News Do You Believe We Have Free Will?

[Muzikluvr]

@Kupo_Nut I'm not trying to convert people either, nor am I trying to insult people who are religious.

@joeylittle I disagree that there are people who need god in order to be good, as I understand the following quote from your post.

and for some people, (a) God is necessary.

I do not believe that humans can solve all the problems in our world, despite how idealistic my other post may sound. But I do believe that if the problems are to be solved, it is up to humans to solve them. There is no higher power or rescue team of aliens who will save Earth and Earthlings.

But how can you legitimately posit this utopian ideal when so many other humans just need to not be shot at every day?

My question is this, how often do people you barely know express their non-belief to you? How often do people you know discuss their non-belief with you?

Exclude all the times you may hear about non-belief from believers who are using the arguments as a catalyst for their sermons or broadcasts, and exclude any of your friends who are believers who talk about non-belief for the sake of making their own arguments against it.

I'm talking about, how often non-believers share their views with you.

 

[Kupo_Nut]

@Muzikluvr
I really didn't think you were trying to convert people or insult anyone, I'm sorry if I came across that way, I just needed to express my personal opinions because religious views can be misinterpreted, I wish you the best. :)
Also, I was bullied for my beliefs at school, people were really drumming into me how religion was stupid etc. I know quite a few atheists and I know their views and those aren't the people from school, I know plenty who are educated and intelligent, I am not against atheists in general, that is why I do not wish to debate on the topic too much. I know the arguments and the counter arguments, I think about these things a lot, I even came up with the cosmological argument without knowing about it.
I'm sorry, I really don't want to be seen as what I'm not, because of the bullying.

 

[Muzikluvr]

@Kupo_Nut I do want to debate religion. I do want to discuss it. I am inundated with religious people on and offline who think nothing of their presumptions. I'm sorry for what you experienced in regards to bullies. I hope I don't come off sounding like a bully, if I have sounded that way to anyone reading any of my posts about religion/god, please accept my apology. Bullied people do tend to *become* bullies, if only because they feel so desperate to defend themselves... even before they are really attacked. I certainly know of times when I fit into that description, although I try to recognize it before overreacting. I've found your responses to be quite civil and engaging, you seemed interested in discussing religion, whether you really wanted a debate or not. If you want, I will not tag you in anymore of my religious discussion, as a courtesy.

There are few places where I voice my opinion, this is one of those places. I talk about religion here because my spirituality was used against me by rapists when I was a child, and yet, it was introduced to me by passive apologists who didn't really buy into the whole thing. They just seemed to think that going to church made them good people and they didn't (don't) see any harm in it.

I think encouraging children to pray is a terrible thing, because there are many abused children who will turn to prayer when their pleas for help don't work, instead of continuing to seek *real* help. Prayer has been proven through FMRI imaging, to relieve stress in our brains. Once the stress response is relieved, the urgency to get help is relieved with it. Some of the things that abused children need to tell people are humiliating, or may have led to more abuse, rejection or abandonment. So, they'd do just about anything rather than say it out loud; therefore, they NEED that urgency created by stress in order to be desperate enough to reach out over and over and over again, until someone helps them.

Our experiences surely contribute to our desire to defend our views. I see the "debate" we're having as more of a "coming to an understanding" about our individual reasons for defending our positions, rather than a true debate on religion. It's bound to happen on such a passionate topic.

The God Debate thread ended in a kind of stand off. God may or may not exist, but to live one's life counting on God's existence would be detrimental. "God helps those who help themselves". Yet, there is still the presumption that religion makes people do good things through the belief in God, with which I absolutely disagree. But, I'm not trying to take something away from other people. I'm trying to fulfill a real need with a real solution.

This thread was intended to discuss Free Will, and we stuck to that subject pretty well. Free Will is important to both the religious and the atheist communities. Both want to believe that we make our own choices, and both perspectives are important to the discussion of free will, IMHO. After all, in what other context do we consider such intangible concepts more, than in our beliefs about our existence?

 

[Lucycat]

I don't see it in a binary way, "no free will at all" versus "permanent free will at play".

I disagree because I do.

I see it as a bit like digging a hole. It is always a hole however small or big. You cannot dig half a hole.

If I have a 'little bit' of free will then I have free will. If someone/something else has control over me then they have total control as they control how much control they have.

