Can an Atheist Answer These?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shoewindow3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m curious - to those who believe in free will, what would the world look like if we really were biological machines? What would be the difference between a world with free will, and a world without?
 
gearhead said:
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.
Click to expand...
As far as I’m aware, Heisenberg’s principal does not apply to atoms, only subatomic energy.
 
liquidpele said:
As far as I’m aware, Heisenberg’s principal does not apply to atoms, only subatomic energy.
Click to expand...
It applies to subatomic particles, and a car can be considered nothing but a collection of subatomic particles.
 
gearhead said:
It applies to subatomic particles, and a car can be considered nothing but a collection of subatomic particles.
Click to expand...
Except that it exhibits properties that sub atomic particles don’t. By your logic, table salt should be deadly.
 
liquidpele said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re on about… and I’m not the only one… Brevity may be the soul of wit but it is also a source of confusion. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
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?
Click to expand...
No I don’t ask that because I don’t care. It makes no difference to me. We are what we are. It is you who makes a difference here, so you should ask that.
“Only” biological machines. Why “only”? It is great to be a thinking, feeling, loving and being loved biological machine, there is no need for magical or esoteric additions to make that “better”.
 
tonyrey said:
I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re on about… and I’m not the only one… Brevity may be the soul of wit but it is also a source of confusion. 🙂
Click to expand...
To put it simply, I was just posing the question of whether free will could be limited and thus have different levels, or if it is only an all or nothing thing. It of course depends on your definition of free will, but the question is still interesting to think about.
 
Shredderbeam said:
I’m curious - to those who believe in free will, what would the world look like if we really were biological machines? What would be the difference between a world with free will, and a world without?
Click to expand...
You don’t have to look far. There are many fatalistic people in the world. They don’t believe we are biological machines but they do believe the future is beyond our control: “what will be will be” or “what is written is written”. How many times have I heard the argument “There is no point in trying to fight corruption because there will always be corruption”! This has the effect of making people passive and not making any effort to change things. If you really believed you are just a biological machine you would not try to do anything. You would take the line of least resistance and make no attempt to resist temptation. In fact it is a beautiful excuse for doing anything you like. That is why it is a far more attractive proposition than the belief that we alone are responsible for our thoughts and actions. Belief in God is often disparaged as wishful thinking but the rejection of God may well be, perhaps subconsciously, motivated by the desire to be free of irksome obligations and absolute master of one’s own destiny.
 
AnAtheist said:
Don’t you think your caring is less valuable and significant if it is merely a reflex action? I’m sure the person you are talking to would be horrified if you explain that you are not responsible for your feelings because they are just the reactions of a (biologically) mechanical device. Try it some time!
It makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
liquidpele said:
To put it simply, I was just posing the question of whether free will could be limited and thus have different levels, or if it is only an all or nothing thing. It of course depends on your definition of free will, but the question is still interesting to think about.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. It is the scope for free will (both interior and exterior) that is limited not free will itself - which can be regarded as a form of purposeful energy.
 
tonyrey said:
The exception that proves the rule! It would be odd if there were no deviations from the norm…
Click to expand...
That’s true. I guess the point I would make, though, is that just because most creatures have the will to survive doesn’t prove that God exists or that there’s an afterlife. In fact, it could just as easily prove the opposite - if there’s no afterlife and this is the only life there is, then of course we want to survive as long as possible!

Just playing “devil’s advocate” … 😉
 
tonyrey said:
Thanks for clarifying. It is the scope for free will (both interior and exterior) that is limited not free will itself - which can be regarded as a form of purposeful energy.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow. You separate free will into interior and exterior? How so?
 
tonyrey said:
So it makes no difference to you whether you - or the people who love you - have control of your - or their - thoughts, feelings and actions? It does not change your attitude to life in the slightest ?
Click to expand...
You are confusing phenomena with explanations of that phenomena. Experiencing love for instance is one thing, how it biologically, chemically and physically works another. A scientific explanation of how love works does not diminish the experience itself.
Do you think I am the only one? …the vast majority who believe in God.
Click to expand...
argumentum ad populum
btw, the vast majority on this planet does not believe in your god
 
liquidpele said:
I don’t follow. You separate free will into interior and exterior? How so?
Click to expand...
I’m not separating free will but the scope for free will. It is restricted by by our limited intelligence and knowledge on the one hand and our physical, social and economic (!) circumstances on the other.
 
tonyrey said:
I’m not separating free will but the scope for free will. It is restricted by by our limited intelligence and knowledge on the one hand and our physical, social and economic (!) circumstances on the other.
Click to expand...
Okay… so why can’t animals then have free will that’s just more restricted? Isn’t allowing for free will to be restricted by intelligence opening the door to a scale of free will with us further along than most animals?
 
theistgal said:
That’s true. I guess the point I would make, though, is that just because most creatures have the will to survive doesn’t prove that God exists or that there’s an afterlife. In fact, it could just as easily prove the opposite - if there’s no afterlife and this is the only life there is, then of course we want to survive as long as possible!
Click to expand...
Indeed. That’s one of the key differences between a theist and an atheist. If it came to a question of life and death an atheist would be more tempted to save his own skin rather than sacrifice his life to save some one else. So he is nobler if he does choose to die because he expects nothing in return - unless of course the theist expects to go to hell!
Then there is no doubt about who is making the greater sacrifice.

In either case the fact that a person can overcome the will to survive demonstrates the power of the mind over the body. And that is evidence that there is more in life than meets the eye of the atheist. 🙂

I don’t see how the will to survive points to the non-existence of God because it requires explaining - and a great deal of explaining, given that purposeless, inanimate molecules are somehow transformed into microscopic cells endowed with this very purpose…
Just playing “devil’s advocate” … 😉 I often do the same. I like to consider alternatives and anticipate objections. 🙂
 
theistgal said:
That’s true. I guess the point I would make, though, is that just because most creatures have the will to survive doesn’t prove that God exists or that there’s an afterlife. In fact, it could just as easily prove the opposite - if there’s no afterlife and this is the only life there is, then of course we want to survive as long as possible!
Click to expand...
Indeed. That’s one of the key differences between a theist and an atheist. If it came to a question of life and death an atheist would be more tempted to save his own skin rather than sacrifice his life to save some one else. So he is nobler if he does choose to die because he expects nothing in return - unless of course the theist expects to go to hell!
Then there is no doubt about who is making the greater sacrifice. In either case the fact that a person can overcome the will to survive demonstrates the power of the mind over the body. And that is evidence that there is more in life than meets the eye of the atheist. 🙂
That’s true. I guess the point I would make, though, is that just because most creatures have the will to survive doesn’t prove that God exists or that there’s an afterlife. In fact, it could just as easily prove the opposite - if there’s no afterlife and this is the only life there is, then of course we want to survive as long as possible!
Click to expand...
Indeed. That’s one of the key differences between a theist and an atheist. If it came to a question of life and death an atheist would be more tempted to save his own skin rather than sacrifice his life to save some one else. So he is nobler if he does choose to die because he expects nothing in return - unless of course the theist expects to go to hell!
Then there is no doubt about who is making the greater sacrifice.

In either case the fact that a person can overcome the will to survive demonstrates the power of the mind over the body. And that is evidence that there is more in life than meets the eye of the atheist. 🙂

I don’t see how the will to survive points to the non-existence of God because it requires explaining - and a great deal of explaining, given that purposeless, inanimate molecules are somehow transformed into microscopic cells endowed with this very purpose…
Just playing “devil’s advocate” … 😉
Click to expand...
I often do the same. I like to consider alternatives and anticipate objections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top