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

[Aloysium]

Simple, if there are no external constraints such as an intervening deity or fear of eternal damnation, what could possibly stand in the way of free will? Any internal constraints are placed on themselves voluntarily and, therefore, do not violate free will. In fact, they are part of it.

John

Please refer to:

Having multiple choices does not equate to free will. Neither does making a choice on a coin toss. You need to make a decision, either consciously or subconsciously. I suggest (there’s them weasel words again) that for any given set of circumstances there can only be one choice.
Again, I’m not arguing that having multiple choices or limited choices (there has to be two in all cases) affects free will at all. I am saying that for every choice made, there are specific reasons (external and internal) that would always apply.
Changing your mind doesn’t affect the situation. The first choice and the second have different circumstances. In the case of editing the post, I initially made a decision to write what I did (for whatever set of reasons that applied) and I edited it because the situation had changed. I had something I could proof-read and there were reasons to change it. Or not, as the case may be.

Intellectually, doing away with a god, one will do away with oneself. Internal-external are arbitary distinctions. Everything then appears to be ruled for no reason, by an eternal order, that just is and plays itself out without purpose (that is other than by a mere fluke, survival) and oneself is merely an illusion emerging from that foundation, totally meaningless, completely determined.

This is the null hypothesis, that one’s existence proves to be false. Ergo, God exists.

 

[Widlast]

You are only as free as you wish to be.

Some folks constantly exercise their free will and actively choose or deny objects and activities. Others muddle their way through life with little or no thought.

The question is not whether we have free will, but whether we use it.

As to what the “friend” said, that is just a blatant cop out.
As in “I don’t want to take responsibility for my life because then I would have to take responsibility for my life”

 

[oldcelt]

Please refer to:

Intellectually, doing away with a god, one will do away with oneself. Internal-external are arbitary distinctions. Everything then appears to be ruled for no reason, by an eternal order, that just is and plays itself out without purpose (that is other than by a mere fluke, survival) and oneself is merely an illusion emerging from that foundation, totally meaningless, completely determined.

This is the null hypothesis, that one’s existence proves to be false. Ergo, God exists.

I was addressing the notion of some atheists saying they have no free will and responding to Charlemagne. Never have I known an atheist who believed that they were ruled by anything but human constructs. Existence is obvious, purpose is for each to find.

John

 

[Tomdstone]

You are only as free as you wish to be.

If you are in prison and wish to be outside, you are not free to fulfill your wish to be free.

 

[Gorgias]

If you are in prison and wish to be outside, you are not free to fulfill your wish to be free.

This is one of the classic debates about free will: does it involve free action, or only free will? Some would hold that free action is required, in order to claim free will.

However, that would seem to be illogical. After all, free will is claimed as a characteristic shared by all humans. Yet, not all humans have identical ability to ‘do’ things. Would we claim that some humans have free will and others do not? If so, then we’re not talking about a human characteristic anymore – we’re talking about an accidental characteristic (i.e., just as some humans are blonde and others aren’t, some humans have free will and others don’t). That just doesn’t hold up.

So, if it’s something that’s intrinsically human, then it must be shared by all humans. Therefore, it applies to will alone, not an ability to ‘act out’ what is willed.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Never have I known an atheist who believed that they were ruled by anything but human constructs. Existence is obvious, purpose is for each to find. . .

Freud Is one atheist whom I’ve met through his writings and who would have disagreed.
According to that view, we are ruled by animal instincts with only a facade of civility.

I don’t find existence to be obvious. It requires a tremendous amount of self-reflection and some sort of exposure to its absence in order to understand its structure.

I agree that purpose is to be found as opposed to its being created. It is an ongoing effort to determine what is the good and to deal with ambiguity and conflicts within oneself.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If you are in prison and wish to be outside, you are not free to fulfill your wish to be free.

Those are external constraints. Everyone knows that you can’t be out of prison if you are in it.

However, you can work to get yourself out of prison, you can make the most of being in prison, or you can just have a horrible time in prison, and cause a lot of trouble in prison and get your sentence doubled. It’s your choice.

 

[Tomdstone]

Those are external constraints. Everyone knows that you can’t be out of prison if you are in it.