As has been said, if there are rules to be considered such as government laws, ethical or moral values then we can all choose which we adhere to or not. There are clear choices to be made as are evidenced by all those in the criminal justice system.

 

[joeylittle]

I disagree that there are people who need god in order to be good, as I understand the following quote from your post.
I do not believe that humans can solve all the problems in our world, despite how idealistic my other post may sound. But I do believe that if the problems are to be solved, it is up to humans to solve them. There is no higher power or rescue team of aliens who will save Earth and Earthlings.

Awesome.

I was responding to the statement in full, which says:

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.

And articulating, for some people God is necessary - definitely in order to feel that they are living a full and meaningful life and that they know how to be good. For some people, God is the entire framework. Which I think is fine. And I wouldn't have questioned your number five, above, if it were not for your list also containing this:

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

You cannot say God is not necessary and then say "treat others as you would wish them to treat you...think about their perspective"

It's not coherent.

Personally, I'm agnostic. And I suspect you are confused about the meanings of Atheism vs. Agnosticism.

Your list of principles given in post 18 is the Atheist 10 Commandments. They were selected from thousands of suggestions submitted to an author when he asked the question, what would the 10 commandments of Atheism be? And so, it is not surprising to me that they are inconsistent in stance. But they are also just as dogmatic as any commandments of any religion.

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I'm talking about, how often non-believers share their views with you.

All the time, because I'm not a believer either. :) I also talk to people who have faith in a God, and to people who are adamant that there is no such thing as God. As an Agnostic, I simply think as above: we can only know what we can observe as material phenomena. Anything beyond that could exist; its equally possible it does not exist. There is no way of knowing, so there is no way of coming to a conclusion.

You are expressing as an atheist; you say that:

I do not believe that humans can solve all the problems in our world, despite how idealistic my other post may sound. But I do believe that if the problems are to be solved, it is up to humans to solve them. There is no higher power or rescue team of aliens who will save Earth and Earthlings.

By saying that, there are two things you are also saying, through implication:

1. There is no God (or are no Gods)
2. Humans must try and solve the problems of Humanity, even though they will not always succeed.

That's a totally valid stance. It is not contradictory in itself; it holds together very well.

I think my challenge to you is to also understand that it is dogmatic.

Now, since you do not believe in free will, (I think, if I've followed you correctly) it does make sense that you would have a dogma. Because the "no free will" argument hinges on there being things outside of our control that shape our lives.

But can you see your contradiction? If there are things outside your control that have shaped your life, and that those things in turn have removed certain options from your ability to shape your own life, how can humans be responsible for solving the problems of humanity? I don't see this as freeing, I see it as basically turning yourself into a Sisyphus - we have to try and push that rock up the mountain even though it's going to slide right back down again.

And that, to me, is not enlightening- it's just frightening.

But, in the bigger picture, I say again: philosophical debates of this nature are fascinating - but the ability to have the debate is a privilege currently, in the world we live in. Unless it can be a right available to all, there is no way to put the debate to any real use.

Trauma specific even: I can't say that the way a young woman in Rwanda should deal with her rape is that she should accept she does not have free will and somehow forgive her rapist. So, if I can't say it of her, how can I say it of anyone? How about we just get help going on in as many ways as possible?

AKA: doing is better than talking.

Look, the guy who abducted me had his needs. He took me in order to meet his own needs. Then, I was left with a need to recover. So I call upon lots of doctors to supply me with my needs. They are looking to meet their needs as well.

In my understanding of the visible world, that guy was wrong to imprison me for his needs. His needs didn't mesh with my needs. I needed all that to NOT be happening to me.

But my doctors are not wrong for needing clients in order to earn money and live their lives - that's their need. If they are only talking to me in order to take my money, but aren't meeting my needs, that's wrong (in my book) - and it's up to me to express that and act on it. Which I've done. In a better situation, they also have a need to help people; I have a need to be helped. So we all move forward together.

Beyond that - it's all a very, very interesting conversation - but it doesn't have a practical application. So, as long as you keep philosophy where it belongs, in the realm of conjecture, and then let those thoughts transform into actions when appropriate, philosophy is fine. When it becomes dogmatic, it becomes wrong. (In my book).

