How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Curious George]

Ockham said, there are no causes without effects. So we should see causes as instantaneously together with their effects.

How to deal with people who deny free will is the same as asking how to deal with people engaged with the sin of knowledge of good and evil. They use the facts about what is good and evil to calculate a course of action, rather than choosing by expressing their emotions. That is why they reject free will is real.

So how to deal with such people besides throwing up all over them?

You don't need to throw up all over them. The problem lies in their premise. Cause is a rabbit hole of confusion. Just force them to prove their point. It is really quite simple, evidence does not show free will does not exist. Evidence only shows that choice is limited. Logic can be used to question free will but one must assume that cause exists. Question the assumption: why ought we assume cause exists? The same reasoning can be applied to free will. So, the question then becomes why should we not accept free will if we can use the same reasoning to rationalize the acceptance of free will as is necessary for cause.

Whether approached by science or logic, the evidence does not favor the outright rejection of free will. However it is possible to study the limitations of will, and it is important to realize that we are not as "free" as we like to believe.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Compatibilism defines free will in a manner were it has no relationship to whether determinism is true or not.
The ability to do what you want to do.

Could you explain how we might differentiate between a world where we had the ability to do whatever we want to do because free will is compatible with omniscience and a world where we are free to do whatever we want to do because there is no God?

Incompatibilists define free will in a manner which is not compatible.

Incompatibilism = not compatible. Wow. That's really deep. I'll try to remember that.

The ability to make a choice other then the one that was made.

Is that even a coherent statement? If one makes Choice A, what sort of a post hoc fantasy world must one live in to believe that one still retains "the ability" to make Choice B?

Generally Incompatibilists claim the Compatibilist uses the wrong definition. Compatibilists claim the definition used by the Incompatibilist is incoherent.

Your basic review of the terms wasn't particularly edifying.

This ought to be very simple. Either we have free will or we don't have free will, right?

Christian Theists are claiming that their god has already written out the entire story and knows in advance how it will end, correct? How is that possible then for the characters in God's story (read: humanity) to make a free decision? Please explain how that works. Is the universe one giant Choose-Your-Own-Adventure® novel? And if so, how is choosing between several preordained "options" a free choice? You're still being railroaded, no?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Easy, you just have to include your decisions in the unfolding of history.

Yet some theists maintain that the end of history is already known to their god. Please square that with free will. Thanks.

We make decisions and they sometimes influence the way everything unfolds, but it only unfolds one way.

Yet theists tend to claim that the unfolding of history goes according to their god's plan, no?

Looking back into my childhood, for example, I can see all the decisions I made. But I don't feel like I shaped my past, I feel like it happened to me.

That's strictly your baggage. Looking back at my past decisions, I can easily see how I shaped my past by making those decisions. This is strictly my baggage.

I don't know it probably depends on your perspective and what you take determinism and free will to mean.

The notion of an all-knowing supernatural being (that nevertheless cannot divine the results of my free will) strikes me as utterly incoherent.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If they're unwilling to listen to reason

The proposition is entirely contingent upon reason being offered up. If no reason is voiced, then it follows that no reason can be heard.

then my suggestion would be to viciously mock them with the hopes of shaming them into accepting the fact of free will.

Who would Jesus mock?

It may seem cruel at first, but denying free will is irrational and dangerous ...

How can you simultaneously believe in free will and His Ineffable Plan®? If God knows all and has a plan and can see the end of all things ... please explain how you're not just a plaything in a giant, cosmic sandbox. Thanks.

And remember that the Bible clearly shows The Almighty manipulating events to trump human free will. So even if you could somehow demonstrate that free will is compatible with omniscience, you'd still be obliged to concede that God can suspend it on a whim.

thus, the end justifies the means.

Isn't that the operative rationale behind mere garden-variety terrorism? Behind fascism?

