Are atheists determinists?

[Rubiks]

Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale, (although you could play the quantum physics game, which still cant create a truly free agent) are the atheists on this board determinists?

This would seem to undermine the belief in naturalism if you were simply determined by physics to do so. Although you could still reason without freedom of the will, as in all the molecule luckily happen to cause the mind to follow the rules of logic, The belief in free will, I think, is a necessary foundational belief to do any scientific research whatsoever. The absence of free will, would undermine science itself.

This would also seem to eliminate the idea of any sort of moral obligations, as they require a person to be able to choose differently.

Last but not least, most Calvinists are not determinists in the usual sense. They have a compatiblistic view of freedom which is different from determinism.

Thoughts?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale, (although you could play the quantum physics game, which still cant create a truly free agent) are the atheists on this board determinists?

I'm a compatabilist.

This would seem to undermine the belief in naturalism if you were simply determined by physics to do so. Although you could still reason without freedom of the will, as in all the molecule luckily happen to cause the mind to follow the rules of logic, The belief in free will, I think, is a necessary foundational belief to do any scientific research whatsoever. The absence of free will, would undermine science itself.

How so?

This would also seem to eliminate the idea of any sort of moral obligations, as they require a person to be able to choose differently.

I think compatabilism fixes this.

 

[Paradoxum]

Atheists aren't necessarily anything other than non-theists. An atheist could believe in ghosts.

I believe in determinism though, and I don't think there's any free will. I don't think there's any room for free will even if the spiritual exists. Souls would still be determined. I rejected free will on the basis of thinking about the soul, and thoughts, not because of physical determinism.

What do you think is the problem with belief or science if there isn't free will. You even say yourself that we can reason without free will. A computer doesn't need free will to tell you that 2+2=4, and be correct.

You also don't need free will for moral action. You could question whether we can blame or praise people for doing the wrong or right thing though.

 

[bhsmte]

Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale, (although you could play the quantum physics game, which still cant create a truly free agent) are the atheists on this board determinists?

This would seem to undermine the belief in naturalism if you were simply determined by physics to do so. Although you could still reason without freedom of the will, as in all the molecule luckily happen to cause the mind to follow the rules of logic, The belief in free will, I think, is a necessary foundational belief to do any scientific research whatsoever. The absence of free will, would undermine science itself.

This would also seem to eliminate the idea of any sort of moral obligations, as they require a person to be able to choose differently.

Last but not least, most Calvinists are not determinists in the usual sense. They have a compatiblistic view of freedom which is different from determinism.

Thoughts?

Atheists come in all shapes and sizes.

 

[Freodin]

I am a determinist, and I don't see any of the problems that you perceive.

There are several problems though with the opposite position.

First of all, the existence of "free will" non-deterministic reality can not be shown.
"Free will" non-determinism assumes that, in a given situation, the outcome could have been different, the free agent could have acted differently.
But it wasn't, and it is impossible to get into the exactly same given situation to see if other outcomes would result.

Second, while a non-deterministic reality would be possible if you assume the existence of real random events, "free will" non-determinism doesn't offer a working mechanism.
"Free will" is not caused - that would mean determinism - but it is not uncaused (random) either. There is no potential explanation of how such a mechanism would work... it is just assumed that "it does".

 

[poolerboy0077]

I am a determinist, and I don't see any of the problems that you perceive.

Determinist? Bah! Next you'll be telling us you're one of them filthy atheists.

 

[Deidre32]

free will is just a religious way of saying 'choice.' we all have choices, and we make them every day...whether theist or atheist. i'm not void of 'free will' simply because i'm an atheist, now.

 

[variant]

Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale

I don't think this sentiment is accurate. There is plenty of room in QM for just about anything given that we only experience fundamental particles as vague probabilities.

I also think the ability to abstract given a consciousness frees the mind from strict determinism as you have the ability to see and react to relationships that aren't objectively there.

