Atheist friend says: "There is no free will, we are domino's"

[FractalFire]

Your friend’s statement goes along with the atheist materialist ideal that humans can be controlled easily because they can not think for themselves. This philosophy is used in communist states to control the masses. This is why the New World Order is so successful at brainwashing the masses.

A fair point. Many people who believe in such philosophies like to point to it as the reason why *other *people don’t agree with *them *(failing of course, to see that it also cuts against their own beliefs). Atheists in particular like to come up with deterministic reasons as to why Christianity exists. It “evolved,” people have a “religion gene,” it’s a byproduct of this or that psychological phenomenon, etc. Atheism, naturally, has no such problems. It’s rather funny to watch sometimes, albeit in a depressing way.

 

[Gorgias]

At the time of the marriage, did both parties freely accept the lifelong commitment they were making. Was there consent a free choice or did outside circumstances mean that their choice was not a result, at least partially, of a free will decision? Defect in the consent exchanged between the partners is a major reason given for requesting a marriage annulment.

Not sure what you’re asserting – are you trying to say that ‘defect of consent’ implies ‘lack of free will’?

 

[Tomdstone]

Not sure what you’re asserting – are you trying to say that ‘defect of consent’ implies ‘lack of free will’?

External circumstances may be invoked to contend that their choice was not a result, at least partially, of a free will decision.

 

[Bradski]

I have no doubt whatsoever that we are conditioned by our upbringing. My attitudes as a healthy English speaking male in a relatively prosperous western society in the twenty first century are completely different to what they would be if I were the same person born into a slum in the first century.

I also have no doubt that if I had exactly the same genetic make-up as a serial killer and was brought in exactly the same way, then I would do exactly as he would. I would, in effect, be that person.

So if I would have no choice but to do what he did, then does it make any sense to say that he had a choice?

Some people have physical problems with the structure of their brain that causes them to act in a way that they wouldn’t do had they not had the problem. We don’t blame people for having epilepsy or Tourettes. So if a killer was found to have a brain tumour that affected him to such an extent that he had no choice but to kill, could we blame him for it? At the very least we could argue that there were extenuating circumstances.

So if a person is brought up in a particular way and has a brain that is wired in such a way as to give him a tendency to violence, is it his fault?

I am beginning to think that it isn’t. But then, how do a portion blame? We can’t shrug and move on. There is a need for punishment in the form of retribution. I’m not sure how justified that can be.

 

[MyVavies]

I hate to say it, that most of what you guys said I said too. And my friends replied was that of Bradski . Atheist flaunt the fact that they believe we have no choice in “bad” behavior nor really care. That they indeed see others acts are mere reflections of previous actions and choices. Like a circular pattern that gets deeply more ingrained as they repeat it. And I put ‘bad’ in quotes, because they say that depending on that specific society , is what is determinant something “good” or “bad”. That kidnapping in some Asian countries are determined a rite of passage to marriage. But in the USA, it’s not just a law broken but an act of sin.

I wanted to understand him by an example. I said " is a rape just something that happened? That it wasn’t the rapist fault. That he was condition to make that choice". He said " even though it was a horrid act, the answer is yes, that most people are not conditioned to do such a thing". AND I want to clarify that my friend is NOT a psycho/social-path. That he is indeed just a confused soul that still does deep acts of charity towards others. And I say this with hatred towards him in my heart right now!

And to you Trident H, he would say that sobriety was something that was set in your path due to the path of others. That your “choice” to go relapse or not because of this information now, was already programmed in you because of your past knowledge, feelings, and interactions/conversations/opinions with yourself and others.

I hope someone can simply explain what it is I say to something like that.
Janine

 

[Gorgias]

External circumstances may be invoked to contend that their choice was not a result, at least partially, of a free will decision.

Fair enough. Yet, the assertion that “this one particular decision did not exhibit an exercise of free will” does not prove “there is no free will”…

 

[Bradski]

I hate to say it, that most of what you guys said I said too. And my friends replied was that of Bradski . Atheist flaunt the fact that they believe we have no choice in “bad” behavior nor really care.

Atheists flaunt the fact? And we don’t care? What a nonsensical thing to say.

I certainly do care if someone does something bad. If someone were to harm my family then I would demand retribution, the same as anyone would. But that does not detract from what I said in the earlier post.