Gosh, this stuff is hard to write about.

 

[Muzikluvr]

If someone/something else has control over me then they have total control as they control how much control they have.

What if it's not just one person who has control over you? But several people and groups who limit your choices without your knowledge or approval?

The man who is raised in a loving, conscientious home, surrounded by a safe and nurturing community, who is handsome and talented, is going to have a much different perspective than the woman raised in a low income, gang ridden, inner city community who is considered ugly even by her own family. Their options *are* different. They are treated differently by everyone they know, because everyone first judges them by their appearance, then by what they contribute and by what others around them think of them. The woman will have to be her own cheerleader in life. She will have to work harder for approval, and harder for acceptance. She will see people differently, than the man who is eagerly approved of at first glance, and encouraged to participate.

The man may believe that he had the same options that the woman had to turn to a life of crime, or to use drugs, or to fall into a major depression and never rise to her full potential; and he could have done that, but the deck was stacked in his favor. He's more likely to become like his parents and community; loving, conscientious and nurturing. He may be quite judgmental, though; never having experienced life long conflict with people over the same issues despite their not even knowing him personally.

Our beliefs DO determine how we interact with others in the world, and our beliefs arise from how the world interacts with us when we're first learning about it. Our minds have already narrowed down our choices before we are even conscious of having them, because people fill our minds with restrictions from the moment we're born. We must examine our inner lives and try our best to live according to our own values, but who gives us our values? Do we create those on our own? Or, would I value different things if I were raised in Scotland, than if I were raised in America? Would I know different things about the world if I were raised anywhere else but my own country? How might that information change my values? My goals in life... my wants? So, how much control do I have over what I want out of life? I suppose, the more informed I am, the more choices I have, but there are still choices I may like but would never feel I could make, given my core beliefs about myself and the world around me.

Someone has control over you, there's no doubt that we are all controlled by our perspectives which are created under circumstances outside of our control, and which preclude us from seeing each new experience as unique. So, if what you say in the above quote is true, does it only hold true for an individual who is controlling your perspective or is it true also for the innumerable entities who manipulate our perspectives every day?

 

[Muzikluvr]

It is not ok by my rules of engagement in philosophy to state there is a "most reliable way" and then state within the same treatise that there is "no one right way'. It's just faulty reasoning.

You quoted the following two rules to make that point...

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

9. There is no one right way to live.

One states the most reliable way of understanding the natural world, which provides a guide for how to consider the events in our lives and in the world at large. The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to make these conclusions. We are all scientists in our own lives. We created our beliefs as children, and we continue to assess and reassess our beliefs as we experience life.

(aside) Unfortunately, some beliefs we hold to be true were created for us by people we trusted or feared, and those beliefs have never been confronted, if for instance, we live in the same community in which we grew up, or we still live with our parents, or we are attracted to like minded individuals who happen to share that belief. If people saw themselves as scientists, and saw each event in life as a unique event, then we might not be so dogmatic in how we approach each situation, and we would have more options come to mind. However, we will always be limited because our brains are not capable of infinite possibilities... yet, we are still responsible for choosing to abide within the laws because our minds are capable of providing enough choices to choose something other than breaking the law.

The rule which you state conflicts with the guide for how to consider the world around us, is that there is no right way to live, which IMHO, would be obvious if we were all approaching the world from the standpoint of each experience in life being a unique event. Day to day would be different for a single person, how could we think that each person would live the same life if they all considered the scientific method to be the most reliable way of understanding the natural world? They may also consider the bible the most reliable information regarding the after life. Religious people still go to the doctor when they're sick. That's because they know we live in the natural world, and they use our limited means of managing the natural world. We already deal with the dichotomy of faith in god vs. seeking scientific solutions. To rely upon the method by which all the medicinal cures were discovered, as a means for understanding our own lives, seems apparent to me. It still would not result in everyone living the same life, for the reasons I gave in my above post to Lucycat, regarding many of the ways in which we are treated differently in life. Our lives ARE unique. No method for understanding them is going to make them all the same.

 

[Muzikluvr]

So it strikes my heart funny to even wonder whether or not there is "freedom" or "limitation" within self-determination. How about there are both, and every bit of grey in-between, let's just get about the business of being our great, flawed, human selves - and some of us will try and help those people, and others of us will not know about wars other than our own, and some of us will kill others of us in robbery and rape, but some of us will also save others of us in those very same situations.

