Do Atheists believe in free-will?

[Willamena]

Uh, no. It seems to me instead that the concept is actually meaningless and shouldn't be used at all.

How do you define Free Will?

I used to define it: me, doing things.

Now I define it: "me," "doing" "things".

It can't be misused if it doesn't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

But why would an atheist believe in Free Will, St Giordano?

 

[LuisDantas]

I used to define it: me, doing things.

Now I define it: "me," "doing" "things".

Would you be so kind as to elaborate? Because I don't know what you mean, I really don't.

 

[Willamena]

Would you be so kind as to elaborate? Because I don't know what you mean, I really don't.

Self-determination.

 

[LuisDantas]

I was hoping for some sort of evidence, or at least a more specific definition.

 

[Willamena]

I was hoping for some sort of evidence, or at least a more specific definition.

The evidence is all the "me's" in the world that are doing things.

Self-determination is the ability of a "self" to determine the course of events.

Edit: Sorry, the editor keeps messing up the link.

 

[LuisDantas]

By that token, free will only exists as an illusion, then. A convincing illusion, but an illusion nevertheless.

 

[PhAA]

By that token, free will only exists as an illusion, then. A convincing illusion, but an illusion nevertheless.

Is free will the choices we make? If so, then how could it be an illusion?

 

[Willamena]

By that token, free will only exists as an illusion, then. A convincing illusion, but an illusion nevertheless.

An illusion happens when something isn't as it appears. But the illusion itself is something.

Illusion exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is free will the choices we make? If so, then how could it be an illusion?

No, by my understanding our choices are not free, or even particularly linked to a will. So no, free will is not at all the choices one makes. Unless one defines it as being such, of course, but that would be a mismatch between the object and its name.

An illusion happens when something isn't as it appears. But the illusion itself is something.

Illusion exists.

Sure. But those are behavior patterns, not free will acting.

 

[PhAA]

No, by my understanding our choices are not free, or even particularly linked to a will. So no, free will is not at all the choices one makes. Unless one defines it as being such, of course, but that would be a mismatch between the object and its name.

Then what is free will? Care to explain? I can't really understand it.

 

[Skwim]

Then what is free will? Care to explain? I can't really understand it.

I see the term "free will" as being synonymous with "will," the "free" being redundant and therefore superfluous. As defined in thefreedictionary.com "will" is

a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action:
​

In order for this definition to be meaningful the notion of free must be an inherent part of the will's character.

As Wikipedia puts it, "free will," or just "will" if one prefers, is "the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." Wikipedia then goes on to note that "Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism."

Now, if there's some other concern of free willers I haven't seen it. Most often FWs simply claim "My choice was not determined. I could have done differently if I chose to," and leave the explanation at that.

 

[Willamena]

Sure. But those are behavior patterns, not free will acting.

So, behaviour patterns with free will. It doesn't really matter which "self" does the act.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then what is free will? Care to explain? I can't really understand it.

Free will isn't. It is an empty concept, which I believe to have been created by Abrahamists to attempt to explain why the world isn't exactly how one would expect it to be if God were indeed real, omnipresent, omnipotent and supremely good.

The idea would be that free will is some sort of precious gift given by God and that he refuses to violate once given.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, behaviour patterns with free will. It doesn't really matter which "self" does the act.

It matters, because then we must prove that there is a self - and if we want the label "free will" to be accurate, we must also prove that he has a will and that it is not acting in subordination to some other will.

 

[Yerda]

So how does that book define Free Will then?

Something like the ability to anticipate potential consequences and act accordingly. We can see possible futures and act to influence which one we experience, because we can choose which we find more desirable we have freedom. Something like that. I think.

 

[Yerda]

For those "atheists" who believe in "free will" answer the following question:

What is the will?

In your response, explain both the physical location of the will and how it can be observed as a thing, and also the mechanics of how it is "free."

Are you trying to draw an equivalence between God and free will?

I suppose the will is a metaphor for the sensation of desiring one outcome over others.

 

[lunamoth]

Are you trying to draw an equivalence between God and free will?

I suppose the will is a metaphor for the sensation of desiring one outcome over others.

I think he is asking what constitutes the agent "I" that can be free of cause and affect and so make a free choice that is not, ultimately, actually determined by other events and entities.

 

[Yerda]

I think he is asking what constitutes the agent "I" that can be free of cause and affect and so make a free choice that is not, ultimately, actually determined by other events and entities.

I'm not sure that an agent has to be free of causality to be free. However, I find the whole subject very slippery, and I haven't gotten very far in the way of making sense of it. If that was Dopp's question then that is my answer.

 

[LuisDantas]

Something like the ability to anticipate potential consequences and act accordingly. We can see possible futures and act to influence which one we experience, because we can choose which we find more desirable we have freedom. Something like that. I think.

Would it be fair to describe it then as some combination of responsibility and discernment?