Are atheists determinists?

[Chesterton]

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.

An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.

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

If you could predict such a complex thing as your opponent's rock-paper-scissors choice, what could possibly prevent your opponent from defying the prediction if you told him beforehand? There are no physics which could prevent him.

 

[VProud]

An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.



If you could predict such a complex thing as your opponent's rock-paper-scissors choice, what could possibly prevent your opponent from defying the prediction if you told him beforehand? There are no physics which could prevent him.

Incorrect. An Atheist can believe in free will.
The -only- criteria is that they cannot believe in a God-like being.

 

[jayem]

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.

Sure, but we're just giving free play to our imaginations here. How about this? If you could detect in advance the motor neuron circuitry resulting in the rock/paper/scissors hand shapes, and had time to act accordingly, you could always win. I'm not talking about discerning the player's decision to make a particular hand shape. But the final motor pathways which cause the fist to clench or the fingers to extend. That neural activity will be much the same, no matter what is motivating those actions.

 

[Paradoxum]

An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.

Why do you think a theist can, and an atheist can't?

If you could predict such a complex thing as your opponent's rock-paper-scissors choice, what could possibly prevent your opponent from defying the prediction if you told him beforehand? There are no physics which could prevent him.

If you told them, they might change their mind. Like if you type 'Y' into a computer, it could be programmed to display 'X'. Ie: a determined machine could be in such a state that it will always 'choose' a different letter than the one you tell it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

An atheist can believe in souls or lots of other things; just not free will.

Ridiculous, why on earth would atheists be limited in that way when the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Chesterton, unpredictability does not equate to libertarian free will. And your example certainly does nothing.

You have to try a little harder.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

While I am a naturalist, I am not a determinist.

I've noticed that determinism tends to rely on such intellectual frameworks as reductionism, event-event causation, and mind-body monism to give it its truthiness. I'm an emergentist, and I favor entity-action causation and a form of dual-aspect theory. As I see it, free will is something emergent and irreducible in a human being, just as consciousness is. I personally don't call this aspect of human existence a "soul" since it isn't an escape pod of personality, but whatever floats your boat.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

This entire thread is moot... quantum physics proves free will:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM

 

[Eudaimonist]

This entire thread is moot... quantum physics proves free will

No, unfortunately, that doesn't prove anything. At best, it shows that we aren't stuck in a Newtonian mechanistic universe, and so predictive determinism based on Newtonian principles is wrong.

I would love it if QM proves free will, but the case can't be made on that alone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

No, unfortunately, that doesn't prove anything. At best, it shows that we aren't stuck in a Newtonian mechanistic universe, and so predictive determinism based on Newtonian principles is wrong.

I would love it if QM proves free will, but the case can't be made on that alone.

I and Dr. Kaku disagree. QM proves a world based on percentages.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I and Dr. Kaku disagree. QM proves a world based on percentages.

I don't care if Dr. Kaku disagrees. He has made an error of reasoning. Percentages (or any randomness) do not prove free will. Indeed, random will is just as unfree as Newtonian will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

This entire thread is moot... quantum physics proves free will:

How does that prove free will? A lack of determinism doesn't prove free will... randomness isn't free will either.

 

[Chesterton]

Sure, but we're just giving free play to our imaginations here. How about this? If you could detect in advance the motor neuron circuitry resulting in the rock/paper/scissors hand shapes, and had time to act accordingly, you could always win. I'm not talking about discerning the player's decision to make a particular hand shape. But the final motor pathways which cause the fist to clench or the fingers to extend. That neural activity will be much the same, no matter what is motivating those actions.

But imagine additionally that you also had time to tell the opponent what he was going to do. You've then thrown a monkey wrench into the proceedings, that is free will. The opponent may do what his circuitry indicated (maybe he wants to lose intentionally), or he may choose to do otherwise.

 

[Chesterton]

Why do you think a theist can, and an atheist can't?

Because free will requires supernatural agency to impart it to humans. You can get only determinism from physical nature.

If you told them, they might change their mind. Like if you type 'Y' into a computer, it could be programmed to display 'X'. Ie: a determined machine could be in such a state that it will always 'choose' a different letter than the one you tell it.

You're right. They might change their mind. Not you, but they.

 

[Chesterton]

Ridiculous, why on earth would atheists be limited in that way when the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities?

Because a lack of belief in deities precludes the existence of will.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because free will requires supernatural agency to impart it to humans. You can get only determinism from physical nature.

How does supernatural power change anything?

You're right. They might change their mind. Not you, but they.

What's your point? Are you agreeing with me?

 

[True Scotsman]

Because free will requires supernatural agency to impart it to humans. You can get only determinism from physical nature.



You're right. They might change their mind. Not you, but they.

Hi Chesterton,

Could you explain to me why you believe that physical nature leads to determinism. I don't understand the cause of this belief. Thanks.

Robert

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I and Dr. Kaku disagree. QM proves a world based on percentages.

Years ago I heard him talk on that in an interview. It was very unconvincing.

Randomness, unpredictability or what have you does not make libertarian free will.

Me, I would say that the randomness and libertarian free will are indistinguishable from each other. But this is meant, and understood, as a counter argument.

 

[Freodin]

But imagine additionally that you also had time to tell the opponent what he was going to do. You've then thrown a monkey wrench into the proceedings, that is free will. The opponent may do what his circuitry indicated (maybe he wants to lose intentionally), or he may choose to do otherwise.

If determinism means that any event is directly caused by the existing circumstances prior to the event, then "telling the opponent what he was going to do" has to be included in this set of circumstances. The previous prediction did not include it, so it can not be used to determine the outcome.

But either way... determinism does not mean predictability.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?

You will be able to detect which guy is choosing numbers of his own free will because human beings fall into unconscious patterns and you can pick up on that pattern. The guys with copying numbers from a book or using truly random means (throwing dice?) will not have such patterns.

Hmmm. What does that tell us about free will?