The illusion of free will and atheism

[the_universal]

I’m really struggling with the concept of free will and hoping folks can assist. There was an article recently posted about this on the CA blog where the author argues that if an atheist is made aware that their position means that free will is an illusion, that this somehow makes the position of atheism less credible. Maybe I’m not understanding the position.

I’m not convinced that an atheist, even once presented the reasons and accepts/admits the ‘illusion’ of free will, would actually have an issue with it. I think many would simply see (although maybe wouldn’t admit it right away to your face) that there is an evolutionary (both biologically and culturally) argument for the explanation of free will.

Although I am not an atheist, it’s very challenging to find examples in my everyday life that I can point to where I can prove that my choice was free. Most are based on information and experiences that I have amassed over my life. I can equate them all to risk vs reward and so I’m struggling with how atheists would be uncomfortable with that? Any thoughts?

This is a tough one for me…please help.

 

[LethalMouse]

The main arguement against free will is such that you maje choices with knowledge and priorities and that even though 2 people may prioritize differently their chosen priorities are constraining the will.

It is the fact that we can have different priorities that confirms free will. Why would I pay my mortgage but my neighbor decides to by a new iphone and get evicted? The anti free will crowd would argue that we are operating within different priorities but priorities nonetheless. Well… the free will part is to maintain priorities. We can chose these priorities and we can change them. You can get evicted once and change your priorities or get evicted 20x before the change, or maintain your priorities until you die ever being evicted and fsiling at life… tis… simply… free will.

 

[Bahman]

I’m really struggling with the concept of free will and hoping folks can assist. There was an article recently posted about this on the CA blog where the author argues that if an atheist is made aware that their position means that free will is an illusion, that this somehow makes the position of atheism less credible. Maybe I’m not understanding the position.

I’m not convinced that an atheist, even once presented the reasons and accepts/admits the ‘illusion’ of free will, would actually have an issue with it. I think many would simply see (although maybe wouldn’t admit it right away to your face) that there is an evolutionary (both biologically and culturally) argument for the explanation of free will.

Although I am not an atheist, it’s very challenging to find examples in my everyday life that I can point to where I can prove that my choice was free. Most are based on information and experiences that I have amassed over my life. I can equate them all to risk vs reward and so I’m struggling with how atheists would be uncomfortable with that? Any thoughts?

This is a tough one for me…please help.

Free will is an illusion since we are rational being and always choose the best among a set of prioritized options. I don’t understand how it could be related to atheism.

 

[the_universal]

The main arguement against free will is such that you maje choices with knowledge and priorities and that even though 2 people may prioritize differently their chosen priorities are constraining the will.

It is the fact that we can have different priorities that confirms free will. Why would I pay my mortgage but my neighbor decides to by a new iphone and get evicted? The anti free will crowd would argue that we are operating within different priorities but priorities nonetheless. Well… the free will part is to maintain priorities. We can chose these priorities and we can change them. You can get evicted once and change your priorities or get evicted 20x before the change, or maintain your priorities until you die ever being evicted and fsiling at life… tis… simply… free will.

But doesn’t the atheist always have an out in these circumstances? Two people make different decisions and have different priorities because they’ve likely had different parents, different upbringings, different educations, differences in the way their brains have developed, etc. etc. You can make this argument just as much as the free will argument no?

 

[LethalMouse]

But doesn’t the atheist always have an out in these circumstances? Two people make different decisions and have different priorities because they’ve likely had different parents, different upbringings, different educations, differences in the way their brains have developed, etc. etc. You can make this argument just as much as the free will argument no?

Soneone in the world can believe wholeheartedly and argue to death that gravity is not real or that the sky is red. There is eventually a point when there is no further you can go with someone.

 

[Trident_H]

I’m really struggling with the concept of free will and hoping folks can assist. There was an article recently posted about this on the CA blog where the author argues that if an atheist is made aware that their position means that free will is an illusion, that this somehow makes the position of atheism less credible. Maybe I’m not understanding the position.

I’m not convinced that an atheist, even once presented the reasons and accepts/admits the ‘illusion’ of free will, would actually have an issue with it. I think many would simply see (although maybe wouldn’t admit it right away to your face) that there is an evolutionary (both biologically and culturally) argument for the explanation of free will.

Although I am not an atheist, it’s very challenging to find examples in my everyday life that I can point to where I can prove that my choice was free. Most are based on information and experiences that I have amassed over my life. I can equate them all to risk vs reward and so I’m struggling with how atheists would be uncomfortable with that? Any thoughts?

This is a tough one for me…please help.

While people like Bahman see life as something of a slide, where down’s the only logical, so free will’s an illusion, guys like me actually use free will. So it’s different.

I’m using free will right now to:

Stay sober. And drug free.
Stay out of SS relationships. Or any relationships for that matter.
Get out of bed in the morning because I don’t seem to have learned how to go to bed on time.
Eat my vegetables. Even though mom’s not around to check.