 

[fireof god98]

well according to newton physics there is determinism but of course the Heisenberg uncertainty came and we have learned that god does play dice with universe. so there is always a wild card. then again our our behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain rather than some mysterious soul so maybe we just obey the physical processes.

 

[VProud]

Consider this:
You have three boxes, in each is a tiny man, they write numbers on paper and pass said paper through a slit in the top of the box.

One is copying numbers out of a book .
The other is writing totally random numbers.
The other is choosing numbers using their own Freewill.

Now, here's the thing, not only is there absolutely no way of telling which man is inside which box by looking at the numbers they write - perhaps leading one to believe that all three things are fundamental the same, or at-least there is no meaningful difference -, there are a few interesting ideas:

-Where did the information in the book come from? Was it ultimately a product of free will or randomness? It seems logical that predetermination must be a result of one of those two.
-If the numbers writing by the man choosing them himself are of Free Will, then why is he writing them? Is that not just the predetermined product of his thought pattern, or is that not just randomness?
-What's the difference between the man writing them down randomly and the man using Free Will?

The terms 'Random' and 'Freewill' are some of the few terms that are not strictly defined. We have no idea what either of them really means.

What we can say is this: Weather Free Will does or does not exist, nothing changes.


Consider this also: I prefer tea over beer. (A lot.) So, If I am put in a room with a cup of each and told to drink one, I drink the tea, obviously.
Then do the same experiment, under the same conditions. I have no idea it has happened before, everything is EXACTLY the same. I will choose tea again.
I will never not choose tea. Is that not predetermination? I can choose which one to drink, but that's based on what I want, and I CANNOT choose what I want.

Furthermore, if Free Will is neither predetermined or random, what IS it? what causes it?

 

[Chany]

I'm a hard determinist. I might be a compatabilist, depending upon how you define free will, but I find that, in some cases, compatabilists drift between two different definitions of free will and take the consequences of both. The one definition of free will is that the agent has a will, and that the will is unrestricted by direct coercive forces (for example, the agent is not drugged or put under extreme duress), hence the agent has a free will that can do what it wants. I have no problem with this definition, as long as it is specified that the will itself is a product of prior causes and is not related to the second definition.

The second is the ability for an agent to rationally and purposefully choose an action between different options and behave a certain way as opposed to another, this choice being done in such a way as to have the agent itself be ultimately responsible for the decision. In other words, when an agent makes a choice, it could have done otherwise. The agent is personally responsible for its actions.

I reject this definition. There is no reason to hold that such a power exists or is even logically possible beyond wishful thinking. We have no way of showing that an agent could have done otherwise. No explanation of why we should suspend causality is given or even what we actually have free will over. The libertarian will try to make himself the default position, as that's the only way he has an argument.

I could go on, but its honestly best explained this way:

Think of something that you would consider a free decision. Ask yourself the question: why? Why did this person choose option X and not option Y? For example, why did John decide to buy a motorcycle over a car after he thought about it for a week? When you found a reason, ask why things are that way. To continue the example, suppose you find that John really likes motorcycles and always wanted one; its been a dream of his. Ask the question "why does John really like motorcycles?" Continue this, and you'll eventually arrive at one of two options. Either:

1. The causal chain leads back to something entirely outside the agent's control, i.e. an outside and prior cause.

2. The causal chain leads back to something entirely random and outside the agent's control, i.e. quantum mechanics.

Your argument for science pretty much goes into hard solipsism. In a sense, you are correct. Our beliefs, thoughts, and actions are ultimately produced; we have no control, as we ourselves are nothing more than the product of prior causes. However, if you want to argue that I can't reasonably trust my senses, we might as well go the full ten yards and just say that reality might be an illusion, therefore, we can't say anything is true. The reason we can trust our senses is that inaccurate senses perish, while accurate senses survive. If someone does not have passable senses and a proper mind to process and discern proper action, then they will not survive.

Science (and really, any valid logical process) has a built-in mechanism of peer review. There are other people around to help make up for the things an individual lacks. Is it perfect? No. But it works, and it's gotten us this far.