The extent to which we can blame someone for their actions is unclear to me. And believe me, it’s not a comfortable position to hold. It does trouble me.

If you were me, then you would make exactly the same decisions as I would. It is nonsensical to suggest otherwise. And if we could rerun our lives, then we would make the same decisions every time. If that were not the case, then the decisions that we do make would appear to be arbitrary. Nothing more than a spin of a coin would decide if we had eggs or cereal for breakfast, if we chose a particular career path, if we got married to a particular person.

If you think you would make different decisions, then on what basis would you do so? Literaly everything would be exactly the same including the facts you used in the internal debate you had before coming to a decision.

If free will exists then surely, if you reran the film, you would make different decisions. And that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Gorgias]

I have no doubt whatsoever that we are conditioned by our upbringing. My attitudes as a healthy English speaking male in a relatively prosperous western society in the twenty first century are completely different to what they would be if I were the same person born into a slum in the first century.

Conditioned? Without a doubt. Yet, ‘conditioning’ isn’t deterministic. After all, your ‘attitudes’ might tend to move you in a particular direction, but do not force you to act in a particular way.

I also have no doubt that if I had exactly the same genetic make-up as a serial killer and was brought in exactly the same way, then I would do exactly as he would. I would, in effect, be that person.

That seems to be quite firmly deterministic. If you were to claim that, in 9 out of 10, or 99 out of 100, or even 999 out of 1000 trials, the behavior would be identical, your claim might be more reasonable. But, without any other evidence than your lack of doubt, your claims of determinism are rather weak.

So if I would have no choice but to do what he did, then does it make any sense to say that he had a choice?

You’ve moved from an unsubstantiated assertion of identical behavior to a conclusion of “hav(ing) no choice”, and from there, a conclusion of lack of free will. It’s a neat trick, but hardly rational, and not at all convincing.

Some people have physical problems with the structure of their brain that causes them to act in a way that they wouldn’t do had they not had the problem.

Aah, but that’s a question of physical handicap, not of free will. You might as well attempt to prove that free will doesn’t exist because dead people don’t will themselves to rise from the grave…

We don’t blame people for having epilepsy or Tourettes. So if a killer was found to have a brain tumour that affected him to such an extent that he had no choice but to kill, could we blame him for it?

No, but then again, we wouldn’t use that example as proof that we ourselves have no free will.

So if a person is brought up in a particular way and has a brain that is wired in such a way as to give him a tendency to violence, is it his fault?

You’re describing “mitigating circumstances” and “complicity” in the commission of a crime. Both are reasonable discussions, but neither touches upon the existence of free will, per se. Would you conclude that people don’t have limbs, based on an examination of quadruple amputees? Of course not. Then why claim there’s no free will, simply based on a discussion of those exceptional cases of people who seem less able to choose in ways that we would choose?

 

[Gorgias]

If you were me, then you would make exactly the same decisions as I would. It is nonsensical to suggest otherwise. And if we could rerun our lives, then we would make the same decisions every time.

That presupposes determinism. Beg the question much, do you?

If that were not the case, then the decisions that we do make would appear to be arbitrary.

Not arbitrary; just not deterministic.

Nothing more than a spin of a coin would decide if we had eggs or cereal for breakfast, if we chose a particular career path, if we got married to a particular person.

If we weren’t rational, I’d agree. But, the claim is that this isn’t merely a computer simulation in some cosmic central processor, and our choices aren’t simply the result of some random number generator’s results. To make the claim you’re making, you’re going to have to do better than presuppose determinism or arbitrariness; you’re going to have to demonstrate it’s true.

If you think you would make different decisions, then on what basis would you do so?

I’m presuming you’re a careful writer – that is, that you read and re-read and edit your posts before you hit “submit”. If that’s the case, then on what basis do you make stylistic changes to your posts? On what basis did you write what you wrote in your first draft, and on what basis did you revise your post? In the face of your choice of words and phrases and arguments, it gets more and more difficult to argue for ‘arbitrary’ choices or ‘identical results’.

If free will exists then surely, if you reran the film, you would make different decisions. And that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I’ll wait to hear your conclusion about your editorial choices. I’m guessing that your discussion of editing makes plenty of sense… and in being sensible, it harms your argument.

 

[MyVavies]

If I push you and make you bump into a passer-by, (thereby hurting them,) have you done something immoral? Have you sinned?

Obviously no. Right?