This comes from a later post, but is along the same lines, at least as I experience it, because it feels like you are trying to shut down the dialogue.

AKA: doing is better than talking.

Okay. So why are you still here talking? Do you want to shut down the whole conversation because you don't think it's relevant or useful? There are 7 billion people on this planet. A few of us are engaging in a conversation. So what? Add to your above list that some of us will talk about stuff rather than do anything about it. Add to it that some of us will pray about stuff rather than do anything about it, too. There are an infinite number of choices we may make... but how free are we to make other choices, that is the question.

Not everyone is free to debate whether or not there is free will.

And so those of us who are free to choose to debate free will, should not do so until everyone is free to choose to debate it? Should we wait until our governments all agree that every life is meaningful, that everyone is valuable, and that we should all have our basic needs met before some of us skyrocket into multi-billionaire status, and that one of our basic needs is the need to communicate with one another in order to broaden our minds and improve our perspectives so we might be open to a variety of options that we were not privy to from the experiences in our small towns or neighborhoods?

I think it works quite the opposite way, that the people first communicate with one another, and then they determine what the government should do. And, I think that a lot of people have more power than they believe they have. I think there is a lot of risk involved, especially where governments are willing to massacre their populations. I think that people who are cut off from the rest of the world are controlled by their governments, easier than by those who have access to information about the rest of the world. I think that communication is key to changing the world, and I don't see why we should stop communicating just because there are some who are excluded because they have bigger issues to solve before they can have a conversation about how much free will they actually have in a free society, given that they don't live in a free society anyway.

 

[Muzikluvr]

I was responding to the statement in full, which says:

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.

And articulating, for some people God is necessary - definitely in order to feel that they are living a full and meaningful life and that they know how to be good. For some people, God is the entire framework. Which I think is fine. And I wouldn't have questioned your number five, above, if it were not for your list also containing this:

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

You cannot say God is not necessary and then say "treat others as you would wish them to treat you...think about their perspective"

It's not coherent.

I have no idea why you think it's contradictory to say those two things. I often think about other people's perspective, and I often get it wrong because of lack of information. However, I'm open to understanding them, and I try to be considerate. Are you suggesting that God makes this easier for people? I don't get it, given that you're agnostic. What are you talking about?

Number 5 is simply stating that God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. If that's what it takes for some people, that's all well and good. But, it isn't a criteria by which to judge everyone, because it is not necessary for all of us to live within that "framework" in order to achieve a full and meaningful life. It's not exclusionary. It's opening up the definition of a full and meaningful life to those of us who do not need God to do good and to experience awe and meaning, etc...

 

[Muzikluvr]

Your list of principles given in post 18 is the Atheist 10 Commandments. They were selected from thousands of suggestions submitted to an author when he asked the question, what would the 10 commandments of Atheism be? And so, it is not surprising to me that they are inconsistent in stance. But they are also just as dogmatic as any commandments of any religion.

I thought about coming up with my own list, but was too lazy. I knew that I couldn't create a list that was broad enough to encompass the freedoms I believe we should have, nor specific enough to limit people's options for doing harm. I am not prepared to defend the list, but then, what list could I defend? Here is a video of Christopher Hitchens criticizing the biblical 10 commandments and creating his own (tongue in cheek) list.

And, what country's laws are defensible, which contain no contradictions? Our legal system includes judges who consider the laws and apply them on a case by case basis, deciding on the circumstances at each instance which law applies. If you'd like to further debate a set of rules by which to live, then we could move that discussion to another thread.

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I freely admit that I am biased. My beliefs were never created or destroyed by facts, but by my own experiences. I am working toward being accepting, but in my state, agnostics and atheists have told me not to speak about my non-belief. They meet in small groups in bigger cities, and although there may be several of us in my small town, we are not all interested in changing the social norm of considering people "good people" just because they go to church.

You seem quite content to accept religious believers for their dogmas, and yet confrontational about my anti-theist attitudes. I have some really good reasons, based on my own life experiences and my view of other events in our world, for leaning toward anti-theism.
However, it will take more time and discussion for me to unravel the negatives which I feel regarding religion and its privilege in my community. Perhaps you are only confronting me to point out to others that my beliefs are no less dogmatic than the religious beliefs which I criticize, or to confront me with that information. That's part of the discussion, as I see it.

