaning Spinoza would have attached to quantum non-locality, if any.
I think the key difference between Spinoza and The Cloud of Unknowing is that the latter makes a strong distinction between the one and the many. While recognizing that God constitutes our being, we are not God's being. Hence, my analogy of God being the light on the other side of the cosmic prism and we having our being in the spectra of his light.
I do, in a sense, agree that ignorance is bondage and we are free only inasmuch we have understanding, but the understanding that makes us free does not come by way of reason or the intellect. On the contrary, they get in the way; they come between our self and the infinite sea of information--the body of God, if you will. We really have just two choices: we either choose to live life as a closed system subject to cause and effect, or choose to open up to the One. The aim is not to achieve union with God as a drop of water finds unity with the ocean, but rather allow the ocean to enter into us.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Aasimar
Atheist
I've always seen this as a completely immaterial question. I seem to have free will but whether I do or not really has no bearing on anything. If I do have free will then I'm gonna do what I want anyway. If I don't, then I don't and no amount of thought would change it. It's kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of question.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Consistent.
Inconsistent
charles brough
Member
That is brilliant! I was about to post something very similar and never expected to see it already here! :bow:
Yes, we atheists have only one single thing in common, and that is we know of no such thing as "spirits." We include very conservative, moral, scientists, businessmen and others as well as rank hedonists and crooks. Most atheists cannot even agree on why they reject the supernatural. We have no agreement on "free will" either because no one has ever been able to come up with a really valid explanation of what the hell it is!
charles,
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Amorphous, and pointless.
I'd also say "sophomoric", but that's just too easy...
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Free-will is an illusion and is thus a pointless question to ask if one believes in it. Why?
Choice revolves around the concept of cause and effect. There is always a cause for every decision we make and free-will basically tries to eliminate the concept of cause in relation to the decision-making process. Free-will just doesn't work. I think Anyone who studies psychology will probably come to the same conclusion.
Choice revolves around the concept of cause and effect. There is always a cause for every decision we make and free-will basically tries to eliminate the concept of cause in relation to the decision-making process. Free-will just doesn't work. I think Anyone who studies psychology will probably come to the same conclusion.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I often see these "Do atheists believe in..." threads, and get the impression that some theists see atheism as a religious belief system with a set of doctrines, arguments about doctrine, etc. But it isn't. It's just lack of belief in the existence of God. In general , the term "believe in" is ambiguous, referring both to belief that something exists, and placing faith and confidence in something, as for example a doctrine.
So, speaking only for myself, I ffind that question kind of difficult and am not exactly sure what people mean by "free will." I've always agreed with AFAICR Cicero, who basically asked: what difference would it make?
I'm starting to think it's linked to our naive dualism, that all of us tend to think in terms of an invisible spirit or soul that inhabits our physical bodies. So free will would mean that regardless of what's going on physically, our soul is still in charge and can make decisions. But I don't think there is any such thing. I think our bodies is all we are, and everything we are is material and real. Looked at that way, sure, we have free will. What I mean is, by "I" I mean my body and its processes. Choosing is an activity/process of my brain. Which is real, and happens. So I do see us as having free will.
I think others disagree, however. That does not make them any less True Atheists than me.
So, speaking only for myself, I ffind that question kind of difficult and am not exactly sure what people mean by "free will." I've always agreed with AFAICR Cicero, who basically asked: what difference would it make?
I'm starting to think it's linked to our naive dualism, that all of us tend to think in terms of an invisible spirit or soul that inhabits our physical bodies. So free will would mean that regardless of what's going on physically, our soul is still in charge and can make decisions. But I don't think there is any such thing. I think our bodies is all we are, and everything we are is material and real. Looked at that way, sure, we have free will. What I mean is, by "I" I mean my body and its processes. Choosing is an activity/process of my brain. Which is real, and happens. So I do see us as having free will.
I think others disagree, however. That does not make them any less True Atheists than me.
Everyone believes in free will, elst they couldn't operate in this world.