Sin has to be deliberate. A freely chosen decision.

But if there’s no free will - autonomy - then there’s no sin. No culpability. No immorality. No mens rea

Ask your friend what we “ought” to do with pedophiles, rapists, murderers…if they aren’t responsible for their actions? Are they born that way? (Like gay people)

He would say, as that persons character builds through repetition of patterns and the break of those patterns due to others interference, that person would need to break such behavior and need to be not “punished” but “rehabilitated”. We are never fulling growing and changing until death.

 

[FractalFire]

He would say, as that persons character builds through repetition of patterns and the break of those patterns due to others interference, that person would need to break such behavior and need to be not “punished” but “rehabilitated”. We are never fulling growing and changing until death.

Rehabilitated. What a horrible standard of justice. When the point is to cure and not to meet out punishment equal to crime, then this allows people to “cure” more than is just in order to bring about a good society. If he brings this up again, show him C. S. Lewis’ essay on the “Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.” A good version can be found here youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

 

[MyVavies]

Given the biological, social and psychological make up that is the context of our lives, we give shape to who we are through our choices.

We can respond to the friend’s statements in different ways, and there will be some good philosophical arguments presented here.

Another approach would involve trying to understand the intention of the person.
Your friend has chosen (or in his view, has had thrust upon him) his particular understanding of our destiny (fate).
We can assume that he is taking that position for personal reasons.
He may feel trapped in a life that is too far removed from his dreams.
Underlying feelings of jealousy, resentment about not getting what he wants or feels he deserves in life can turn such a discussion into a fist fight, if a bit of alcohol is thrown into the mix. Especially, if on the other side, the person has known injustice.
The attitude might also be an attempt to assuage guilt, to justify one’s lack of accomplishment.
There’s a anger, sadness and bitterness that can come from a lack of intimacy. Sometimes it is a reaction to loneliness.
Having a spouse and trying to make it work, will in most cases cure one of any such attitude. I’m not talking about tolerance, which seeks to understand and leaves it as that, but of love. To care about someone involves taking them as they are, with their faults and in the recognition that they do what they do because they have chosen to do so. It can really hurt. Love respects the person and their choices.
I am thinking that a view that people are programmed to behave in set ways would be tied to a manipulative approach to life. Since a request will not get others to do what you want, you can make them by adjusting the circumstances.

I would take it as an opportunity to get to know the friend.
Puts on Dr Phil hat. :tiphat:
That said, if it was found that this was only as deep as a desire to argue, my interest level would plummet.

I believe that is true to most Atheist! (shout out to Bradki!) They appear cocky, self center, and extremely unhappy. Always seeking something… that one something… ( AKA God!)

However, this is not the case. This person is fully approachable. They seem kind and at peace like how saints do. ( I excel at reading others, so just trust me !) This is what is scary. Most times I just cough it up as what you said ,Aloysium, and focus my energy and time on other things that need my attention. And his demeanor put all to a halt. This person has legit answers and appears to not want to be proven wrong like most Atheist,but rather embraces these facts he presents to me.

So, I stick to the facts. I only bring to the table things that are more based on proof then faith.

 

[FractalFire]

I certainly do care if someone does something bad. If someone were to harm my family then I would demand retribution, the same as anyone would. But that does not detract from what I said in the earlier post.

How exactly does one get to the concept of “bad” in a worldview without free will? That seems to imply that one “ought” to have done something else, when in reality no one could not do anything else. You undercut the very rational for this sentence. Even your own arbitrary feeling about what “bad” is would not be under your own control (if any “you” as classically understood exists in such a philosophy). Surely you agree that if a man was physically forced (or even blackmailed) into doing something wrong (say, murder) then that mitigates his wrongdoing. Why then do we punish anyone?

You also seem to hold to the position that certain moralities are better than others. You believe that your moral code is objectively better than some other moral codes espoused by people on this website (on matters like gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and you have on occasion attempted to bring us around to this view. Yet to do that presumes that we have the free will to choose the correct code! There is still another problem though. By stating that your code is morally better, you essentially hold that there is some standard, some “true morality” that it conforms to. If there is no such true morality, then our codes are equally “good” – or perhaps merely irrelevant, since under that view, no actual “good” could exist. You like abortion, I don’t. We don’t like executing wives when their husbands are buried; the Indians felt it was fine. By what standard do you judge this? How can there be a true morality in a world in which there is no free will (or in a fully materialistic world in general, for that matter)?