Now this takes concentration. It takes effort. And effort takes will. So you know you’re using free will when you’re faced with an easy and hard choice and you choose the hard. Sure some of it can come because of past beliefs. Or upbringing. Or habit. But that’s not enough. Because some of us are smart enough to be able to fool ourselves. Some of us are able to pull a hat out of a rabbit if we want something bad enough.

So free will is most obvious when we cross our own arms against what otherwise would be the smoothest ride. Free will is most clearly used when we do hard things. Especially when the outcome wouldn’t really be that world-shattering if we didn’t. Especially if I knew I could just as easily sleep in as get up because I don’t have to work today. But I’m up. Nice and early. I freely chose to do that.

And I freely chose to answer your question.

And I freely choose to pat Bahman on the head. And tell him I love him.

And he probably, somewhat less freely, will try to dodge away from any hugs I might try to scoop him up with. But then maybe he doesn’t really have as much free will as I do, hey?

Peace the_universal.

-Trident

 

[punisherthunder]

Atheists are an illusion.

They spend their whole lives pretending to be something…that is nothing.

 

[Lucretius]

I’m not convinced that an atheist, even once presented the reasons and accepts/admits the ‘illusion’ of free will, would actually have an issue with it. I think many would simply see (although maybe wouldn’t admit it right away to your face) that there is an evolutionary (both biologically and culturally) argument for the explanation of free will.

Not all forms of atheism require determinism, but the most popular forms, like Buddhism and materialism, do.

Although I am not an atheist, it’s very challenging to find examples in my everyday life that I can point to where I can prove that my choice was free. Most are based on information and experiences that I have amassed over my life. I can equate them all to risk vs reward and so I’m struggling with how atheists would be uncomfortable with that? Any thoughts?

The problem is how you are defining “free.” To St. Thomas, free judgment was due to a will ordered to the intellect (reason), and of course reason itself ordered to faith. A free will is a will governed by reason.

Modern people define a free will as a sort of will that chooses without any sort of criteria (see your response which I formated boldly ). However, this is impossible, because to choose is to choose between things. A wiil without any way to choose between multiple options will simply not choose: it will be forever indecisive.

If freedom of the will is due to reason, then a will that isn’t free would be one that, although the person thinks he is choosing arbritrarily, is actually unconsciously influenced by convention, environment, peer pressure, and the unruly passions. It’s not wrong to be influenced by these things, but a free man is one who is conscious of his bias and influences, yet doesn’t allow them to be his only criteria.

Now, it is important to note that reason is informed by our experiences, and so we can be enslaved to ignorance due to our lack of experience, and more likely by our sinful desires and selfishness. However, faith and love helps us overcome even the scorch of fallen reason.

Or something. This is what I got. Here’s Mr. Flynn’s articles too, which may be helpful:

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/06/attack-of-brain-atoms.html

tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/mindless-machine-tries-to-convince-us.html

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/06/attack-of-brain-atoms.html

tofspot.blogspot.com/2012/01/humanism-in-danger.html

tofspot.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-demise-of-free-guessing.html

tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/04/theres-way.html

tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/06/picking-brain.html

I remember he had a good insight into this matter somewhere.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Trident_H]

Not all forms of atheism require determinism, but the most popular forms, like Buddhism and materialism, do.

The problem is how you are defining “free.” To St. Thomas, free judgment was due to a will ordered to the intellect (reason), and of course reason itself ordered to faith. A free will is a will governed by reason.

Modern people define a free will as a sort of will that chooses without any sort of criteria (see your response which I formated boldly ). However, this is impossible, because to choose is to choose between things. A wiil without any way to choose between multiple options will simply not choose: it will be forever indecisive.

If freedom of the will is due to reason, then a will that isn’t free would be one that, although the person thinks he is choosing arbritrarily, is actually unconsciously influenced by convention, environment, peer pressure, and the unruly passions. It’s not wrong to be influenced by these things, but a free man is one who is conscious of his bias and influences, yet doesn’t allow them to be his only criteria.

There. That says it nicely.

 

[GEddie]

I’m really struggling with the concept of free will and hoping folks can assist. There was an article recently posted about this on the CA blog where the author argues that if an atheist is made aware that their position means that free will is an illusion, that this somehow makes the position of atheism less credible. Maybe I’m not understanding the position.

It’s not much of an argument, IMNAAHO. I for one have always held that free-will is to a substantial extent a mirage, as our will is as conditioned as every other part of our beings. Our physical soma, internal biology, life memory and interpersonal geometry have as much to do with our will as does “freedom.”

A whole lot of history and art originated from human action being a lot less “free” than is commonly assumed.

IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

 

[ffg]

Understanding what the definition of ‘Free Will’ is per the source that teaches it, is an important first step in understanding further.

We like to throw the term ‘free will’ around here quite often, but not necessarily all under the same understanding of the term.

The term defined - the freedom to choose the good.

It is quite a specific definition from which could be hours of unpacking…

(What does this mean for our natural tendencies? What does this mean about our relationship with God when we do good? Are we actually building a relationship in those efforts, regardless of if we know it? etc.)

