Are atheists determinists?

[Chesterton]

No, it doesn't. A deity does not have to exist for free will to exist, that makes 0 sense.

Can you explain?

 

[Chesterton]

That is excessively reductionistic, IMV.

It's like saying that watch gears can't tell time, therefore watches can't tell time.

Your critique might not be bad for reductive materialists such as Karl Marx and his followers, but is outdated and inappropriate now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What has replaced this reductionist view?

 

[Chesterton]

At some point, you have to stop, or you won't have a "decision". So there is no infinite progression.

Depends on who stops first. The last decision can always confound the last prediction, can't it? But the last prediction can never be tested without a last decision.

Well, yes, in theory is says that you could predict the outcome.
But I assert that, in order to correctly predict the outcome of a complex and chaotic system, you need the complete amount of information that the original system contains.
As the only way to do this is to be equal or greater than the original system, it is not possible for anything within the original system (e.g. a human being) to do that.

I agree.

That is incorrect. A complex system is more than the sum of its parts. Don't assume that everyone else thinks as reductionist as you do.

So if atoms are arranged in really, really complex ways they somehow eventually start choosing and deciding how to act, in defiance of their own physical laws?

Take, for example, a simple sieve. A sieve is made of atoms, atoms cannot measure, atoms cannot decide... but still a sieve let pass only grains under a certain size. How does it do that? How does it know? It's magic! Or supernatural! Or divine!
It isn't. It is an emergent property of the system of atoms making up the sieve.

In a similar way, the more complex system of the atoms that make up "the human being" is capable of making more complex decisions.

I know you're not saying that sieves make decisions, so I really don't know what you're saying here. I don't see the relevance.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What has replaced this reductionist view?

I wouldn't say that reductionism has been completely replaced, but there is a growing number of people who reject reductionism. Their views, when made explicit, are probably forms of emergentism, thought there may be other options.

Wikipedia:
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and as it contrasts (or not) with reductionism. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is in some sense more than the "sum" of the properties of the system's parts. An emergent property is said to be dependent on some more basic properties (and their relationships and configuration), so that it can have no separate existence. However, a degree of independence is also asserted of emergent properties, so that they are not identical to, or reducible to, or predictable from, or deducible from their bases.

The reason your argument falls flat on its face for me is that it is clearly a form of reductionism. I have no good reason to be a reductionist. When it comes to the mind-body relation, I favor a form of strong emergentism coupled with dual-aspect theory, and that includes such ideas as supervenience and downward causation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Depends on who stops first. The last decision can always confound the last prediction, can't it? But the last prediction can never be tested without a last decision.

Every "last" prediction is made in a situation where this prediction is not know to the decider. Giving him this knowledge changes the situation where the prediction was made.

But all of that is quite irrelevant, seeing that you agreed with me on my assertion what is necessary to make such a prediction at all.

So if atoms are arranged in really, really complex ways they somehow eventually start choosing and deciding how to act, in defiance of their own physical laws?

No. If atoms are arranged in a really, really special way (which happens to be rather complex) the whole system they make up start choosing and deciding how to act. The individual atoms do not change, do not decide, do not chose... and do not defy any physical laws.

I know you're not saying that sieves make decisions, so I really don't know what you're saying here. I don't see the relevance.

Please explain what you think is the difference between what the sieve does and "a decision". Then we can talk about my position on the ability of sieves to make decisions.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now we just need to figure out a way to force people to believe in free will.

I think our brains are predestined to believe in it - our conscious mind is pretty good at telling us "we" are in charge.

Just don't look too closely at the research which shows that it is lying to us in many cases.

 

[KCfromNC]

A belief in only physical nature has to lead to determinism. Our brains are made of atoms which follow physical laws, and don't make decisions, therefore we cannot make decisions.

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KCfromNC]

A brain is simply atoms, no matter how complex the arrangement is. You could create the most vast and complex array of dominos set up to knock each other down, or a Rube Goldberg type machine, and you could fill the entire universe with it, but you will never get an ounce of will or decision-making from it. You'd just get dominos striking dominos according to physical laws.

This assumes will and decision making is something more than just an ordinary physical system doing what it does. Why make that assumption?

 

[True Scotsman]

A brain is simply atoms, no matter how complex the arrangement is. You could create the most vast and complex array of dominos set up to knock each other down, or a Rube Goldberg type machine, and you could fill the entire universe with it, but you will never get an ounce of will or decision-making from it. You'd just get dominos striking dominos according to physical laws.



I personally dont have that view, but I see no way a naturalist/materialist can have any other view.

I disagree. I do see a way. Man's conceptual faculty does not act automatically like digestion or the endocrine system. The connections of logic aren't made automatically. The locus of free will lies in this fact. We must choose to think. Nothing forces us to. That is the fundamental choice we face, to think or to evade thinking. I think this argument is just another example of question begging.

The fact that man's actions are caused does not make them determined. We choose the reasons behind our actions.

The fact that we have free will is directly observable.

