You have free will but are only free to follow the rules.

[MSizer]

The tools you have are the same as everyone else. An Atheist's mind cannot be called 'defective', nor can a Theist's. One's belief (or disbelief) in the existence of God is simply a result of the way they interpret the evidence presented to them.

Exactly. And I don't choose to interpret anything in any way. It just happens. The same way a theist does. If you are (I'm only guessing) White, can you choose to look at your pale skin and decide that you are Black? I doubt it. Can you look at a birch tree and choose to believe that it's an oak? No. If you didn't know the traits of a birch or an oak, could you mistakenly decide it's an aok when it's really a birch? Yes. Belief is not concious, therefore there is no free choice in believing anything, including god. god made me an athiest - that was his choice, not mine.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Exactly. And I don't choose to interpret anything in any way. It just happens. The same way a theist does. If you are (I'm only guessing) White, can you choose to look at your pale skin and decide that you are Black? I doubt it. Can you look at a birch tree and choose to believe that it's an oak? No. If you didn't know the traits of a birch or an oak, could you mistakenly decide it's an aok when it's really a birch? Yes. Belief is not concious, therefore there is no free choice in believing anything, including god. god made me an athiest - that was his choice, not mine.

That would work if someone who had never seen or even heard of a tree before could look at one and say, "Ah, a tree." But it doesn't work like that. Everything we know, everything we accept as true, we had to learn at one point or another. Nothing is automatic.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

do you see any difference between your version of 'free-will' from free-will offered by different nations? like freedom of speech, freedom of belief etc.

In a way but the explanation may be more difficult than the question.

Freedom of belief is a good example so I'll run with that. Now, freedom of belief implies that I can believe in anything I like. If I choose to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's my choice.

Now, suppose that, all over the world, freedom of belief is revoked. Suddenly everyone, everywhere, must believe that Hank is god. How could such a measure ever be enforced? There's no way to absolutely force everyone to believe in Hank because they have free-will. They can choose not to believe in Hank.

Free-will goes beyond freedoms of law (like freedom of belief). Even if a freedom is revoked you can still choose to exercise it. There may be negative consequences but, ultimately, the choice is still yours.

If free-will were done away with however then you would lose even the freedom to make your own choices. You couldn't decide for yourself whether or not to believe in Hank. The decision would simply be made for you and there would be nothing you could do about it.

Without free-will you wouldn't make your own choices regarding anything.

Well, this made me think like that.

It wasn't meant to. I was simply answering a question of 'could a creator be insulted or offended by it's creation'. I never meant to say that disbelief was a crime and I apologize to you and anyone else who took it that way.

 

[Greatest I am]

Being able to make your own choices is free-will. Having all of your choices made for you (and I mean every single one) is no free-will.

I?

So when God says --do it my way or burn forever--then He is not giving free will at all is He?

Regards
DL

 

[The_Evelyonian]

So when God says --do it my way or burn forever--then He is not giving free will at all is He?

Regards
DL

Yes, He is. There are two choices there. Which one you pick is up to you.

 

[TashaN]

If an outside agent controls you then how can you say you have any free will at all?

If in someone else's control then that party is responsible for the actions you do, good or evil.

You never get credit or blame. It all goes to the controller.

I find it funny that you would think that God gives and takes away your free will whenever He likes.

Rather an Indian giver.

Take this, give it back, take this give it back, take this give it back, take this give it back, take this give it back, take this give it back ad infinitum.

I guess that God has nothing better to do with His time.

Regards
DL

It's not the type of control you have imagined. It's a type of an interference, an inspiration of guidance which you can go with or reject.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. And I don't choose to interpret anything in any way. It just happens. The same way a theist does. If you are (I'm only guessing) White, can you choose to look at your pale skin and decide that you are Black? I doubt it. Can you look at a birch tree and choose to believe that it's an oak? No. If you didn't know the traits of a birch or an oak, could you mistakenly decide it's an aok when it's really a birch? Yes. Belief is not concious, therefore there is no free choice in believing anything, including god. god made me an athiest - that was his choice, not mine.

Your last line belies everything you said up till then, and that's a shame because I was all set to (finally) agree entirely with one of your posts.

If belief is not conscious, not done willingly (with which I agree) by you, then that is contradicted by the idea that "god made me this way," which suggests forced, unwilful participation on your part.

 

[MSizer]

Your last line belies everything you said up till then, and that's a shame because I was all set to (finally) agree entirely with one of your posts.