However, you can work to get yourself out of prison, you can make the most of being in prison, or you can just have a horrible time in prison, and cause a lot of trouble in prison and get your sentence doubled. It’s your choice.

True but the statement I was commenting on said:

You are only as free as you wish to be.

. You can wish to be free while you are in prison for life without parole, but in many cases your wish will not come true.

 

[Bradski]

Again, reasons <> determinism. Reasons are – in a very real way – the proof of free will. After all, animals “make choices” (eat this plant or that one; hunt this antelope or that one; mate with this animal or that one); however, none of these are claimed to be exercise of free will. Rather, it’s the notion that we – as rational beings – have reasons behind our choices that we see the possibility of free will. Unless you jettison the notion of ‘reasons’ in favor of a strict, robot-like determinism, then the denial of free will doesn’t hold up.

I think that your observation that animals do not have free will is valid.

Purely from a biological view, the only difference between us and other animals is that we are relatively more intelligent (granted that a theological view would be somewhat different, but if you want to go down that track then you are going to end up arguing that we have free will because God gave it to us and I’ll have to bow out at that point – irreconcilable differences and all that).

Imagine a very early ancestor of Man. Keep going back to the point where we are what you would describe as an animal. With no free will, as you have noted. If we have free will, then it didn’t happen all of a sudden at one point as we became less ‘animal’ and more human. It must have evolved. We went, very gradually, from something with simple instincts and no free will, through various stages where we had an increasing amount of free will up to modern Man where we have complete free will.

That makes no sense to me at all. I cannot imagine having ‘a little bit of little free will’ or ‘more free will than previously’ or ‘nearly 100% free will’. Surely free will is an all or nothing concept. You either got it or you ain’t.

So, if it’s something that’s intrinsically human, then it must be shared by all humans. Therefore, it applies to will alone, not an ability to ‘act out’ what is willed.

I think we could agree that a flea doesn’t have free will. When it acts, it is purely instinctive. But an ape? Surely it would have what you seem to believe is free will. And that it wouldn’t be a million miles away from what we exhibit. If you argue that apes do not have it, then behaviour which you would describe as being freely willed in a human could be seen in the behaviour of an ape.

 

[Gorgias]

granted that a theological view would be somewhat different, but if you want to go down that track then you are going to end up arguing that we have free will because God gave it to us and I’ll have to bow out at that point – irreconcilable differences and all that.

I think that I would describe it as a philosophical argument, rather than a theological one. (Although, if we attempt to pull back the curtain on the philosophical argument – that is, if (once we make the philosophical argument for free will) we then ask ‘why is it this is so?’ – then the answer naturally turns toward metaphysics and/or theology. If, at that point, you cannot discuss metaphysics, then I’d agree that you’d likely just shrug and say “I’m out”…)

Imagine a very early ancestor of Man. Keep going back to the point where we are what you would describe as an animal. With no free will, as you have noted. If we have free will, then it didn’t happen all of a sudden at one point as we became less ‘animal’ and more human. It must have evolved. We went, very gradually, from something with simple instincts and no free will, through various stages where we had an increasing amount of free will up to modern Man where we have complete free will.

This perspective only works from a biological / mechanical standpoint. From a metaphysical standpoint, since we’re talking about ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ (not theologically speaking, but metaphysically speaking!), we’re no longer in the realm of a ‘necessary evolution’. After all, physical systems are the ones that are posited to ‘evolve’; it’s a misapplication of the scientific work in evolutionary theory to suggest that non-physical systems evolve (since, after all, a scientist cannot speak (empirically) about non-physical systems!).

So, from a metaphysical standpoint, I don’t agree that we must hold that free will ‘evolved’. If free will could be located physically, then you could make the argument for physical evolution. On the other hand, you could attempt to make the argument that free will is a by-product or characteristic of ‘rationality’ (which seems to be what you’re getting at here). Yet, that’s not what you’re suggesting: you seem to be making a case for primate and human intelligence. Nevertheless, we’re not proposing that free will proceeds from ‘intelligence’ (since, I’d agree, primates show certain features of intelligent behavior); rather, we’re proposing that it proceeds from something that is essential to human nature – rationality.

But an ape? Surely it would have what you seem to believe is free will.

