Atheous

[Wads42]

What do you think of this?

1. Physical objects are subject to physical laws that don’t necessarily have to exist. (There is a possible world where no physical objects exist)
2. The objects which express these laws are contingent and finite.
3. Contingent finite physical objects cannot be the cause of that which they are subject to, and thus neither can they be said to be the reason for why those laws are what they are, instead of something else.

Conclusion: Something intelligent and non-physical created those physical laws, because that which is not predisposed to be intrinsically ordered can only be put in to order by an intelligence.

I could be wrong, but i dare say its a good foundation to a strong argument depending on what we mean be physical laws.

What say ye?

I say that the appearance of apparent intelligent design is initiated by the natural selection of possibilities, whether bilogical variants or possible values of constants. Darwin devoted his life to the biological aspect of evolution, and 99.9% of all scientists agree with the main principles.
Besides, can you distinguish an object that is designed from one that is not? How do you tell? If it is just a matter of complexity, ie the difference beween a rock and a watch,-this is more a matter of a scale of complexity, than a qualitative difference. A simple swaying tree in the wind can be used as a clock or watch,-so was the tree intelligently designed to sway in the intelligently designed wind? If so, it does not leave much room for Nature at all, and we will be back to believing that all motion is caused by cherubs blowing on the trees, or pushing the planets along in perect circles. In this case nature becomes unnatural (ie “guided”). tell me, -do you consider Nature to be unnatural?

 

[Wads42]

Charles:

I agree. I too was an atheist. Suffering had nothing to do with taking me there. I do not recall ever thinking about it.

It was Pride: my belief that I was smarter than any theist, and my belief that “God” was a crutch for those who did not have the stomach to stand in the universe, in their last moments, in abject solitude.

God bless,
jd

Why do you not quote the many examples of Christians of all denominations who de-convert, (Dan Barker for one), and myself at age 17? (I am now 71).
I think humans are all capable of thiking things out for ourselves (ie atheists are not necessarily, (only probably) smarter than theists). Trouble is, theists have been consistently brain-washed from birth so that their mind-become hard wired at an early age (Give me a child up to age 7, and I will give you the man,–Jesuits).
When you realize you have received a Jesuit “education”, then you will be able to gain the insightto cast it off and think for yourself.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony:

This by Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure, from his Essay, Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, 1 THE WILL OF GOD MADE AND GOVERNS ALL THINGS, p. 2:"Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must be taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. ‘Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives’ is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, 'and God intervenes everywhere.'

I am the Lord, He tells us Himself by the mouth of the prophet Isaias, and there is none else. I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. (Is. 45:6-7) It is I who bring both death and life, I who inflict wounds and heal them, He said to Moses. (Deut. 32:39) 'The Lord killeth and maketh alive, it is written in the Canticle of Anna, the mother of Samuel, He bringeth down to the tomb and He bringeth back again; the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. (1 Kings 2:6-7) Shall there be evil (disaster, affliction) in a city which the Lord hath not done? (Amos 3:6) asks the prophet Amos: Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God Solomon proclaims. (Ecclus. 11:14)

And so on in numerous other passages of Scripture.

Perhaps you will say that while this is true of certain necessary effects, like sickness, death, cold and heat, and other accidents due to natural causes which have no liberty of action, the same cannot be said in the case of things that result from the free will of man. For if, you will object, someone slanders me, robs me, strikes me, persecutes me, how can I attribute his conduct to the will of God who far from wishing me to be treated in such a manner, expressly forbids it? So the blame, you will conclude, can only be laid on the will of man, on his ignorance or malice. This is the defense behind which we try to shelter from God and excuse our lack of courage and submission.

It is quite useless for us to try and take advantage of this way of reasoning as an excuse for not surrendering to Providence. God Himself has refuted it and we must believe on His word that in events of this kind as in all others, nothing occurs except by His order and permission."The rest of the essay goes on to tell us why the concerns you have are not particularly disastrous to God. Powerful stuff. Let me know if you want a copy of the essay.

God bless,
jd

Thanks, jd, but I believe chance events in the sense of “purposeless coincidences” are an essential element of Providence. That is quite different from believing God never intervenes. In one sense God does not have to intervene because nothing would occur if He didn’t exist!

1. Every event is caused by divine power but not every event has positive consequences.
2. Events with negative consequences - like natural disasters - are permitted by God.
3. God didn’t create the universe **so that **natural disasters occur.
4. God knows natural disasters occur but He also knows they are inevitable.
5. God suspends the laws of nature to prevent natural disasters.
6. God does not always suspend the laws of nature to prevent natural disasters because the laws of nature would cease to be laws if they were frequently suspended!
7. If the laws of nature ceased to be laws a rational existence would become impossible!

 

[Wads42]

I agree but your heating system is designed whereas natural selection per se is not!
So it leads to random results in the sense that they “have no definite aim or purpose” are “not sent or guided in a particular direction”, “made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.” - wiki

Of course if natural selection exists within the context of Design it is a different story.

How can an essential random process be said to be designed? It sounds like modern art, in which if you throw a paint-pot at a canvas you can then claim that you have “designed” the resulting mess. This is a semantic muddle. We need to be more careful in our use of words and meanings, so as to avoid the fallacy of equivocation.
The general fallacy behind Christian theology is that it is “teleological”, (an error picked up from Aristotle and Aquinas, (with apologies to neo-Thomists)). In other words they assume that evolution both cosmic and biological- has a Purpose, a distant Divine Plan, and end-point, an Omega Point (Teilhard de VChardin). Whereas the very existence of billions of modern galaxies, stars, planets, and animal and plant species, means that everything that can happen does happen. We are just one product;
– and as we started off as resourceful tree-dwelling Primates with forward facing eyes, and grasping hands (for branches), we rapidly specialised in evolving big brains, (rather then effective teeth and claws), and so we developed technology which allowed uo to gain the upper hand over all the big powerful animals around us.
Simple really.
Just to confirm that our dominance is not a Gift from God, but the result of millenia of struggle, you should remember that we are still locked in a struggle to the death, with insects, bacteria and viruses,–simply because they are more numerous than us, and too small to swat on the head with a club!
Our big brains give us big heads, which is why child-birth is painful and difficult; and nothing to do with Adam and Eve. Think natural!
As for the comment that Naturalism cannot be proven by naturalism, this is a combination of various fallacies, notable “Reification” (again). Nature is not a Thing or an Entity having objective existence, but just a convenient personification,-a metaphor, (a bit like "Einstein’s “God”).
Besides , we use our Minds to study “the Mind”; otherwise there would be no science of Psychology (and there is.)

 

[Perplexity]

To use a perhaps out-dated phrase, one of the reasons I have for finding atheism to be ‘the true, good and beautiful’ is the story it involves with evolution and abiogenesis. I find it to be romantic, epic and in the basic sense, beautiful. It’s got everything in a story I want. Horror, comedy, romance, etc.

 

[Wads42]

Thanks, jd, but I believe chance events in the sense of “purposeless coincidences” are an essential element of Providence. That is quite different from believing God never intervenes. In one sense God does not have to intervene because nothing would occur if He didn’t exist!

1. Every event is caused by divine power but not every event has positive consequences.
2. Events with negative consequences - like natural disasters - are permitted by God.
3. God didn’t create the universe **so that **natural disasters occur.
4. God knows natural disasters occur but He also knows they are inevitable.
5. God suspends the laws of nature to prevent natural disasters.
6. God does not always suspend the laws of nature to prevent natural disasters because the laws of nature would cease to be laws if they were frequently suspended!
7. If the laws of nature ceased to be laws a rational existence would become impossible!

These rationalisations of yours seem to cover everything, though I would like an example of a law of Nature that was suspended in order to prevent a specific natural disaster (5).
Was there a natural disaster you know of that didn’t happen?

Can you tell us the difference between Providence and God?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I say that the appearance of apparent intelligent design is initiated by the natural selection of possibilities, whether bilogical variants or possible values of constants. Darwin devoted his life to the biological aspect of evolution, and 99.9% of all scientists agree with the main principles.

Natural selection makes sense in terms of biological species, but its a non starter in terms of explaining the existence and specification of physical laws. There is no natural selection of laws. Such is meaningless.

 

[tonyrey]

These rationalisations of yours seem to cover everything…

Since a rationalisation is “the conscious or unconscious explanation of events or behaviour that avoids giving the true reasons because they would be disadvantageous to the subject or they would be socially unacceptable” the onus is on you to justify your assertion that my statements are rationalisations. It seems more likely that you are rationalising by stating that I am rationalising! Objective reasoning is not composed of such assertions but addresses the issue rather than resorting to irrelevant remarks…

though I would like an example of a law of Nature that was suspended in order to prevent a specific natural disaster (5).