If belief is not conscious, not done willingly (with which I agree) by you, then that is contradicted by the idea that "god made me this way," which suggests forced, unwilful participation on your part.

Well the "god made me this way" was a metaphorical way of saying I'm biologically predetermined to be an atheist. But even so, I don't see how it contradicts what I had said previously. I don't choose to be an atheist, I simply am an atheist "becuase my neurons made me do it" so to speak. Now, whether there is a god who made my neurons (which I don't believe) or whether my biological makeup is nothing more than matter following universal laws to create life, I don't see how I had any choice in the matter.

 

[MSizer]

That would work if someone who had never seen or even heard of a tree before could look at one and say, "Ah, a tree." But it doesn't work like that. Everything we know, everything we accept as true, we had to learn at one point or another. Nothing is automatic.

No, that's not how it works at all. You've presumably learned from scripture that Jesus was the son of god, right? (I'm only guessing, even if you're not christian, the analagy will work). Now, along comes a Muslim and says "Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of god". Have you just learned something new? Does it replace your "mistaken" notion of Jesus? No, any amount of information can come along, but you can't choose which you find credible and which you find incredible.

A better example might be that two kids come crying and one of them has a black eye. The kid with the black eye says "he hit me". The accused kid says "no I didn't, sadam heussein dropped in by parachute and kicked him in the face". Which kid do you believe? Can you choose to believe the sadam story instead? No, you can't. That's the way it works. We're predisposed to believe certain things, and that's why we're so superstitious. That's why we believe in gods and other myths. There were socio-biological benefits to believing things that may not be rather than being too sceptical.

 

[TashaN]

differentiate limited freedom and no freedom.

In a limited freedom, you have the right to choose but there are many things which you can't control. For instance, you can't decide to be born into this life, and you can't know when you gonna die, but you can decide the path of your life, and most aspects of your life.

On the other hand, no freedom mean no right to have any decision in your life what so ever. You can't say a yes to no, and can't say no to a yes.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Well the "god made me this way" was a metaphorical way of saying I'm biologically predetermined to be an atheist. But even so, I don't see how it contradicts what I had said previously. I don't choose to be an atheist, I simply am an atheist "becuase my neurons made me do it" so to speak. Now, whether there is a god who made my neurons (which I don't believe) or whether my biological makeup is nothing more than matter following universal laws to create life, I don't see how I had any choice in the matter.

Intriguing. I'm curious, if someone is 'biologically predetermined' to be an Atheist or a Theist then how do you explain conversions between the two? If my biological makeup predisposes me to Atheism then I don't see any way I could ever be anything else?

(Not knocking your post but asking out of honest curiosity.)

 

[Willamena]

Well the "god made me this way" was a metaphorical way of saying I'm biologically predetermined to be an atheist. But even so, I don't see how it contradicts what I had said previously. I don't choose to be an atheist, I simply am an atheist "becuase my neurons made me do it" so to speak. Now, whether there is a god who made my neurons (which I don't believe) or whether my biological makeup is nothing more than matter following universal laws to create life, I don't see how I had any choice in the matter.

Are you biologically predetermined to be an atheist? I know you participated in religion at one time: were you at that time biologically predetermined to be a theist? If things change 10 years from now, are you biologically predetermined to be that, or are you biologically predetermined to leap from one end of the spectrum to the other?

Anyway, I can see what you were meaning.

It contradicts because you engage the world --there is a "you" that engages the world either wilfully or unwilfully. If you are a part of that world (and most people are) then causal determinism has you going about your life participating as one cog in the universal machine. If your actions are dictated by "god", then unless you are a monist, the picture has changed to one of a puppet on a string. The universal machine has no puppets, only machine parts.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No, that's not how it works at all. You've presumably learned from scripture that Jesus was the son of god, right? (I'm only guessing, even if you're not christian, the analagy will work). Now, along comes a Muslim and says "Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of god". Have you just learned something new? Does it replace your "mistaken" notion of Jesus? No, any amount of information can come along, but you can't choose which you find credible and which you find incredible. A better example might be that two kids come crying and one of them has a black eye. The kid with the black eye says "he hit me". The accused kid says "no I didn't, sadam heussein dropped in by parachute and kicked him in the face". Which kid do you believe? Can you choose to believe the sadam story instead? No, you can't. That's the way it works. We're predisposed to believe certain things, and that's why we're so superstitious. That's why we believe in gods and other myths. There were socio-biological benefits to believing things that may not be rather than being too sceptical.