"The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced." ~ Aldous Huxley

"Essentially all the new moralities, Communist, Fascist, Nazi or merely Nationalist, are singularly alike. All affirm that the end justifies the means; and in all the end is the triumph of a section of the human species over the rest. All justify the unlimited use of violence and cunning. All preach the subordination of the individual to a ruling oligarchy, deified as 'the State.' All inculcate the minor virtues, such as temperance, prudence, courage and the like; but all disparage the higher virtues, charity and intelligence, without which the minor virtues are merely instruments for doing evil with increased efficiency." ~ Aldous Huxley

 

[Willamena]

How to deal with people who deny free will?

Point them at Wittgenstein.

 

[JRMcC]

Yet some theists maintain that the end of history is already known to their god. Please square that with free will. Thanks.

I don't think you can really square that theistic idea with free will. If a creator God knows you're going to sin and go to hell, he's responsible for that. Basic logic.

Yet theists tend to claim that the unfolding of history goes according to their god's plan, no?

Yes. I think it unfolds, and I don't think it's relevant whether some supreme consciousness is overseeing it or not.

That's strictly your baggage. Looking back at my past decisions, I can easily see how I shaped my past by making those decisions. This is strictly my baggage.

Yeah, it's a subjective thing at this level.

The notion of an all-knowing supernatural being (that nevertheless cannot divine the results of my free will) strikes me as utterly incoherent.

I do too for the most part.

 

[Nakosis]

Could you explain how we might differentiate between a world where we had the ability to do whatever we want to do because free will is compatible with omniscience and a world where we are free to do whatever we want to do because there is no God?

If you're willing to prove there is a God first. Why argue about something that is unproven? You can tell stories about it I guess based on whatever mental mastication a person can dream up but what's the point?

Incompatibilism = not compatible. Wow. That's really deep. I'll try to remember that.

Yes, neat how putting "in" as a prefix to a word does that.

Is that even a coherent statement? If one makes Choice A, what sort of a post hoc fantasy world must one live in to believe that one still retains "the ability" to make Choice B?

Exactly how a compatibilist feels.

Your basic review of the terms wasn't particularly edifying.

Yes, since you agreed with most of it, there wasn't much for you to learn.

This ought to be very simple. Either we have free will or we don't have free will, right?

It isn't too hard if one takes the time to understand how the word is being used.

Christian Theists are claiming that their god has already written out the entire story and knows in advance how it will end, correct? How is that possible then for the characters in God's story (read: humanity) to make a free decision? Please explain how that works. Is the universe one giant Choose-Your-Own-Adventure® novel? And if so, how is choosing between several preordained "options" a free choice? You're still being railroaded, no?

Christians believe in a God that is separated from them, I don't. I believe there is only me in control of my actions. I chose my morals based on my feelings and decide my actions. If I can act as I choose then I'm acting freely according to my will. Obviously there are times my free will is restricted/limited.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You don't need to throw up all over them. The problem lies in their premise. Cause is a rabbit hole of confusion. Just force them to prove their point. It is really quite simple, evidence does not show free will does not exist. Evidence only shows that choice is limited. Logic can be used to question free will but one must assume that cause exists. Question the assumption: why ought we assume cause exists? The same reasoning can be applied to free will. So, the question then becomes why should we not accept free will if we can use the same reasoning to rationalize the acceptance of free will as is necessary for cause.

Whether approached by science or logic, the evidence does not favor the outright rejection of free will. However it is possible to study the limitations of will, and it is important to realize that we are not as "free" as we like to believe.

Fact is the people denying free will are here and everywhere, and they are never going tp accept freedom is real. Now deal with that reality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because of science, evolution theory mainly, there are presently lots and lots of people about who deny free will is real.

1) Religious beliefs denied free will long, long before science existed.
2) Scientists are among many academics who argue both for and against free will.
3) Present arguments.

 

[Nakosis]

Just looking around...
"Abstract
Does disbelief in free will reduce people's willingness to exert the effort needed for autonomous thought and action rather than simply conforming to group norms? Three studies tested the hypothesis that disbelief in free will would be associated with greater conformity than a belief in free will. In Study 1 (correlational), participants who expressed a greater belief in free will reported that they were less likely to conform in a variety of situations than participants who expressed greater disbelief in free will. In Study 2 (experimental), participants who were induced to disbelieve in free will conformed significantly more to the opinions of ostensible other participants when judging paintings than participants in free will and control conditions. In Study 3 (experimental), participants who were induced to disbelieve in free will conformed significantly more to experimenter-provided examples than participants in a meaning-threat control condition, as well as more than those encouraged to believe in free will. These findings suggest that belief in free will contributes to autonomous action and resisting temptations and pressures to conform."