 

[Paradoxum]

No, because I'm not trying to explain will. I'm just trying to explain why atheists cannot believe in it.

I don't think theists can believe in it either.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think theists can believe in it either.

You have a point in that substance dualism (the view of most theists?) does not necessarily solve any problems in explaining free will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[True Scotsman]

Chesterton,

You have asserted several times throughout this thread that free will or volitional consciousness must be caused by a supernatural agent and can't be caused by natural processes. I'd like to argue that this view is false and I'd really like to have you interact with my argument.

Simply put, your assertion is false because it contradicts the primacy of existence principle.

Here's how. Consciousness exists, we know this. It is perceptually self evident as is the fact that man has a volitional consciousness. This too is directly observable through introspection. You may argue that some scientists say that this is just an illusion but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether free will is handed down from a supernatural agent.

Like all things that exist consciousness possesses a specific set of attributes or an identity. It exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's conscious wishes, demands, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, preferences or fondest desires. Consciousness is a fact of reality. This is the principle of the primacy of existence.

When you claim that this attribute, volition, comes from a supernatural agent presumably this agent would itself be conscious and would grant this, I think you called it magic, through an act of conscious will. So you are saying that our consciousness is not what it is independently of anyone's consciousness but because of someone's consciousness. This clearly and performatively affirms the primacy of consciousness principle which states that things do not exist independently of consciousness but are dependent on it for their identity.

The primacy of existence is undeniably true. In fact it must be true even to deny it. It is implicit in all knowledge claims. As soon as you say "it is", just that, you have affirmed its truth because to say something is is to say it is independent of anyone's conscious action. It is whether you believe it or not.

You can test this any time and any place. Simply pick any item in your vicinity and think of it being made of solid gold. No matter how much you wish or plead or stamp your feet it will not turn to gold because existence exists independent of conscious action, anyone's. If even one consciousness holds primacy over existence then existence does not have primacy, consciousness does. Every observation of reality confirms this principle. There are no examples of a consciousness which holds primacy over its objects, whether Human or Frog or Fish or Fowl. None. Now we can imagine a consciousness that holds primacy over its objects but that is the only way we can "perceive" such a thing. We can not see it by looking outward at reality.

Any claim which contradicts this fact of reality, that existence holds primacy, is false. Clearly the claim that our free will comes from a god contradicts this and therefore is false. And it is false regardless of anyone's fondest wishes.

I have brought this issue up countless times with theists and have yet to have one make any attempt to refute it. Maybe you can be the first.

Thanks,

Robert

 

[fireof god98]

Chesterton,

You have asserted several times throughout this thread that free will or volitional consciousness must be caused by a supernatural agent and can't be caused by natural processes. I'd like to argue that this view is false and I'd really like to have you interact with my argument.

Simply put, your assertion is false because it contradicts the primacy of existence principle.

Here's how. Consciousness exists, we know this. It is perceptually self evident as is the fact that man has a volitional consciousness. This too is directly observable through introspection. You may argue that some scientists say that this is just an illusion but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether free will is handed down from a supernatural agent.

Like all things that exist consciousness possesses a specific set of attributes or an identity. It exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's conscious wishes, demands, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, preferences or fondest desires. Consciousness is a fact of reality. This is the principle of the primacy of existence.

When you claim that this attribute, volition, comes from a supernatural agent presumably this agent would itself be conscious and would grant this, I think you called it magic, through an act of conscious will. So you are saying that our consciousness is not what it is independently of anyone's consciousness but because of someone's consciousness. This clearly and performatively affirms the primacy of consciousness principle which states that things do not exist independently of consciousness but are dependent on it for their identity.

The primacy of existence is undeniably true. In fact it must be true even to deny it. It is implicit in all knowledge claims. As soon as you say "it is", just that, you have affirmed its truth because to say something is is to say it is independent of anyone's conscious action. It is whether you believe it or not.

You can test this any time and any place. Simply pick any item in your vicinity and think of it being made of solid gold. No matter how much you wish or plead or stamp your feet it will not turn to gold because existence exists independent of conscious action, anyone's. If even one consciousness holds primacy over existence then existence does not have primacy, consciousness does. Every observation of reality confirms this principle. There are no examples of a consciousness which holds primacy over its objects, whether Human or Frog or Fish or Fowl. None. Now we can imagine a consciousness that holds primacy over its objects but that is the only way we can "perceive" such a thing. We can not see it by looking outward at reality.

Any claim which contradicts this fact of reality, that existence holds primacy, is false. Clearly the claim that our free will comes from a god contradicts this and therefore is false. And it is false regardless of anyone's fondest wishes.

I have brought this issue up countless times with theists and have yet to have one make any attempt to refute it. Maybe you can be the first.

Thanks,

Robert

Dustin Segers tried his best

 

[True Scotsman]

Dustin Segers tried his best

Yes and he failed miserably. I have seen others try but I have never personally had any try and refute the argument from primacy in a discussion with me. Every theist I've ever discussed the issue with was totally unaware it even is an issue.