On morality- personal moral responsibility does not exist. Morality may exist and we may still rationally strive to fulfill it, but not personally responsibility. The moral obligations are ultimately socially and psychologically driven; they don't exist as things in reality.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale, (although you could play the quantum physics game, which still cant create a truly free agent) are the atheists on this board determinists?

I don't see any room for libertarian free will with God, or if you will outside of naturalism, either. Just a God-of-the-Gaps gambit.

 

[jayem]

I'm a naturalist, and I see it like this:

There is no absolute free will, since the exact same set of circumstances in every respect will always produce exactly the same results.

But there is relative free will, which for all practical purposes, is quite expansive. Since the chance of exactly the same set of cirucmstances in every respect occurring at two different times is vanishingly small.

 

[Chesterton]

Atheists have to be determinists. They have no choice.

As for me, I'll stop believing in free will when someone develops a winning strategy for the game of rock-paper-scissors.

 

[jayem]

Atheists have to be determinists. They have no choice.

As for me, I'll stop believing in free will when someone develops a winning strategy for the game of rock-paper-scissors.

Imagining a strategy is easy. If you could control someone's motor cortex you could direct exactly what hand shape he will exhibit. And then you can win every round. But executing the strategy...not so easy.

BTW: If you believe in free will, this doesn't obviate it. You just supercede someone else's will with your own.

 

[Loudmouth]

. . . are the atheists on this board determinists?

When we feel like it.

This would seem to undermine the belief in naturalism if you were simply determined by physics to do so.

You would first need to show that physics is deterministic. For example, you would need to show why two identical photons have different paths after going through a double slit.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If nature is deterministic, then shouldn't they all hit the same spot?

Although you could still reason without freedom of the will, as in all the molecule luckily happen to cause the mind to follow the rules of logic, The belief in free will, I think, is a necessary foundational belief to do any scientific research whatsoever. The absence of free will, would undermine science itself.

Could you explain your conclusions? They seem to come out of nowhere. Why can't a universe be both deterministic and logical?

This would also seem to eliminate the idea of any sort of moral obligations, as they require a person to be able to choose differently.

Determinism would make us into robots, but then so too does blindly following the edicts of a deity.

Last but not least, most Calvinists are not determinists in the usual sense. They have a compatiblistic view of freedom which is different from determinism.

So how are they different?

 

[True Scotsman]

Considering the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, and considering naturalism doesn't leave much room for free will if people are just molecules reacting on a larger scale, (although you could play the quantum physics game, which still cant create a truly free agent) are the atheists on this board determinists?

This would seem to undermine the belief in naturalism if you were simply determined by physics to do so. Although you could still reason without freedom of the will, as in all the molecule luckily happen to cause the mind to follow the rules of logic, The belief in free will, I think, is a necessary foundational belief to do any scientific research whatsoever. The absence of free will, would undermine science itself.

This would also seem to eliminate the idea of any sort of moral obligations, as they require a person to be able to choose differently.

Last but not least, most Calvinists are not determinists in the usual sense. They have a compatiblistic view of freedom which is different from determinism.

Thoughts?

I'm not.

 

[Chesterton]

Imagining a strategy is easy. If you could control someone's motor cortex you could direct exactly what hand shape he will exhibit. And then you can win every round. But executing the strategy...not so easy.

BTW: If you believe in free will, this doesn't obviate it. You just supercede someone else's will with your own.

We're talking about functioning human beings. Of course I can outrun a motor vehicle if I disable it first, say by removing the motor.

 

[Paradoxum]

Atheists have to be determinists. They have no choice.

They don't have to be. An atheist might believe in a soul. Though in my opinion free will is still impossible with a soul.

As for me, I'll stop believing in free will when someone develops a winning strategy for the game of rock-paper-scissors.

Not being able to predict complex things isn't a good reason to believe in free will.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I personally am not a determinist, and I honestly wouldn't have thought many atheists were.