You seem to me to have cut away any logical foundation for objective morality and yet hold to it with all of your being (to your credit – but only if morality actually exists ).

 

[Bradski]

I’m presuming you’re a careful writer – that is, that you read and re-read and edit your posts before you hit “submit”. If that’s the case, then on what basis do you make stylistic changes to your posts? On what basis did you write what you wrote in your first draft, and on what basis did you revise your post? In the face of your choice of words and phrases and arguments, it gets more and more difficult to argue for ‘arbitrary’ choices or ‘identical results’.

A lot to reply to, but limited time (you won’t believe how many important games are being televised in succession shortly - can’t afford to miss any of them).

But a quick response to the above. Which is not an answer to my question which I’d like you to respond on what basis would you choose differently if the film was rerun).

As to my actions , editing a post, having eggs instead of cereal, I can’t see me doing anything differently if I had exactly the same set of circumstances. It semester facile to say: ‘well, we COULD have chosen differently’.

If that is the case, then what would have changed to make that happen? In reality, you only have one set of circumstances. There is only one ‘you’. There is only one choice made.

 

[Gorgias]

A lot to reply to, but limited time (you won’t believe how many important games are being televised in succession shortly - can’t afford to miss any of them).

LOL! Wait – are you telling me that you’re making a free will choice to watch football over posting on CAF?!?

But a quick response to the above. Which is not an answer to my question which I’d like you to respond on what basis would you choose differently if the film was rerun).

As to my actions , editing a post, having eggs instead of cereal, I can’t see me doing anything differently if I had exactly the same set of circumstances.

And yet, as it turns out, the answer is the same for both situations, it seems: you think of what you want to write – making a free will choice to write it (although your choice is influenced by who you are and your experiences to date) – and then, after seeing it on the screen, you decide to change it. A different word here, and a semicolon there, and the deletion of a sentence there. I’m not saying that you “could have chosen differently” – I’m pointing to the very real experience of writing on a forum: without other influences or changes in who you are or what you’ve experienced – in the space of the amount of time it takes to hit “preview post” and have the post appear on-screen – you make a free-will choice not just to post, but to modify the results of a previous free-will choice!

Perhaps you wish to say, “I can’t see me doing anything differently”… but the fact is that you act out the epitome of ‘free will choices’ each and every time you post on CAF. :sad_yes:

It semester facile to say: ‘well, we COULD have chosen differently’.

And yet, that’s precisely not what I’m claiming: I’m claiming that you yourself know that you DO choose differently, in the context of your posts here.

If that is the case, then what would have changed to make that happen?

This is precisely the point: you have made one choice in one circumstance, and a minute later, freely made a different choice.

(You want to ask us to quantify – in material terms – what changed. Yet, that’s immaterial. We’re only discussing whether there’s free will. The question of how free will works is a completely different one, and isn’t up for consideration at the moment. You’re making the claim that “chocolate ice cream doesn’t exist”. Our rebuttal doesn’t have to tell you how to make chocolate ice cream… rather, it just has to demonstrate its existence. )

In reality, you only have one set of circumstances. There is only one ‘you’. There is only one choice made.

And yet, we see that this is precisely not the case.

 

[djames99]

I also have no doubt that if I had exactly the same genetic make-up as a serial killer and was brought in exactly the same way…

We are not alone in our choice making. Depending on how much we respond to God trying to communicate to us, we are graced with a better conscious to help us discern right from wrong. This explains the differing paths. It may be enough to tip the scale and have one not respond to evil acts, to not mirror the life of another. This opens the door to more graces and it makes one more able to surmount the powerful influences in one’s life.

God continuously works within us too if we allow him. What deters him is the giving the graces only to have it attributed by the recipient to his rival god chance. All he wants to start is the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps you wish to say, “I can’t see me doing anything differently”… but the fact is that you act out the epitome of ‘free will choices’ each and every time you post on CAF.

Your argument seems to me to be nothing more than: ‘You made a choice, you changed your mind, therefore free will’. But everything is a choice whether free will exists or not. Whatever I choose is determined by who I am (my mental state, my genetic make up, my mood etc), the situation as it stands (or as I understand it) and the choices available.

