Announcement

**Jack the Bodiless** · January 18, 2003, 09:32

As morality is a constraint on "free will": I don't see the problem here.

Morality is a set of social standards imposed on us by both evolution and conditioning. Where does the Great Sky Pixie come into this?

**Rogan Josh** · January 18, 2003, 10:13

Originally posted by lightblue
I can choose to sit behind my computer all day, or I can choose to go outside for a run. In what form does this not entail free will?

Why should it be free-will? Why shouldn't it just be an illusion of free-will? Are you really sure that you made this post because you wanted to? Could it not just be the natural consequence of physical interactions in your brain exactly as the laws of physics dictate, giving the illusion of free-will?

I'm sorry, but 'I think, therefore I am' is just hopelessly niave.

I do not believe in a Puppetmaster in the Sky who decides my life's path, therefore everything I do is and must be by my own volition. So being an atheist automatically leads to knowing that you have free will in my book.

You have got it back to front. If there were a 'puppetmaster' as you so quaintly put it, his existence would be an existence proof for sentience. If there is one being in the universe who has free-will then one admits the possibility and it is no longer a leap to seuggest that we have it too.

OK, let's examine your scenarios:

1/ You believe in a God, and do not believe in free will as everything is predetermined by said God eventhough you still consciously make decisions on what to do every day.

This is highly illogical. There would be no point in God making us if he didn't give us sentience.

2/ You do not believe in a God, and believe that which seems like free will, is actually free will.

Whether this is illogical depends on your reasoning. If you use science as a motivation as to disbelieving God, then it is illogical, because [b]science has no room for free-will.[b]

Which one seems the more logical to you? I can throw in Occam again, but I realise (just as you do) that discussing these things on forums isn't going to convince someone of the other way.

I would not subscribe to either of these views (as you know perfectly well). If you want to throw Occam's razor into the mix, then you should believe the simplest explanation based on empirical facts. Since free-will is inconsistent with all our physical theories the natural conclusion would be: 'There is no God, and there is no free-will'.

The fact that we're alive for a start? A doorknob can't make decisions, we can.

What makes you think that? Are you not making an assumption here? (Occam says

)

**lightblue** · January 18, 2003, 10:34

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why should it be free-will? Why shouldn't it just be an illusion of free-will? Are you really sure that you made this post because you wanted to? Could it not just be the natural consequence of physical interactions in your brain exactly as the laws of physics dictate, giving the illusion of free-will?

I'm sorry, but 'I think, therefore I am' is just hopelessly niave.

Hmm, interesting dilemma. I would see that as different people make different decisions when presented with the same circumstances, the physical interactions in your brain constitute your personality, and as such will determine which decision you will make. So yes, you're right in that chemical changes will affect which decisions we make, however I'd see this as free will in that it is not an outside influence that determines this coice, but rather an inside influence, which seeing as it is a part of you, consitutes yourself. Therefore, eventhough chemicals might make the ultimate decision, seeing as they are part of you, you make the decision. I do not accept the existence of a soul, I fully agree that we're a bag of chemicals, who just happen to be self aware, because of a certain mixture of these chemicals.

I suppose if you use your definition of free will, then yes, a scientist would not believe in free will. However, if you look at it from the POV that the particular mix of chemicals (and whatever else goes on a lower level with quantum states etc) in your brain make you the person you are, then if the natural physical interaction of these chemicals make the decisions for you, you could stipulate that you made this decision.

As for morality, this follows from this argument. It is a part of our genetic (and memetic, though that concept leads to more hassle) makeup, and as such is a part of our personalities, and as such you still make the decisions.

In short I probably agree with you, though we differ on what free will actually entails

**loinburger** · January 18, 2003, 10:44

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The biggest contradiction: Atheists who believe they have free-will

I don't see how that follows. An atheist can't prove that he has free-will any more than a theist can prove that God exists, so why is only the atheist the stupid one?

For that matter, both the atheist and the theist cannot prove that either one even exists -- is "atheists who believe that they exist" therefore a contradiction as well?

**Zero-Tau** · January 18, 2003, 10:57

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
science has no room for free-will.

Why not? Could you elaborate?

**Dauphin** · January 18, 2003, 11:26

Originally posted by Zero-Tau

science has no room for free-will.

Why not? Could you elaborate?

The theory goes as this.

1) Free will is defined by the ability to choose.

2) All fundamental scientific theories are defined by pre-determination or by chance.

3) You cannot, by definition, make a choice when eveything is random or pre-determined.

**Jack the Bodiless** · January 18, 2003, 12:06

I think it would be more correct to argue that science has no use for free-will as a concept.

Arguments about free-will tend to get bogged down in definitions about what the "self" is, and about what the will is supposedly "free" of (or not).