Determined to conform: Disbelief in free will increases conformity

 

[Nakosis]

Some more...

"Abstract
Laypersons' belief in free will may foster a sense of thoughtful reflection and willingness to exert energy, thereby promoting helpfulness and reducing aggression, and so disbelief in free will may make behavior more reliant on selfish, automatic impulses and therefore less socially desirable. Three studies tested the hypothesis that disbelief in free will would be linked with decreased helping and increased aggression. In Experiment 1, induced disbelief in free will reduced willingness to help others. Experiment 2 showed that chronic disbelief in free will was associated with reduced helping behavior. In Experiment 3, participants induced disbelief in free will caused participants to act more aggressively than others. Although the findings do not speak to the existence of free will, the current results suggest that disbelief in free will reduces helping and increases aggression."
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260.abstract

 

[Nakosis]

"In new research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009) theorise that a belief in free will may be partly what oils the wheels of society, what encourages us to treat each other respectfully. They explore this theory with three studies, two on helping behaviours and one on aggression."
Do You Believe in Free Will? - PsyBlog

 

[leibowde84]

Because of science, evolution theory mainly, there are presently lots and lots of people about who deny free will is real.

Basically these people are like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. They ignore my emotions, they ignore their own emotions, and the focus is on some practical matter at hand. They have this calculating, measuring, attitude about them, and they are extremely perfectionistic.

How should we practically deal with these people in a social setting in daily life?

1. Avoid like the plague
2. Make it clear that you don't like them, cause a scene
3. Go along with it, and curse them in thought only
4. Try to sabotage the conversation, causing it to fail as if it was an accident
5. Pay mind to what they are calculating, and calculate with them. Act as them.
6. other


=========
Here added a list of current influential intellectuals promoting denial of the common concept of free wil of people (the common concept in the sense of having alternative futures available one of which can be made the present)

Susan Blackmore
Daniel Denett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Joshua Greene
Jonathan Cohen
Derk Pereboom
Will Provine
William S. Robinson

Some of these intellectuals will still use the words free will, by which they mean that the result was forced by a preceding cause. They use a logic of sorting to mean choosing. So for example if the brain sorts out what is the cheapest cola per liter, and then you act upon this sorting process by buying the cheapest cola, then this is what these intellectuals would call choosing. The result is simply forced by the initial conditions, the prices of the different cola's and the rules by which they are sorted, and it couldn't have turned out in any different way.

Determinists deny free-will to a certain extent. As does the idea of destiny. But, to say that atheists in general are all determinists might be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. And, even determinism allows for free-will in that we all have various options to "choose" from.

 

[leibowde84]

This topic is just about how to deal with the sort of people free will deniers have become. There's some studies also suggesting that denying free will can manipulate personality. You know the sort of people I'm talking about, or not?

I don't think anyone knows "the kind of people you are talking about", as you have not provided any proof that they actually exist. But, at least those determinists that you mentioned in your OP take the time to present an argument. You merely treat them as lesser people without providing a sliver of evidence beyond "do you really want to live in a world without freedom"? It's absurd.

 

[leibowde84]

You don't need to throw up all over them. The problem lies in their premise. Cause is a rabbit hole of confusion. Just force them to prove their point. It is really quite simple, evidence does not show free will does not exist. Evidence only shows that choice is limited. Logic can be used to question free will but one must assume that cause exists. Question the assumption: why ought we assume cause exists? The same reasoning can be applied to free will. So, the question then becomes why should we not accept free will if we can use the same reasoning to rationalize the acceptance of free will as is necessary for cause.

Whether approached by science or logic, the evidence does not favor the outright rejection of free will. However it is possible to study the limitations of will, and it is important to realize that we are not as "free" as we like to believe.

He is arguing with a straw-man. Determinists don't even believe what he is claiming. He is merely exaggerating their ideas.