Because there are so many choices we need to make every second, it seems that we are masters of our own destiny. But if we reduce those choices, we can perhaps see that we are not. And if you would make the same choice every time if all the conditions are exactly the same, then does it make any sense to say that you have free will?

You are taking your wife out for her birthday. There are two restaurants open. One, which serves very bad food at extortionate prices is across town in a ghetto where there are nightly riots and the rate of murder and rape is off the scale. The other is a family run business across the road from where you live where they are offering a 2 for 1 deal with free wine. It’s your wife’s favourite restaurant.

You will ALWAYS pick the local place. Always. You will never decide to go across town, even though that is a valid choice. If you want to argue that you COULD have gone to Bubba’s Greasy Grille and that therefore proves free will, then I’m not sure that’s a valid argument. Just because the choice is available, and there are always choices available, does not prove free will, because those choices exist if free will exists or not.

To prove it does, you have to convince me that any decision you make could have been different if the situation was EXACTLY the same. And in that case, you will need to show the reasons why you made one choice and then another. That I can’t see is possible. Because for every single choice you make, there are reasons which result in that choice. If the reasons are exactly the same, what on earth makes you choose differently if you had the opportunity again?

The only time I think that that is possible is when you really can’t make up your mind and it is literally an arbitrary choice. A coin toss.

There are reasons which determine every single choice. The local diner versus Bubba’s was easy. So maybe you think that was an extreme example which proves nothing. But if you think about literally anything that you consciously do, there are still reasons for it. There is still an internal debate. You weigh the pros and cons automatically. You have information which you apply to the situation and yes, you make a decision, you make a choice. But that decision, that choice, will always be the same given the exact same circumstances.

It’s like the operating system runs the software calls up stored information, applies all the applicable variables and k’ching…here’s the result. You are the operating system and the software is your thought process. They would be exactly the same if you were to rerun the film as many times as you’d like. The variables and the stored info is, by virtue of the situation being identical, is the same.

How do you get a different result each time? You don’t.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not arbitrary; just not deterministic.

Does the person always choose what appears to be the highest good? How would you prove that a person can sometimes choose something which does not appear to be good for him?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . This person has legit answers and appears to not want to be proven wrong like most Atheist,but rather embraces these facts he presents to me.

So, I stick to the facts. I only bring to the table things that are more based on proof then faith.

An analogy that describes our lives as dominoes is not fact. It is a perspective. The facts of what I understand to be who and what we are as relational beings participating in eternity would be similar. It is how we frame them in the context of what we believe and/or know to be true. How we impact on the world, I would describe as being like ripples that extend forever in time affecting everything - a real Butterfly Effect. There are only two choices we have, and although we pray not to be led into temptation, there will be times when we choose sin. Sin predisposes others to sin; they will either absorb it or pass it on. A domino is part of a wave, automatically, unthinkingly and unknowingly passing on an effect; a ripple eminates from a source.

Dominoes, a great image and a word that is linked to domination. I think this is significant. Domination suggests power. When one bases one’s understanding of the universal on the workings of the world where death reigns, power holds the ultimate meaning. Therefore, we see the focus is on God’s omnipotence rather than His love. Here, free will is understood not so much a decision whether or not to act in a loving fashion, but as a capacity to exert control.

Again, what we are discussing are perspectives, and whatever the view, it must be remembered that it is a person who holds it. As persons, we are not the centre of the world. We are not the source of truth, the arbiters of goodness and beauty. What your friend reveals is that once you eliminate God, the logical conclusion is our own abolition.

We exist and are dependent on God for that existence. And it is He for whom we should be searching, and His will to love, to be doing. There is an emotional reaction, a spiritual one, to seeing the world and our purposes as meaningless. The more intimate the relationship with God, the more deeply the hiding of His countenance is felt. Like a fish out of water, sometimes that’s what it takes to realize what has been around us, what is universally present. Since we exist within ourselves, acting, feeling, understanding and perceiving, we choose what we will do with our lives, as they are determined outside our control. The argument falls apart in the recognition of what is oneself and the relationship we have with the Ground of our being, the fantasy dispelled. The proof, the truth is personal.

 

[oldcelt]

I have to admit that I find the OP a bit confusing. Why would an atheist feel that there is no free will? What would be the controlling force preventing free exercise? As a Deist, I believe in a creator and absolute free will. It would seem logical, at least to me, that someone who does not believe in a creator would also believe in absolute free will.

John