I think I’d distinguish it as being something along the lines of ‘intelligence’, but not human rationality, and therefore, I’d claim that apes do not have free will.

If you argue that apes do not have it, then behaviour which you would describe as being freely willed in a human could be seen in the behaviour of an ape.

I’d say that you’re comparing intelligent behavior in apes to intelligent behavior in humans, and mistakenly calling primate behavior ‘rational’ (in a metaphysical sense). Of course, if you hold to a different metaphysics than I do, then you might disagree that this is reasonable.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

True but the statement I was commenting on said:
. You can wish to be free while you are in prison for life without parole, but in many cases your wish will not come true.

Nobody was talking about wishes coming true.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think we could agree that a flea doesn’t have free will. When it acts, it is purely instinctive. But an ape? Surely it would have what you seem to believe is free will. And that it wouldn’t be a million miles away from what we exhibit. If you argue that apes do not have it, then behaviour which you would describe as being freely willed in a human could be seen in the behaviour of an ape.

I would agree with you about the ape. Or the cat. You can’t tell me a cat doesn’t have free will!

So does man. But I thought you were saying that we don’t have free will.

 

[Tomdstone]

Nobody was talking about wishes coming true.

What does this mean:

You are only as free as you wish to be.

 

[Widlast]

What does this mean:

“You are only as free as you wish to be” means that whether you actually actively use the free will you have been given is up to you.

You are, within your own limitations of situation, body, and intellect, able to do whatever you please whenever you please. Whether you act on your ability to choose is a different issue.

To quote Richard Bach - "The world is your exercise book, the pages on which you do your sums. It is not reality, though you may express reality there if you wish. You are also free to write lies, or nonsense, or to tear the pages.”

 

[Bradski]

This perspective only works from a biological / mechanical standpoint. From a metaphysical standpoint, since we’re talking about ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ (not theologically speaking, but metaphysically speaking!), we’re no longer in the realm of a ‘necessary evolution’.

I think you’re heading down a path I don’t believe exists.

I would agree with you about the ape. Or the cat. You can’t tell me a cat doesn’t have free will!

So does man. But I thought you were saying that we don’t have free will.

I don’t believe we do. So naturally I don’t believe that animals do either. Gorgias might say that animals might appear to have it but that it’s an illusion. My point is the same as regards us.

When my daughter was still living at home we had a dog. One time I suggested going out for an hour and went to get the dog’s lead. ‘Great’, thought the dog. ‘I get to pee against lampposts and sniff other dogs’ and naturally he got excited at the prospect. ‘Great’, thought my daughter. ‘We get to take the dog to the beach and play with him’. But then I started lacing on my running shoes and they both realised that this wasn’t a walk in the park. This was exercise.

And they both made what appeared to be a free will choice and changed their mind about going. My daughter retired to the couch and Taffy headed for his basket. Thanks, but no thanks.

According to Gorgias, the dog has no free will. But there is no difference between the dog changing his mind and my daughter doing the same. They both look exactly like free will choices. But that’s my point. They LOOK like free will choices.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . there is no difference between the dog changing his mind and my daughter doing the same. They both look exactly like free will choices. But that’s my point. They LOOK like free will choices.

You trained them poorly; but don’t worry.
If you believe what you say, you could not have done otherwise.
Freedom from responsibility, freedom from guilt, I suppose.
Does it really matter, after all? Do you care?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think you’re heading down a path I don’t believe exists.

I don’t believe we do. So naturally I don’t believe that animals do either. Gorgias might say that animals might appear to have it but that it’s an illusion. My point is the same as regards us.

When my daughter was still living at home we had a dog. One time I suggested going out for an hour and went to get the dog’s lead. ‘Great’, thought the dog. ‘I get to pee against lampposts and sniff other dogs’ and naturally he got excited at the prospect. ‘Great’, thought my daughter. ‘We get to take the dog to the beach and play with him’. But then I started lacing on my running shoes and they both realised that this wasn’t a walk in the park. This was exercise.

And they both made what appeared to be a free will choice and changed their mind about going. My daughter retired to the couch and Taffy headed for his basket. Thanks, but no thanks.