 

[Paradoxum]

You have a point in that substance dualism (the view of most theists?) does not necessarily solve any problems in explaining free will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'd think that a spiritual soul would still make decisions either for reasons (determinism) or it's just random. I don't know what other option there is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Chesterton,

You have asserted several times throughout this thread that free will or volitional consciousness must be caused by a supernatural agent and can't be caused by natural processes. I'd like to argue that this view is false and I'd really like to have you interact with my argument.

Simply put, your assertion is false because it contradicts the primacy of existence principle.

Here's how. Consciousness exists, we know this. It is perceptually self evident as is the fact that man has a volitional consciousness. This too is directly observable through introspection. You may argue that some scientists say that this is just an illusion but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether free will is handed down from a supernatural agent.

Like all things that exist consciousness possesses a specific set of attributes or an identity. It exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's conscious wishes, demands, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, preferences or fondest desires. Consciousness is a fact of reality. This is the principle of the primacy of existence.

When you claim that this attribute, volition, comes from a supernatural agent presumably this agent would itself be conscious and would grant this, I think you called it magic, through an act of conscious will. So you are saying that our consciousness is not what it is independently of anyone's consciousness but because of someone's consciousness. This clearly and performatively affirms the primacy of consciousness principle which states that things do not exist independently of consciousness but are dependent on it for their identity.

The primacy of existence is undeniably true. In fact it must be true even to deny it. It is implicit in all knowledge claims. As soon as you say "it is", just that, you have affirmed its truth because to say something is is to say it is independent of anyone's conscious action. It is whether you believe it or not.

You can test this any time and any place. Simply pick any item in your vicinity and think of it being made of solid gold. No matter how much you wish or plead or stamp your feet it will not turn to gold because existence exists independent of conscious action, anyone's. If even one consciousness holds primacy over existence then existence does not have primacy, consciousness does. Every observation of reality confirms this principle. There are no examples of a consciousness which holds primacy over its objects, whether Human or Frog or Fish or Fowl. None. Now we can imagine a consciousness that holds primacy over its objects but that is the only way we can "perceive" such a thing. We can not see it by looking outward at reality.

Any claim which contradicts this fact of reality, that existence holds primacy, is false. Clearly the claim that our free will comes from a god contradicts this and therefore is false. And it is false regardless of anyone's fondest wishes.

I have brought this issue up countless times with theists and have yet to have one make any attempt to refute it. Maybe you can be the first.

Thanks,

Robert

Please review for me how a consciousness should be expected to have an influence on the physical world. Isn't that merely an unwarranted assumption?

 

[True Scotsman]

Please review for me how a consciousness should be expected to have an influence on the physical world. Isn't that merely an unwarranted assumption?

Yes it is a completely unwarranted assumption but that is what Chesterton is asserting in claiming that free will or the volitional nature of our consciousness is endowed by a supernatural agent and can not be a product of natural processes.

He asserted that we atheists must believe in determinism because a volitional consciousness can't exist without a supernatural source, which presumably he thinks is conscious and exercises conscious control of the objects of its consciousness. My argument is meant to show that what he is suggesting is impossible. So if man has free will it is not because of any supernatural consciousness endowing him with it.

Do you deny that your God belief explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness over existence?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes it is a completely unwarranted assumption but that is what Chesterton is asserting in claiming that free will or the volitional nature of our consciousness is endowed by a supernatural agent and can not be a product of natural processes.

He asserted that we atheists must believe in determinism because a volitional consciousness can't exist without a supernatural source, which presumably he thinks is conscious and exercises conscious control of the objects of its consciousness. My argument is meant to show that what he is suggesting is impossible. So if man has free will it is not because of any supernatural consciousness endowing him with it.

Do you deny that your God belief explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness over existence?

My God belief doesn't tell me what consciousness is. I go with the working assumption that my consciousness is an emergent phenomenon based on adequate memory and sensory information and processing power to form an idea of the external world including a model of myself as part of that world including myself having a model of the world within myself.

I take it that this situation is at least a part of what is meant by the expression we are made in the image of God.

My faith in my immortality thanks to God depends on God's love for me being enough to retain my cognitive pattern in His mind and allow it to continue.

 

[fireof god98]

Yes and he failed miserably. I have seen others try but I have never personally had any try and refute the argument from primacy in a discussion with me. Every theist I've ever discussed the issue with was totally unaware it even is an issue.

to be honest,i think may Christians don't even dare question their faith at all

 

[True Scotsman]

to be honest,i think may Christians don't even dare question their faith at all

Many don't and I have gotten the impression over the years that many don't actually understand the arguments they present. I think they take them on faith. They've been told that the argument proves god and so when you point out that the argument commits a fallacy it doesn't even register. At least that's been my experience.

Another thing I've noticed is that they avoid talking about fundamentals of their world view. They want to move the discussion away from fundamentals such as the issue of primacy and focus on concretes. I try to keep the conversation on essential principles because most don't know the essentials of their world view. They take them completely for granted. That has been my personal experience.