Yerda
Veteran Member
Responsibility? I'm not sure I follow.
-
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
Your definition was
The part in bold caught my attention. Choosing to act to influence the possible futures is taking responsibility, isn't it?
The part in bold caught my attention. Choosing to act to influence the possible futures is taking responsibility, isn't it?
Yerda
Veteran Member
Maybe. Is it important?
Skwim
Veteran Member
But if it isn't causality, then what is the will suppose to be free of?
For Christians it's an obligatory notion if sin/salvation is going to make any sense. Unfortunately, they rarely come up with an argument any better than, "Of course there's such a thing. We make choices don't we, and nothing is causing me to make the ones I do.
I guess it is. I hadn't thought about the responsibility part before. But I'm still not convinced that Free Will is an useful, meaningful concept.
Where Is God
Creator
I am an atheist I guess and I do believe that humans have "free-will" (my definition is the ability to pick and choose which thoughts to think by utilizing self conscience).
Yerda
Veteran Member
Inevitability.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Neither am I, to be honest.
But what is self conscience? And, perhaps most tricky of all, is it possible without some sort of divine intervention?
Where Is God
Creator
It is to be aware of yourself and thoughts?
Yes, how, I can not explain. I am not a scientist.
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
Because free will is not God.
BTW I don't believe in free will
That there is a "self" needn't be questionable --if it is questionable, what you're really debating is the nature of "is" (i.e. the context in which it exists). All things exist.
Accepting that there is "self" and it "has free will," it's just a matter of defining what that relationship is. Action.
I wish I understood what you just said, Willamena...
Skwim
Veteran Member
??? Are you saying that the will is free of the certainty of operation? I don't get your distinction here. I don't see how one can affirm causality without recognizing the consequential necessity of inevitability. If cause/effect is the operating imperative then inevitability must necessarily follow.Jaiket said:
Last edited:
Orias
Left Hand Path
Under certain circumstances, yes, others no.
I have come to the position where every decision is influenced by the next and the past, and that every action happens for a reason, without reason.
Free-Will is a touchy thing, to an extent we have an onus of free-Will, and to another we do not.
But then again, I am an "atheist" that possesses a "God" language.
Our Will is that of the Universe's, the will of the matter that we can, and cannot see. We are beyond ourselves when it comes to reflection.
We have no Will except that which we are given, and that which we have stolen. I cannot stop the highest law of Life, but I can stop myself from ceasing to exist.
It is a matter of aesthetics, One who believes that we have no control or complete control over our own Will obviously lacks some intellectual consent.
Yerda
Veteran Member
How about this; get Dan Dennett's book Freedom Evolves and have a read. He can explain better than I.
Skwim
Veteran Member
That's nice, but hardly conducive to a discussion. However, I did look at a synopsis of the book and see he simply advocates compatibilism. That's nice for him, but one I regard as a cop out. In effect he says, "Yeah determinism is true, but if we redefine free will as such and such then it still exists." It's like saying, "sure dinosaurs still exist" and then giving the definition of a gecko for "dinosaur."
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I've dealt with the subject here: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Do we have free will?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Interesting read, almost all of which I agree with. One point which I'd like to elaborate on is your.
"But if all our decisions are predetermined, how can we defend punishing criminals? Well, since the punishment contributes to the sum of experiences, this would seem to be the proper way to deal with the problem. But it also suggests that perhaps it might be possible to prevent criminals from appearing in the first place. So if anything, this is an argument in favor of a deterministic approach."
One might also want to consider that just as the criminal could not have done other than commit the crime, neither can we not rule for or against him. We are as much bound to cause/effect as is he. And I would hesitate to argue that determinism needs such examples to justify itself. Determinism is a well thought out concept that I believe can stand on its rationality alone.