Fluffy
A fool
I personally do not believe in free will because I don't consider it to be a coherent concept. I feel that free will requires 2 conditions that cannot both be satisfied simultaneously: control and freedom. I disagree with the typical way of discrediting free will i.e. via determinism because I don't think that this is sufficiently comprehensive nor necessary. Free will is incoherent regardless of the kind of world that we live in.
Those are just my views, however, and not necessarily the views of most atheists. However, I do not know of an atheist who has studied the mind and concluded that we do, in fact, have free will whilst, conversely, I know of many atheistic experts on the mind who all dispute its existence for various reasons.
Also you should be careful about asking questions about what atheists believe. The famous saying is that herding atheists is a bit like herding cats. We don't agree on anything beyond a lack of God and whilst it might be reasonable to assume that some general trends will form because of this, I would generally bank on getting as many different answers as there are atheists.
Edit: Oh yeah, as Willamena says, I do actually believe in free will, I just also believe that I am deluded in this matter and that the delusion is so strong that I am unable to give it up. I'd give you frubals for reminding me but you've already used up your frubal-for-being-brilliant quota for now
.
Those are just my views, however, and not necessarily the views of most atheists. However, I do not know of an atheist who has studied the mind and concluded that we do, in fact, have free will whilst, conversely, I know of many atheistic experts on the mind who all dispute its existence for various reasons.
Also you should be careful about asking questions about what atheists believe. The famous saying is that herding atheists is a bit like herding cats. We don't agree on anything beyond a lack of God and whilst it might be reasonable to assume that some general trends will form because of this, I would generally bank on getting as many different answers as there are atheists.
Edit: Oh yeah, as Willamena says, I do actually believe in free will, I just also believe that I am deluded in this matter and that the delusion is so strong that I am unable to give it up. I'd give you frubals for reminding me but you've already used up your frubal-for-being-brilliant quota for now
.
Fascinating. If you believe you are not in control, and (presumably) that the universe is, do you attribute all you believe to this other control? Conversely, if you believe you have no freedom, do you have the freedom to believe?
Edit note on edit note: No, you're not deluded.
Fluffy
A fool
I do not think I have any freedom at all because I don't think that both my freedom and my control of my actions can be coherently asserted. To explain in more detail:Willamena said:
What causes my choices?
If the answer is "nothing" then I am completely spontaneous and so I do not appear to have any control. I am completely free but am not really choosing any more than a dice chooses.
If the answer is "something" then I am completely controlled by this external influence and so my choice is predetermined before I have made it. There is no sense in which my choice is free.
If the answer is "a mixture" then I have a limited amount of freedom but this does not provide me with any control.
I am not entirely certain who or what is in control. Is a dice in control of what side it lands on? If not, then what is in control? The universe? It seems strange to say that the universe is in control of the dice. It is certainly not in control in the sense implied by "free will".
I do not believe I have the freedom to believe. However, I do believe that belief is mutable and that through processes such as brain training or gaining new concepts, I can change my beliefs but my decision to do so is not really me decision but predetermined by what has come before.
I live my life as if I did have free will because I find the belief in free will to be incorrigible. If a car is coming towards you, you will jump out of the way regardless of whether you think the car is real. I will jump out of the way regardless of whether I think my decision to do so is real.
In one sense, I guess, I do surrender myself to the universe. I believe strongly in the idea and power of inevitability. I feel that whatever will come, is going to come but my very presence in the world allows me to act in order to change this outcome to cohere more with what I want. Of course, this is inevitable and no real change is occurring. However, my existence is what is meaningful since my actions all follow, inevitably, on from that.
ooo I don't know. I reckon delusion might fit the bill. I reckon if you believe something, realise that the belief is wrong and yet are unable to give that belief up then that might qualify as a delusion. Perhaps delusion should be reserved for the person who is unaware that they are wrong but I think this comes fairly close.Willamena said:
texan1
Active Member
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Yep.
And your judgments and opinions are also no more meaningful or true than a rock's. Funny how that worked out huh?
And why the railing against the intelligence and wisdom of rocks?
Others don't hold such a negative opinion of you.
(I stand by my insult. Your screen name is Rolling Stone. Why don't you just put a big sign on your forehead saying "Please Yossarian, Insult me")
Sure, why not?
You do to; you are just to obtuse to admit it.