Atheists can either agree or disagree on whether we have something that can be called "free will". What we generally agree on is that our "choices" are determined by factors such as what we had for breakfast etc, plus possibly a "random chance / quantum weirdness" component.

**Ben Kenobi** · January 18, 2003, 15:20

"An atheist can't prove that he has free-will any more than a theist can prove that God exists, so why is only the atheist the stupid one?"

Assuming both points are true Loinburger, what about Pascal's wager?

If the Christian is mistaken in his belief in God, he is still worm food, no different from the correct Atheist.

If the Christian is right, then the Christian is saved, while the Atheist is not.

Either way, the Christian will be no worse off then the atheist. Even assuming that religion belief and practice provide no physical benefits.

Jack-

"The child would not exist without their act of creation, and the mother's sacrifices in choosing to undergo pregnancy. The child owes its life to the parents."

True, but this does not confer the right to arbitrarily kill.
I guess a better way of putting it is do parents own their children? They are responsible for maintaining the health and welfare of the child, but they cannot claim ownership.

"the issue is whether the person deserves to die or not."

What criteria do you use? Does the unborn child meet the same criteria as Osama bin Laden?

"Great Sky Pixie"

This is actually not bad. It highlights the foolishness of Christians in the eyes of the worldly.

"In essence, the woman is the god of the fetus."

Boris-

Do you really believe this? The mother is also made in the image of God, the same as the unborn child. They are both creations of one Creator.

**DinoDoc** · January 18, 2003, 15:42

Originally posted by obiwan18
Assuming both points are true Loinburger, what about Pascal's wager?

Please don't use that again in any arguement. It is one of the absolute worst reasons to believe in God.

**loinburger** · January 18, 2003, 15:44

Originally posted by obiwan18
If the Christian is right, then the Christian is saved, while the Atheist is not.

If the Christian is wrong, and the Muslim (or Wiccan or Satanist etc.) is right, then the Christian is in the same post-humous boat as the Atheist.

If God will send the Atheist to Hell as punishment for making use of his God-given reasoning abilities, then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

If God rewards people for being intellectually dishonest ("I believe in God because that way I'm covering my bets" is a statement that does not denote belief at all, except perhaps a belief in God's inability to recognize our inner thoughts and motives), then that God is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

Either way, the Christian will be no worse off then the atheist. Even assuming that religion belief and practice provide no physical benefits.

If the Christian is intellectually honest in his beliefs, and if the Atheist is intellectually honest in his beliefs, then yes, the Christian is no worse off than the Atheist, but by the same token, the Atheist is no worse off than the Christian.

Beliefs are not something that can be changed on a whim. I can say "I believe in God" until I'm blue in the face, I can even go through the motions that externally denote religious belief (I could, say, profess to be a Christian, and go to church every Sunday, and take communion, etc.), but I still wouldn't (still couldn't) truly believe in God.

**Thud** · January 18, 2003, 15:52

I am:

A Green Republican!

A Reporter who doesn't like people reading his articles!

**Ben Kenobi** · January 18, 2003, 16:15

Dinodoc-

"Assuming the first two points are true.
An atheist can't prove that he has free-will any more than a theist can prove that God exists, "

Christianity does not work unless one can show that God exists with reasonable certainty.

"Beliefs are not something that can be changed on a whim. I can say "I believe in God" until I'm blue in the face, I can even go through the motions that externally denote religious belief (I could, say, profess to be a Christian, and go to church every Sunday, and take communion, etc.), but I still wouldn't (still couldn't) truly believe in God."

exactly, Loinburger

So let's stop wagering.

Why is Christianity right, but the others are wrong? Why should we believe Christians over all the other truth claims?

**Boris Godunov** · January 18, 2003, 16:49

Originally posted by obiwan18
"In essence, the woman is the god of the fetus."

Boris-

Do you really believe this? The mother is also made in the image of God, the same as the unborn child. They are both creations of one Creator.

In a universe where we assume God does not exist, then absolutely I believe this. As far as the fetus is concerned, the mother is a de facto "god" to it in such a universe. The fetus exists entirely inside the mother, it is totally dependent on the mother for everything.

In such a universe, the mother is the "creator," and by your logic under which a God can massacre his creations, so can a mother terminate the existence of the fetus. In fact, it's probably more moral for a woman to have an abortion than it is for a God to murder his living people, as the living people are at least sentient, conscious beings.

**Dauphin** · January 18, 2003, 16:51

Where does the father enter that analogy?

**loinburger** · January 18, 2003, 17:01

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why is Christianity right, but the others are wrong? Why should we believe Christians over all the other truth claims?

Heck if I know. Maybe because one billion Christians can't be wrong?

Announcement

People's Contradictory Beliefs?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment