Can an Atheist Answer These?

[AnAtheist]

Does that mean we are not real? Is our mind less real than the outside world?

No. It means self-observation is not conclusive beacuse of all the interdependencies during that process
.

Are you denying that we are responsible for our actions?

Not at all.

Does good or evil depend on broad agreement?

Of course it does.

I am referring to ordinary people whose profession does not entail killing people.

See? You seem to think, good and bad depends on the profession someone has. As one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, and one man’s hero soldier is another man’s war criminal, a profession resp. its perception depends on angreement too.

How can a person be responsible for what he does if all his actions are determined by past events?

One is responsible for one’s decisions, no matter whether they are determined by past events or not.
But for determinsm: Our universe is not a mechanically deterministic one, we know that from several physical phenomena that violate the Bell inequation. So if determinism bothers you, quantum mechanics allows for non-determinstic events, and they happen every day. I guess non-determinstic events do bother you as well, as they allow a creation ex nihilo, so people wanting a creator insinst that the universe or physical events must always be deterministic to construct a contradiction that is simply not there.
Back to the free will: Our decisions are based on past experiences, what we learned, and what we instinctively do or want. No decision is absolutely free of past events. Every decision is a mix of desire, education, reaction to outside circumstances. And some reactions have to come faster than to allow for serious evaluation in order to survive. When you fall, you don’t have time to think about whether you should brace yourself for the impact. So our decision making process is “designed” to react without much thinking. All this is so complex, we cannot really tell what part of a decison is instinct, education, or pondering. And as I said before, morally that does not matter, we are responsible for our actions and decisions, regardless of how they were evaluated.

Which other forms of life?

Primates. At least. And I am pretty sure that caninae and felidae have some sort of will. Perhaps dolphins and whales.

Do you regard computers as having free will? If not why not?

They might if they are complex enough. I don’t think computers of today are complex enough, but from time to time, seeing thier strange behaviour, I start wondering if they do act on their own sometimes.

 

[tonyrey]

It means self-observation is not conclusive because of all the interdependencies during that process.

Is self-observation less conclusive than observation of external events?
.

Does good or evil depend on broad agreement?
Of course it does.

So the majority decide what is right? Was it right to kill people for entertainment in Rome when it was generally accepted?

I am referring to ordinary people whose profession does not entail killing people.
See? You seem to think, good and bad depends on the profession someone has.

Not at all. Killing a person is intrinsically evil but the soldier believes it is his duty to kill. Do you believe people whose profession does not entail killing people should kill unless it is in self-defence or the defence of others?

One is responsible for one’s decisions, no matter whether they are determined by past events or not.

If **all **your decisions are determined for you how on earth can you be responsible for “your” decisions? They are not really yours at all. You just happen to be the instrument which implements them.

So if determinism bothers you, quantum mechanics allows for non-deterministic events, and they happen every day.

Non-deterministic events still do not explain how you are responsible.

So our decision making process is “designed” to react without much thinking. All this is so complex, we cannot really tell what part of a decison is instinct, education, or pondering. And as I said before, morally that does not matter, we are responsible for our actions and decisions, regardless of how they were evaluated.

Then why do courts distinguish premeditated actions from those which are not?

Primates. At least. And I am pretty sure that caninae and felidae have some sort of will. Perhaps dolphins and whales.

We are discussing **free **will. Can animals choose to die for an abstract principle like freedom or justice?

Do you regard computers as having free will? If not why not?
They might if they are complex enough.

Why do you associate free will with complexity? Does an increase in complexity entail liberation from physical laws?

I don’t think computers of today are complex enough, but from time to time, seeing their strange behaviour, I start wondering if they do act on their own sometimes.

Why do you think strange, erratic behaviour implies free will?

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you think it wouldn’t be? Our limitations in thought, memory, and perceptions shape what you call “free will” making it a lot less “free” than I think you believe it is.

The question is not the extent to which we have free will but whether we have it at all…

 

[AnAtheist]

Is self-observation less conclusive than observation of external events?

Yes.
.

So the majority decide what is right? Was it right to kill people for entertainment in Rome when it was generally accepted?

Not at all. Killing a person is intrinsically evil but the soldier believes it is his duty to kill. Do you believe people whose profession does not entail killing people should kill unless it is in self-defence or the defence of others?

Well tell me, you make distinctions between one killing and another. Is killing always right or always wrong, or does it depend on the circumstances? And why Rome? Wasn’t public executions done throughout the Christian history? Was that right or wrong?

We are discussing **free **will. Can animals choose to die for an abstract principle like freedom or justice?

Now it’s about dieing. Well, honestly I don’t know, because I cannot talk to them and ask. But I see absolutely no reason why they should not be able to.

Why do you associate free will with complexity?

Because a thought process needs a certain complexity of nthe hardware it runs on.

Does an increase in complexity entail liberation from physical laws?

No. Nothing is free from physical laws, not even free will.

Why do you think strange, erratic behaviour implies free will?

How do you notice the difference between a willed action and a predetermined action? Oh, and without talking to the one whose acts you judge?

 

[liquidpele]

The question is not the extent to which we have free will but whether we have it at all…

What an interesting comment… can you have partial free will? Very interesting…

 

[tonyrey]

What an interesting comment… can you have partial free will? Very interesting…

A false deduction. If you can’t see why then it is pointless discussing the subject…

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                                                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5651882#post5651882)                 
             *Is self-observation less conclusive than observation of external events?*

Yes.

Then you have neglected yourself…

                                             So the majority decide what is right? Was it right to kill people for entertainment in Rome when it was generally accepted?

Not at all. Killing a person is intrinsically evil but the soldier believes it is his duty to kill. Do you believe people whose profession does not entail killing people should kill unless it is in self-defence or the defence of others?
Well tell me, you make distinctions between one killing and another. Is killing always right or always wrong, or does it depend on the circumstances? And why Rome? Wasn’t public executions done throughout the Christian history? Was that right or wrong?

Simple. Killing is always evil but sometimes it is a lesser evil than not killing. Rome was an example of your belief that the majority decide what is right and wrong… Now you are asking me if public executions were right or wrong as if there is an **objective **criterion of what is right or wrong. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.

Quote:
We are discussing **free **will. Can animals choose to die for an abstract principle like freedom or justice?
Now it’s about dying. Well, honestly I don’t know, because I cannot talk to them and ask. But I see absolutely no reason why they should not be able to.

So you believe animals can understand abstract principles like freedom and justice?

Quote:
Why do you associate free will with complexity?
Because a thought process needs a certain complexity of the hardware it runs on.

How do you know this? Are you equating all activity in the mind with brain processes? If so, what leads you to that conclusion?

Quote:
Does an increase in complexity entail liberation from physical laws?
No. Nothing is free from physical laws, not even free will.

If “free will” is not free from physical laws it is not free!

How do you notice the difference between a willed action and a predetermined action? Oh, and without talking to the one whose acts you judge?

Ask a judge or a jury…

 

[tonyrey]

One is responsible for one’s decisions, no matter whether they are determined by past events or not.

If **all **your decisions are determined for you how on earth can you be responsible for “your” decisions? They are not really yours at all. You just happen to be the instrument which implements them.

 

[AnAtheist]

If “free will” is not free from physical laws it is not free!

Then it does not exist. No matter what moral or jurisdictional consequences that should have in your opionion.

Ask a judge or a jury…

No, I am asking you: How do you tell that an action of someone else was purely determined by past events, was erratic, or based on “free” will? Give a method to distinguish between this options.

 

[john_doran]

You’re striking down opinions about the source of such things as free will (giving an opinion I’ve never even heard of or believe no less), but miss an important distinction I think. I don’t think many atheists or agnostics would claim they are right, just that they might be - myself and just about any atheist I’ve spoken to would gladly admit they really don’t know. It’s my experience that believers love to strike down atheist opinions because they contain some uncertainty or have not been proven absolutely correct… can you not see the fallacy there? Well, you better hold onto something then, because gravity might stop working at any moment.

what opinion am i “striking down”?

and i’m not sure what your experience has been in discussing matters of philosophy and religion, but pretty much every single atheist or agnostic i’ve ever spoken to in my life (here and anywhere else) rejects belief in god and religion based on a standard of evidence that is so rigorous, that even every single one of their own beliefs would fail it. or, in other words, the atheists and agnostics with whom i am familiar reject religious belief precisely because it is not “absolutely certain”.

but that is as may be - i’m not sure what point you’re ultimately trying to make here; i was only trying to correct a problem with oreoracle’s reasoning, and if that constitutes “striking down”, then ok, but then you’re also “striking down” my post. and what of it?

 

[john_doran]

No, I am asking you: How do you tell that an action of someone else was purely determined by past events, was erratic, or based on “free” will? Give a method to distinguish between this options.

depends on what you think counts as being able to “tell”. how do you tell that there are other minds? whatever your answer is to that question is probably almost the same answer to the question “how do you tell if other people make free chocies”.

 

[AnAtheist]

depends on what you think counts as being able to “tell”. how do you tell that there are other minds? whatever your answer is to that question is probably almost the same answer to the question “how do you tell if other people make free chocies”.

Well, I know that I have something like a mind, and I apply that to others, because they act like I act and are as human as I am (I think). But I keep in mind, that observing oneself is a tricky business.
Now, a lot of people say, there is a difference between a free choice, a free choice that complies to physical laws, a chaotic/erratic choice, and a predetermined choice.
And I want to know, how on Earth could we tell the difference? Esp. when the one acting is not human, e.g. a chimp or a computer. Even if it comes to us. How can I know that my choice was a free one or a predetermined one that parallely makes me think it was free?
And I am not interested in moral implications, just curious about the technical aspects of such an assertion.

 

[AnAtheist]

So you believe animals can understand abstract principles like freedom and justice?

I think it is possible. Btw. wolves for example enjoy life and play games: wolfswelt.chapso.de/wolfsspiele-s363382.html

 

[john_doran]

Well, I know that I have something like a mind, and I apply that to others, because they act like I act and are as human as I am (I think). But I keep in mind, that observing oneself is a tricky business.
Now, a lot of people say, there is a difference between a free choice, a free choice that complies to physical laws, a chaotic/erratic choice, and a predetermined choice.
And I want to know, how on Earth could we tell the difference? Esp. when the one acting is not human, e.g. a chimp or a computer. Even if it comes to us. How can I know that my choice was a free one or a predetermined one that parallely makes me think it was free?
And I am not interested in moral implications, just curious about the technical aspects of such an assertion.

well, how do you tell that you’re not a brain in a vat, or being experimented on in the lab of some Arcturian scientist?

again - same answer for free will.

 

[Lethe]

1.) Why is it that every form of life on this planet has a basic, fundamental desire to avoid death at all costs?

2.) Why does a species want to reproduce?

3.) What is the point of continuing on, of ensuring that the next generation comes into existence? Is it to be remembered? If it is to be remembered, why ?

• For what reason?*
  Why does a species like a virus have the same desire to survive that say, a human, or a sunflower has?

In other words, why does every species of life on earth want to perpetuate itself?

Because this is what works!

Animals that wished to avoid death and to reproduce in the past, were the ones that survived. It’s very simple. If an animal or species did not want to avoid death or reproduce, the animal or species would go extinct - because it would NOT avoid death, or even if a few survived, the individuals that DID want to reproduce lots and avoid death would survive better and in competition over resources and space, would win.

So if you’re an atheist that believes in natural selection, let alone evolution, the basic idea is that what is worse at surviving tends to survive worse than what is good at surviving. What is left today are species that are good at surviving and reproducing, which is why theyre still around today.

The ‘what is the point’ questions, however, are more of a religious thing, I think. Because science can only explain what IS, not why, in any emotional, spiritual human sense. Other animals do not think to the extent we do or in the same way, so do not need religion, but humans are very advanced and are able to contemplate the reasons for their actions, and life as a whole.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it is possible. Btw. wolves for example enjoy life and play games: wolfswelt.chapso.de/wolfsspiele-s363382.html

I leave others to decide how reasonable you are…

 

[tonyrey]

Then it does not exist. No matter what moral or jurisdictional consequences that should have in your opinion.

In that case we may as well say that “you” don’t exist. There is only a biological machine typing words on a computer keyboard to other biological machines… If there is no self-control why believe there is a self? Do you really live like a biological machine when you’re not discussing philosophy? That is the acid test…

No, I am asking you: How do you tell that an action of someone else was purely determined by past events, was erratic, or based on “free” will? Give a method to distinguish between this options.

If a person says to you “I love you” do you ask yourself whether it is the action of someone purely determined by past events, erratic or based on “free” will? If you do you are an oddity because we (and that includes you) take it for granted that persons are not just biological machines and that their behaviour is an expression of their free will. In a court of law you have to prove that you were acting under duress or were behaving abnormally for some other reason, i.e. that you were not free to exercise your free will. Again it is taken it for granted that persons are not just biological machines. That is the only reason for believing we don’t have free will and the onus is on you to prove that we are just biological machines.

 

[liquidpele]

A false deduction. If you can’t see why then it is pointless discussing the subject…

Says the man that believes in magic. I was merely repeating an interesting question that your comment made me aware of based on your distinction of the two questions.

 

[gearhead]

In a court of law you have to prove that you were acting under duress or were behaving abnormally for some other reason, i.e. that you were not free to exercise your free will. Again it is taken it for granted that persons are not just biological machines. That is the only reason for believing we don’t have free will and the onus is on you to prove that we are just biological machines.

In a court of law, you can be found guilty of a parking infraction (i.e. leaving your car at rest and unattended in an improper place or at an improper time) despite the fact that every “parked” car on the planet is hurtling through space at more than 100,000 km/h along with the Earth as it orbits the Sun - they aren’t at rest at all.

Sometimes the things we take for granted aren’t necessarily so… even things that seem readily apparent. My minivan sure doesn’t look like it’s going 100,000 km/h while it’s “sitting still”.

 

[gearhead]

My physics teacher once showed us an article about an American physics teacher who went to court contesting his parking ticket.

His argument was that if the issuing officer knew that the car was exactly at rest (as would be needed to establish that the car was “parked”), then by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the location of the car would be completely indeterminate, and therefore the officer could not have known the location of the car, which was required to be written on the ticket.

Even though the known laws of physics entirely support the teacher’s defense, he was still found guilty.

Built into our language and social conventions is a certain “physics” or assumptions about how the world and the universe work. These assumptions are not always correct when examined in detail.