Unless one has detailed knowledge of all the metereological conditions throughout the entire world and throughout history it is impossible to know when laws of Nature have been suspended.

Was there a natural disaster you know of that didn’t happen?

A nonsensical question.

Can you tell us the difference between Providence and God?

If you don’t know the difference you are on the wrong forum!

 

[tonyrey]

To use a perhaps out-dated phrase, one of the reasons I have for finding atheism to be ‘the true, good and beautiful’ is the story it involves with evolution and abiogenesis. I find it to be romantic, epic and in the basic sense, beautiful. It’s got everything in a story I want. Horror, comedy, romance, etc.

You are assuming evolution presupposes atheism. How would you justify that assertion?

 

[tonyrey]

I agree but your heating system is designed whereas natural selection per se is not!
So it leads to random results in the sense that they “have no definite aim or purpose” are “not sent or guided in a particular direction”, “made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.” - wiki

You are assuming that evolution is an essentially random process. How would you justify that assumption?

It sounds like modern art, in which if you throw a paint-pot at a canvas you can then claim that you have “designed” the resulting mess. This is a semantic muddle. We need to be more careful in our use of words and meanings, so as to avoid the fallacy of equivocation.

You are need to be far more careful in your use of the word “evolution”… You are guilty of equivocation by assuming it is an essentially random process.

The general fallacy behind Christian theology is that it is “teleological”, (an error picked up from Aristotle and Aquinas, (with apologies to neo-Thomists)). In other words they assume that evolution both cosmic and biological- has a Purpose, a distant Divine Plan, and end-point, an Omega Point (Teilhard de VChardin). Whereas the very existence of billions of modern galaxies, stars, planets, and animal and plant species, means that everything that can happen does happen. We are just one product;
– and as we started off as resourceful tree-dwelling Primates with forward facing eyes, and grasping hands (for branches), we rapidly specialised in evolving big brains, (rather then effective teeth and claws), and so we developed technology which allowed uo to gain the upper hand over all the big powerful animals around us.
Simple really.

So simple that it is self-refuting! If your reasoning is not teleological it is simply due to physical processes and of dubious value. You must be aware of the inefficiency of instinctive behaviour when it gets out of its depth…

Just to confirm that our dominance is not a Gift from God, but the result of millenia of struggle, you should remember that we are still locked in a struggle to the death, with insects, bacteria and viruses,–simply because they are more numerous than us, and too small to swat on the head with a club!
Our big brains give us big heads, which is why child-birth is painful and difficult; and nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

Big heads are rightly associated with a simplistic view of reality which disposes of itself! Your “natural” thinking reduces your “reasons” to mere physical reactions in response to environmental conditions and of even more dubious value than instinctive behaviour…

As for the comment that Naturalism cannot be proven by naturalism, this is a combination of various fallacies, notable “Reification” (again). Nature is not a Thing or an Entity having objective existence, but just a convenient personification,-a metaphor, (a bit like "Einstein’s “God”).
Besides , we use our Minds to study “the Mind”; otherwise there would be no science of Psychology (and there is.)

According to naturalism the mind is merely the functioning of a lump of tissue inside the skull - which lacks insight and understanding. Biological computers are necessarily incapable of reaching conclusions about the nature of reality because they are not even aware they exist. Persons don’t exist in the naturalist’s scheme of things and reasoning is an illusion - like all other abstract processes. All your statements become no more than meaningless, **purposeless **permutations of molecular patterns caused by physical events which occur for no reason whatsoever.… GIGO

 

[Al_Moritz]

What do you think of this?

1. Physical objects are subject to physical laws that don’t necessarily have to exist. (There is a possible world where no physical objects exist)
2. The objects which express these laws are contingent and finite.
3. Contingent finite physical objects cannot be the cause of that which they are subject to, and thus neither can they be said to be the reason for why those laws are what they are, instead of something else.

Conclusion: Something intelligent and non-physical created those physical laws, because that which is not predisposed to be intrinsically ordered can only be put in to order by an intelligence.

I could be wrong, but i dare say its a good foundation to a strong argument depending on what we mean be physical laws.

What say ye?