However, I am much easier to reign in than my religious counterparts who seem to have a voice everywhere I go. I do not go around challenging everyone who greets me with religious sayings or who try to console me with religious beliefs. I accept them as I hope they are intended, in the spirit of love and connection. Still, I think that people should question their beliefs and wonder if there is really a Heaven, if there's really a god, and then doubt whether or not they should enforce their religious doctrines in our legal system, or embrace the good Christian candidates in our political system... just because they're Christian excluding any negatives that may have come out about them.

We are by no means equal in our influence, but go ahead, confront my dogmatic views and fuel the climate of privilege that allows religious people to evangelize and discriminate sans critical thinking.

I would appreciate hearing a debate by a well respected agnostic. I would like to hear them present their views, even if not in debate form. You may PM me with those or post them here for all to see. Who do you respect? We are all individuals, and none of us fully fit into our "categories". But, I think that I am as open minded as I can be, and I continue to push myself in this discussion, despite the triggers from spiritual abuse which I face from time to time.

 

[Lucycat]

I think there is a difference between somebody controlling my behaviour and controlling my will. I was referring to controlling my will. Of course there may be considered to be an overlap but not in my book. Even when I was controlled and abused my will was still free. I was free to think and make hypothetical choices.

To me this is a different discussion to being controlled by a 'higher power'. (Unless we see fellow humans as higher powers?)

One of the problems I have is that there are so many variants of a 'unique' higher power that they can't possibly all be right. Therefore by default they are wrong. Sorry people - this is my belief.

 

[Muzikluvr]

Again, I refer back to the Sam Harris video that started this discussion. I am not Sam Harris. I found that his statements were a different way of saying what I'd discovered in recovery from my own traumas. I hadn't thought of it in terms of free will before, and I wonder if that is in fact, the correct description of our limitations.

I think there is a difference between somebody controlling my behaviour and controlling my will. I was referring to controlling my will. Of course there may be considered to be an overlap but not in my book. Even when I was controlled and abused my will was still free. I was free to think and make hypothetical choices.

Liars change the way we perceive reality. They control our will by influencing the way we interpret other people and events in the world, which in turn, limits our free will to make choices that wouldn't fit the circumstances given us by the liars.

Advertisers entice us. Corporations exclude the negative results from their in-house scientific studies, eg. Oil companies prevented the public from accepting that leaded gasoline was poisoning ourselves and our planet by hiring their own scientists to confuse the data results and suggest discrepancies to introduce doubt. Tobacco companies, ditto. Pharmaceutical companies, ditto.

If you can control what people believe, then you can control what they choose. How many different people, companies, political candidates, media representatives, etc... are controlling our perspectives? And, how the hell are we supposed to sort out the ensuing confusion? How often do people choose to be puppets on a string rather than research the data themselves. (Another reason for us to learn to apply the scientific method to our lives.)

Quotes from: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833-free-will

“A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings.”
― Sam Harris, Free Will

“You can do what you decide to do — but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.”
― Sam Harris, [DLMURL="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833"]Free Will[/DLMURL]

“Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn't choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime - by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?”
― Sam Harris, [DLMURL="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833"]Free Will[/DLMURL]

“Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors.”
― Sam Harris, [DLMURL="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833"]Free Will[/DLMURL]

“Despite our attachment to the notion of free will, most of us know that disorders of the brain can trump the best intentions of the mind.”
― Sam Harris, [DLMURL="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833"]Free Will[/DLMURL]

“Our system of justice should reflect an understanding that any of us could have been dealt a very different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself.”
― Sam Harris, [DLMURL="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833"]Free Will[/DLMURL]

“Losing a belief in free will has not made me fatalistic—in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom. My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and indelible. There is no telling how much I might change in the future. Just as one wouldn’t draw a lasting conclusion about oneself on the basis of a brief experience of indigestion, one needn’t do so on the basis of how one has thought or behaved for vast stretches of time in the past. A creative change of inputs to the system—learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention—may radically transform one’s life.”
― Sam Harris, [DLMURL="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/18360833"]Free Will[/DLMURL]