According to Gorgias, the dog has no free will. But there is no difference between the dog changing his mind and my daughter doing the same. They both look exactly like free will choices. But that’s my point. They LOOK like free will choices.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. then it probably IS a duck…

 

[Hawkmaid]

Repetitive studies show that we learn through mimicking as a child. For example; The toddler sees and experiences its mom rocking and soothing a crying baby. They learned then that is what we must do to a crying baby is rock it. With play practicing, we soon conditioned ourselves to do the same later on. On the other side of the street. A toddler sees and experiences the mother yelling and screaming at the baby to “Shut UP!” and barely attends to the cry. Soon , when those toddlers grow up, so do they do the same with their offspring.

                           With this knowledge that I speak of. How does one explain where free will comes in? With their biologic genetics and the way they were environmentally conditioned  in responses like these,  It was already ingrained in their head from infancy how they would act on that given situation! 

                           One of you might bring up the fact that not all children who were raised in a poor environment turn out like their primary caregiver. Which you are right. And what my atheist friends say is, it's a bio-social thing. BOTH the way you were raised AND what genes you have. Also, one thing JUST ONE SMALL THING like ONE gene or ONE simple act ( like an epic school teacher) could change a bad outcome to a good one. 

                           Still... where is the choice. That once, as a child, the teacher themselves too slowly were bio-socially "programmed" by others through out their life , who were bio-socially "programmed" , just like that child, and we are all nothing but pool balls in a billiard room bouncing off each other. Preconditioned. One person's life just merely effecting another, like domino's.
                                                                                 
                                                                                  How do you respond to that?
         
                                                                                                      Thanks!

                                                                                                               Janine

Uh, has this person ever met a young child, especially an infant? They’re all about free will! Crawling toward basement stairs, hitting people who get too close, spitting out food - that’s all a choice, even if they don’t reeaaally know what they’re doing.

The key to free will is that it indeed can be molded; as the studies show, there are parameters. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not there. It is our will to follow those rules/guidelines; and not everybody wants to. There are bratty children, immature adults, etc. etc. etc. We look around, see what others do, and we make our choice - our FREE CHOICE - however we want to. Sometimes we see stuff we want to copy, sometimes we see stuff we don’t, and sometimes we go entirely off the grid. It’s all our choice, though. Nobody, not even God, is sitting behind us, MAKING us pick something or another.

And the ripple effect is still there; everyone affects one another. No man is an island! That doesn’t throw free will out the window, though.

 

[Trident_H]

You are confusing free will with the availability of choices. It is obvious that if you have only one choice then you have no free will in the matter (actually there can never be only one choice because you have the option of doing nothing as opposed to taking the only course of action).

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

If the situation is exactly the same every time he makes the call, then his decision will always be the same.

K. This is the 3rd time I’ll be answering this. Each time’s been different. Each time’s taken a different path. So how could I be preconditioned to do that? It doesn’t make sense.

Just like it doesn’t make sense that I’d one day stop drinking for no other reason than that I was preconditioned to do that. Nothing forced me to start. And nothing forced me to stop. Nothing got a hold of my arm and forced it to bring that bottle to my lips. And nothing made me turn the lights out on that party.

And nothing’s making me log in here and type you this. And nothing’s making you answer. And no amount of conditioning would ever make a guy like me get out of bed in the morning and go to work after staying up so late that I’m running on only an hour’s sleep. And nothing in this world would make me exercise when I don’t feel like it.

So no man. I think you’ve fallen into a hole dug by too much thought. Maybe you should sit back a bit instead and try to change your mind.

Because that’s how you test out free will. By doing hard things. When the easy would be free of charge.

Peace Bradski.

-Trident

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because that’s how you test out free will. By doing hard things. When the easy would be free of charge.

Scott Peck in his book **The Road Less Traveled **talks about spiritual entropy.

People often choose the wrong path because it is the easy path.

You chose the road less traveled by trying three times to get through to Bradski.

After the Serpent got through lying to Adam and Eve, they could have chosen the road less traveled by going back to God to get an answer to the Serpent’s lies. They chose instead the easier and tastier path by picking that ripe plumb from the tree.

The Serpent did not make them do this. It wasn’t that he made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. It was an offer they were glad to refuse.