This does not answer the ‘brute chance’ argument, but it does answer the argument from the necessity of the laws of nature. A supposed such necessity is absurd, see also below excerpt from my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

What if the physical constants are immutably fixed against one another and simply could not be any other way? Then the emergence of life is a necessary, natural outcome of how nature works, plain and simple. Yet such a strict necessity of the laws of nature cannot be logically sustained.

Yes, there might be a unique solution to all physical constants, which would have to include all the initial conditions of the universe, due to a unified basic system. Then we would know why all the constants have their specific numerical values, and they would all result from necessity. However, even if that were true – and current knowledge of the physical world makes that seem extremely unlikely – the basic system could also be founded on principles other than those of general relativity and quantum mechanics (possibly unifiable into a theory of ‘quantum gravity’) which hold for our particular universe. The laws of nature could be based on any of an infinitude of other mathematically self-consistent systems imaginable. Therefore, even if not necessarily within a framework combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, the laws of physics could, in fact, be different in infinitely many ways. This cannot be logically disputed.

Thus, there cannot be a necessity of the laws of nature – unless one suggests that “the fabric of nothing” may only allow for certain frameworks of physical laws to arise. Yet then ‘nothing’ would have to have properties, which is philosophically and logically absurd. Nothing has no properties whatsoever – nothing is, in fact, nothing. (The ‘physical nothing’ of empty space, the quantum vacuum, is not really nothing at all.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

Here are some general thoughts on the linked argument:

(i) This argument seems to assume that determinism is incompatible with free-will. But, currently, the reigning position on free-will amongst philosophers is compatibilism, which says that the free-will we have is such that we’d still have it even if determinism is true. That is, our free-will is compatible with determinism. So, I’m presuming by ‘free-choice’ and ‘free-will’ you’re referring to an incompatibilist understanding.

I don’t see how compatibilism answers the problem of deterministic firing of neurons. From my article:

“How then can the naturalist nonetheless assert that naturalism is true and its acceptance rational? S/he considered the evidence, s/he will reply. Yet under naturalism the brain determines how to interpret the evidence – you have no say in that. So the naturalist’s brain determined that naturalism is true, and mine determined, considering the evidence as well, that naturalism is not true. Now, which brain is right? If the naturalist’s acceptance of naturalism is solely dependent on the firing of his/her neurons over which s/he has no control (under determinism), then it is not possible for him/her to know that his/her brain is right and that naturalism is true. Thus under naturalism the claim that naturalism is true becomes incoherent and self-contradictory. Naturalism defeats itself.”

Yes, you do have choices, but under naturalism your decisions on those choices are determined. Just like a computer has choices, but makes the decisions according to a mechanism predetermined by its programming by humans.

(ii) This argument seems to assume that naturalism strongly implies or even entails determinism. But, as you seem to acknowledge in the argument, the reigning interpretation of Quantum Mechanics says the laws are probabilistic. It doesn’t matter whether such indeterminacy is significant, the fact that the naturalist can say there is any at all means he’s not a determinist. (As far as I know, most naturalists are indeterminists)

Yes, it does matter whether quantum indeterminacy is a significant part in human thoughts. If its influence is not significant, it becomes irrelevant. If it is significant, then under naturalism it would just produce random thoughts, which is evidently not what we observe (unless in some mentally ill persons). So it simply falls away as a relevant factor.

(iii) Finally, this argument seems very analogous to the brain in a vat problem. That is, you’re using the possibility that our cognitive faculties are unreliable on naturalism and evolution to cast doubt upon whether they actually are. The use of mere possibilities for that end is the chief characteristic of arguments like the brain in a vat. On the one hand, I think the naturalist is entitled to respond to this as he does to the brain in a vat: Look, it’s possible, sure. But, I have no reason to think that, and in my experience we are rational.

My argument that evolutionary beliefs are not sound, especially when it comes to abstract arguments in favor or disfavor of naturalism, is implicitly conceded by a number of evolutionary psychologists who adhere to naturalism. From my article:

“When evolutionary scientists claim that religion was selected for its behavioral survival advantage, they in fact concede, if they adhere to a naturalistic worldview, that evolution can indirectly select for an allegedly false belief.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

To use a perhaps out-dated phrase, one of the reasons I have for finding atheism to be ‘the true, good and beautiful’ is the story it involves with evolution and abiogenesis. I find it to be romantic, epic and in the basic sense, beautiful. It’s got everything in a story I want. Horror, comedy, romance, etc.

Scientifically informed theism involves that story too, with all its beauty, romanticism and epic character. No points gained in favor of atheism.