The 'snap judgment' would be to write the incredible claim off. I can understand that part of what your saying and if the snap judgment was all there was then I would agree with everything you've said thus far. However, you can still make the choice to investigate the claim, no matter how incredible, to see if there is any truth to be found in it. The choice, to investigate or not, is still yours to make and not one that is predetermined.

 

[MSizer]

The 'snap judgment' would be to write the incredible claim off. I can understand that part of what your saying and if the snap judgment was all there was then I would agree with everything you've said thus far. However, you can still make the choice to investigate the claim, no matter how incredible, to see if there is any truth to be found in it. The choice, to investigate or not, is still yours to make and not one that is predetermined.

Aha, yes, I certainly can - and I have. I have investigated the claim to a deeper degree than even many theists have, and come up empty. That's my point. The choice to investigate, yes indeed, the choice to make my own answer as I please, no sir.

 

[MSizer]

Are you biologically predetermined to be an atheist? I know you participated in religion at one time: were you at that time biologically predetermined to be a theist? If things change 10 years from now, are you biologically predetermined to be that, or are you biologically predetermined to leap from one end of the spectrum to the other?

That doesn't mean I can't be wrong. If jesus knocks on my door tonight, my mind will be changed. But not becuase I either want it to change or don't want it to change, but becuse the evidence is what it is, and I can only observe and let my mind make itself up based on that.

 

[MSizer]

Intriguing. I'm curious, if someone is 'biologically predetermined' to be an Atheist or a Theist then how do you explain conversions between the two? If my biological makeup predisposes me to Atheism then I don't see any way I could ever be anything else?

(Not knocking your post but asking out of honest curiosity.)

New information, brain lesions and epilepsy. My mind can be changed, if the evidence shows up to change it. The whole point is that I don't choose how I evaluate the evidence, and nobody does. You don't look at a red truck and say "well, this time, I know it looks red, but I'm going to believe I see yellow". What you're pointing out in a conversion example requires either a changing of the evidence, or a changing of deep temporal biology which alters the unconcious decision making process. We both sense things similarly (presumably) but our perceptions though are influenced by many things, and our mind becomes made up for us.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

New information, brain lesions and epilepsy. My mind can be changed, if the evidence shows up to change it. The whole point is that I don't choose how I evaluate the evidence, and nobody does. You don't look at a red truck and say "well, this time, I know it looks red, but I'm going to believe I see yellow". What you're pointing out in a conversion example requires either a changing of the evidence, or a changing of deep temporal biology which alters the unconcious decision making process. We both sense things similarly (presumably) but our perceptions though are influenced by many things, and our mind becomes made up for us.

Okay, I simply misunderstood what you meant. To me, saying "I'm biologically predetermined" makes it sound as though, regardless of evidence or even divine intervention, you can never be anything else.
Saying "God made me this way" is an absolute and I took "I'm biologically predetermined" to be one as well.

 

[MSizer]

Okay, I simply misunderstood what you meant. To me, saying "I'm biologically predetermined" makes it sound as though, regardless of evidence or even divine intervention, you can never be anything else.
Saying "God made me this way" is an absolute and I took "I'm biologically predetermined" to be one as well.

Yes, certainly understandable - in retrospect I should have worded it more specifically. It doesn't quite express what I really meant. Sorry.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Yes, certainly understandable - in retrospect I should have worded it more specifically. It doesn't quite express what I really meant. Sorry.

No worries. It happens. Even with the misunderstanding, I've still enjoyed the debate thus far.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't mean I can't be wrong. If jesus knocks on my door tonight, my mind will be changed. But not becuase I either want it to change or don't want it to change, but becuse the evidence is what it is, and I can only observe and let my mind make itself up based on that.

New information... My mind can be changed, if the evidence shows up to change it. The whole point is that I don't choose how I evaluate the evidence, and nobody does.

What I meant in smiling at "biologically predetermined" is just that, above ^i^. That has nothing to do with "biologically predetermined." It's the difference between a description that screams "biology works to make me what I am," and "I am biology at work." I am the universal machine at work. It doesn't make me do things, rather me doing things is a part of what it is. When "my mind is changed" by evidence and not by choice, that is the universal machine ticking along. I am biology.

Else you make biology into god. Biology doesn't predetermine any more (or less) than god does.

(And, actually, that does mean you can't be wrong, but that's another story.)