The Church is always teaching with the purpose of direction because truth is the destination.

Thus, why the definition from the Church is not simply ‘to have choice’. Which is not directional and leads to chaos.

Take care,

mike

(for a source: I’ve found this definition on the Vatican website previously, since I’ve used it as a source previously, but can’t seem to find it now, frustrating -

I did find this - catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51351 - snip: “Being free to always choose the good is challenging…”)

 

[seagal]

While people like Bahman see life as something of a slide, where down’s the only logical, so free will’s an illusion, guys like me actually use free will. So it’s different.

I’m using free will right now to:

Stay sober. And drug free.
Stay out of SS relationships. Or any relationships for that matter.
Get out of bed in the morning because I don’t seem to have learned how to go to bed on time.
Eat my vegetables. Even though mom’s not around to check.

Now this takes concentration. It takes effort. And effort takes will. So you know you’re using free will when you’re faced with an easy and hard choice and you choose the hard. Sure some of it can come because of past beliefs. Or upbringing. Or habit. But that’s not enough. Because some of us are smart enough to be able to fool ourselves. Some of us are able to pull a hat out of a rabbit if we want something bad enough.

So free will is most obvious when we cross our own arms against what otherwise would be the smoothest ride. Free will is most clearly used when we do hard things. Especially when the outcome wouldn’t really be that world-shattering if we didn’t. Especially if I knew I could just as easily sleep in as get up because I don’t have to work today. But I’m up. Nice and early. I freely chose to do that.

And I freely chose to answer your question.

And I freely choose to pat Bahman on the head. And tell him I love him.

And he probably, somewhat less freely, will try to dodge away from any hugs I might try to scoop him up with. But then maybe he doesn’t really have as much free will as I do, hey?

Peace the_universal.

-Trident

 

[Bradski]

When you make a decision you will always have reasons for doing so (otherwise the decisions are arbitrary).

If the conditions are EXACTLY the same, you will always make the exact same decision. That is, for any given set of circumstances there is only one choice to be made.

That doesn’t sound like free will to me.

 

[Trident_H]

When you make a decision you will always have reasons for doing so (otherwise the decisions are arbitrary).

If the conditions are EXACTLY the same, you will always make the exact same decision. That is, for any given set of circumstances there is only one choice to be made.

That doesn’t sound like free will to me.

Just because you always answer this question the same way doesn’t mean you don’t have free will. It just sort of means you probably also tell the same stories at parties.

 

[Aloysium]

Free will is what makes us who we are.
One may feel all we do has been programmed.
If that is how one feels, one has accepted the programming.
In a consumerist society the aim is comfort and getting away from difficult choices.
There is nothing that prevents any of us from being another Mother Teresa in our own way, to be Christ-like, except how we willingly chose to live our lives, to make the best of what we have been given.
To love or not, is the decision we have to carry out.
A person does not have to know the story of Christ to know the central importance of love in our lives.

 

[Bradski]

Too right.
Like when you watch those time travel movies and people are given a chance to go back in time and make a different choice at an important turning point…and they find themselves making the same choice over and over again even if they know the outcome and were not happy with it.

It’s the movies, but…realistic, too, I think.

Think about Groundhog Day. Phil is able to make different choices because he is separate from the conditions that apply each day. If he didn’t realise that, then he would make exactly the same choices every time. It would be a pretty boring film because we’d be watching the same thing happen every time he wakes up.

It’s only because the conditions are different (he knows he’s repeating the same day) that he can make different decisions. But everyone else repeats exactly the same thing – until such time that Phil changes the conditions.

We don’t have that luxury. We have the one set of conditions that lead to whatever decision we make.

 

[the_universal]

I don’t understand how thinking there isn’t a God or Gods would automatically mean free will is an illusion.
And then…how a lack of that free will would make it more credible that a God existed.
(Especially because theists often talk about how God gave people free will!)

Confused

.

So, my understanding of the article posted in the blog was that many atheists say they don’t believe in God, yet they still sometimes act as though they have free will. But in fact in this situation the free will they assume would be an illusion. My issue is that I don’t think an atheist would see the absurdity, or care, which is why I don’t quite get the argument of the article. I find the whole thing rather confusing.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is a tough one for me…please help.

Atheists, mostly rank determinists, might well read their horoscopes with their breakfast.

“This is the excellent foppery of the world: that when we are sick in fortune—often the surfeits of our own behaviour—we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and traitors by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence, and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star!” William Shakespeare

 

[GEddie]

If we admit to ourselves, that free will is at least in large part a mirage, but make good use of the freedom it seems that we have, wouldn’t the result be the same?

 

[Lucretius]

Stephen Gould teaches that if we were to rewind the evolutionary tape, humans would not arise. So, it seems that it isn’t clear that exact same conditions will bring the exact result. Couldn’t a set of conditions have multiple possible outcomes?

Christi pax,

Lucretius