Writing my article on the origin of life by natural causes for the evolution website Talkorigins.org was enormously exciting. It is an epic story indeed:

earthfusion.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

[Al_Moritz]

You do realize don’t you that top scientists are atheist or agnostic? Over 93% of them in the National Academy of Science, and over 97% of those in the British Royal Society.
So why do you persistently emphasise the handful of aberrant religious scientists as if they were representative? Presumably you are unaware of this; I would not presume to think that you might be deliberately misleading us; after all, Christians alawys tell the truth don’t they?

Ok, let me rephrase my statement “Science leads to God” as follows:

“Science can lead to God if things are thought through properly.”

I don’t know about the poll of the British Royal Society. Yet as for being misleading: taking the poll numbers of the National Academy of Sciences as is, without qualifications, is misleading. The question in the poll was not if you believe in some higher being, the question was one concerning a very specific God. The choices were:

a. I believe in a God in intellectual and effective communication with humankind, i.e., a God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By “answer,” I mean more than the subjective, psychological effect of prayer.

b. I do not believe in God as defined above.

c. I have no definite belief regarding this question.

This does not leave any choice for some vague higher being or a deistic God, for example. So it would be disingenious to say that people who answered other than “a.” are automatically atheists or agnostic.

(What is more surprising is that when the same questionnaire was presented to a sample of all scientists, a sound 40 % (!) answered yes to “a.”, see Larson EJ, Witham L. 1997. Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature 386:435-436 – that may not be far from what a poll of the general population would yield, where you probably also have a large percentage of believers in just a ‘higher force’ that does not answer prayers).

As for “leading” scientists leaning more to the non-believing side, there are plausible explanations other than the one that they have thoroughly thought things through, from a position of ‘higher insight’.

1. Scientists may be true experts in their field, but they are often lousy philosophers, which is pretty much a fact. Just take as an example cosmologists when they open their mouth about a universe arising out of nothing, where they confuse the ‘physical nothing’ of the quantum vacuum with the philosophical nothing, the true nothing that features no properties and laws at all.

For this, see the critique by cosmologist Luke Barnes:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/

1. I doubt that leading career scientists even have much time to spend thinking about these questions. How would you, if you spend 16 hours a day in the lab? Also, even if they are good in their own narrow scientific discipline, this does not automatically mean that they know enough about science as a whole (many scientists don’t). Yes, all scientists have heard about evolution, but which ones even know about the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature, for example? Quite few, I bet (not all populate the web discussing these issues). And no, the fine-tuning issue is not a religious argument. It is acknowledged as a serious issue by leading atheist and agnostic cosmologists – only the philosophical interpretations differ.
2. If you are excellent in your field, then the temptation of pride becomes very real. And as JDaniel said a few posts back, it was pride that made him an atheist:

Charles:

I agree. I too was an atheist. Suffering had nothing to do with taking me there. I do not recall ever thinking about it.

It was Pride: my belief that I was smarter than any theist, and my belief that “God” was a crutch for those who did not have the stomach to stand in the universe, in their last moments, in abject solitude.

God bless,
jd

So all in all, it may be quite naive and gullible to believe that all, or even just the majority of, “leading” scientists come to their conclusions purely because they have thought deeply and dispassionately about the God issue from an encompassing knowledge of science (beyond just their narrow discipline) and from a position of ‘higher insight’.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I agree with many scientists, especially the cosmologist Lee Smolin, that as biological evolution occurs, (it does, don’t argue!), and as biochemical evolution (abiogenesis) also occurs, - it seems logical that it is evolution all the way down, ie cosmic evolution of the “inanimate” Universe right back to the (alleged) Big Bang. I say alleged, because the BB is now being seriously challenged (sorry La Mettrie!).
In other words the Universe itself evolved on the same Darwinian principles of random variations of possible constants,-and that these physical costants were fine tuned by cosmic natural selection so that only the values which “worked” ie could progress to the next stage of star and galaxy formation, were selected.

The hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection does not solve the design problem, see chapter 3 of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Taking another approach, the physicist Victor Stenger has calculated that the “fine-tuned” constants are not so fine after all, but can be varied significantly and still give rise to long-lived stars capable of supporting planets which can evolve life.

Haha, Stenger. Here is what I wrote in above link, after pointing out the flaws in his arguments:

“Just like Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box), Victor Stenger stands outside mainstream science, and both have in common to twist or ignore scientific facts for the purpose of advancing their world views. In other words, the opinions of those who base their cosmological views on Stenger can be taken seriously to no greater extent than the opinions of those anti-evolutionists who base their views on the writings of Behe.”

By the way, the calculations by Stenger that you mention have been rather devastatingly debunked by cosmologist Luke Barnes:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/no-faith-in-monkeygod-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-victor-stenger-part-2/

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al
**
If I am confusing you, that’s too bad, but I would hope that I am not confusing everyone. Of course I know what people think when they see the terms ‘Freethinker’ and ‘Skeptic’. But I assume people would think a bit deeper when they see the terms in conjunction with ‘Roman Catholic’. Are atheists really ‘freethinkers’? They cannot be if they are naturalists, which most of them are. They have to deny true free will, since they have to work under the assumption that their thoughts are just brain currents that are physically determined. Thus they cannot be freethinkers, all assertions to the contrary. I on the other hand am a true freethinker: I believe my thoughts are indeed free, and I am free to follow the evidence where it leads me. And of course I am a skeptic: I am skeptical of paranormal phenomena and pseudoscientific claims (UFOs, Pentawater etc.), and I am thoroughly skeptical of naturalism. Are naturalists true skeptics? My experience tells me that they are quite gullible when it comes to their ‘scientific’ worldview. **

Sorry, this discussion apparently is going nowhere. I’m signing off for the present.

As GreggAlvarez, Catholic and former atheist, writes:

Can one be religious AND be a freethinker? Absolutely! I am!

QED.

 

[JDaniel]

Why do you not quote the many examples of Christians of all denominations who de-convert, (Dan Barker for one), and myself at age 17? (I am now 71).
I think humans are all capable of thiking things out for ourselves (ie atheists are not necessarily, (only probably) smarter than theists). Trouble is, theists have been consistently brain-washed from birth so that their mind-become hard wired at an early age (Give me a child up to age 7, and I will give you the man,–Jesuits).
When you realize you have received a Jesuit “education”, then you will be able to gain the insightto cast it off and think for yourself.

Wads:

Interesting. Your words are eerily similar to another poster, one that posted on CAF some time ago, who used the very same expressions. That person posited himself as a Christian who was once a Catholic. He was found out and booted, by the way.

Haven’t you been here before?

God bless,
jd

 

[danserr]

(i) This argument seems to assume that determinism is incompatible with free-will. But, currently, the reigning position on free-will amongst philosophers is compatibilism, which says that the free-will we have is such that we’d still have it even if determinism is true. That is, our free-will is compatible with determinism. So, I’m presuming by ‘free-choice’ and ‘free-will’ you’re referring to an incompatibilist understanding.

Dean Zimmerman of Rutgers, who has written on the question, actually said to myself and a group he was addressing that that is not entirely true. He said that among philosophers as a whole, about 75 percent think that determinism is compatible with free will, but among philosophers who specialize in the question, the split is more 50-50.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Why do you not quote the many examples of Christians of all denominations who de-convert, (Dan Barker for one), and myself at age 17? (I am now 71).
I think humans are all capable of thiking things out for ourselves (ie atheists are not necessarily, (only probably) smarter than theists). Trouble is, theists have been consistently brain-washed from birth so that their mind-become hard wired at an early age (Give me a child up to age 7, and I will give you the man,–Jesuits).
When you realize you have received a Jesuit “education”, then you will be able to gain the insightto cast it off and think for yourself.

Wow, de-converting at age 17? How can you even be informed enough at that age to make such a decision an educated one? When I seriously became interested in naturalism 5 years ago I was 44 – and had a much, much vaster combined knowledge of science, philosophy and theology at my disposal to make an informed decision than when I was 17. My informed decision was to keep my faith – it made far more sense to me, and the naturalistic position was just too weak in my view.

I am afraid that de-conversion at such a young age is rarely based on sufficiently informed views, and keeping the naturalistic position into adult age then becomes involved with a whole lot of after-the-fact rationalization and confirmation bias.

 

[Perplexity]

Dean Zimmerman of Rutgers, who has written on the question, actually said to myself and a group he was addressing that that is not entirely true. He said that among philosophers as a whole, about 75 percent think that determinism is compatible with free will, but among philosophers who specialize in the question, the split is more 50-50.

Oh, interesting. Zimmerman rocks. Thanks for pointing that out.