It seems that one of the strongest selling points for theism is moral responsibility and free will, oftentimes in a form of the Moral argument for God's existence. However, I think its safe to say that scientific research has thoroughly vindicated the old philosophical notion of determinism, which necessarily negates the traditional (if not incoherent) idea that man is *actually* free to choose his thoughts/behaviors. Determinism is held by the majority of atheists I've encountered and many of them also hold to some idea of moral absolutes, which in my mind entails duties or responsibilities. Can someone explain to me how determinists define free will differently than it has been traditionally understood and how humans can be held morally responsible for actions they were not actually the cause for?

There's a lot of terms in there that would spawn a lot of formal philosophy, so I'll leave that to the experts. As a naive philosopher, my tentative conclusion is that morality is derived from chemical intelligence. The dichotomies offered make sense in the context of protozoa initiating action - left, right; forward, back; stillness or motion. Furthermore, man is a trinity of simulation - simulation of mind in brain, simulation of mind of another in mind, simulation of future in mind - which defines self based upon experience and environment.

And last I checked, there was no moral absolute; what there is, perhaps, is an absolute paradigm; mine being that I love.

Amo ergo sum. Consciously and subconsciously applied to changes in the environment.

Does not one have to hold to some form of objective morality to use examples of "evil" as one of the primary railing points against religion?

(December 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: It seems that one of the strongest selling points for theism is moral responsibility and free will, oftentimes in a form of the Moral argument for God's existence. However, I think its safe to say that scientific research has thoroughly vindicated the old philosophical notion of determinism, which necessarily negates the traditional (if not incoherent) idea that man is *actually* free to choose his thoughts/behaviors. Determinism is held by the majority of atheists I've encountered and many of them also hold to some idea of moral absolutes, which in my mind entails duties or responsibilities. Can someone explain to me how determinists define free will differently than it has been traditionally understood and how humans can be held morally responsible for actions they were not actually the cause for?

(December 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: It seems that one of the strongest selling points for theism is moral responsibility and free will, oftentimes in a form of the Moral argument for God's existence. However, I think its safe to say that scientific research has thoroughly vindicated the old philosophical notion of determinism, which necessarily negates the traditional (if not incoherent) idea that man is *actually* free to choose his thoughts/behaviors. Determinism is held by the majority of atheists I've encountered and many of them also hold to some idea of moral absolutes, which in my mind entails duties or responsibilities. Can someone explain to me how determinists define free will differently than it has been traditionally understood and how humans can be held morally responsible for actions they were not actually the cause for?

Sure: "You couldn't have done otherwise, but you need to be punished for doing it!" as opposed to "You could have done otherwise, but chose of your own free will not to, so you deserve to be punished."

(December 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

---

It seems that one of the strongest selling points for theism is moral responsibility and free will, oftentimes in a form of the Moral argument for God's existence. However, I think its safe to say that scientific research has thoroughly vindicated the old philosophical notion of determinism, which necessarily negates the traditional (if not incoherent) idea that man is *actually* free to choose his thoughts/behaviors. Determinism is held by the majority of atheists I've encountered and many of them also hold to some idea of moral absolutes, which in my mind entails duties or responsibilities. Can someone explain to me how determinists define free will differently than it has been traditionally understood and how humans can be held morally responsible for actions they were not actually the cause for?

---

So... if our mind is deterministic, how can we be held accountable for what it does? Is that it?

We can, because we're dealing with two different layers of "we" in one sentence.
The low level layer is pure neuron firing...
The higher layer contains our experiences, our memories, our personality, our sensory information and decides on a behavior, based on those. Some of those decisions are made in a split second, almost automatically... others require some "cpu cycles" to gather everything. The potential punishment is one of the factors that have to go in that processing!

This is where the current scientific consensus is leading... not that it's there yet, but... it's where it's going...

(December 1, 2013 at 5:58 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Does not one have to hold to some form of objective morality to use examples of "evil" as one of the primary railing points against religion?

"Evil" is no more a moral direction than left. Trust me, I'm a psychopath.

(December 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

---

It seems that one of the strongest selling points for theism is moral responsibility and free will, oftentimes in a form of the Moral argument for God's existence. However, I think its safe to say that scientific research has thoroughly vindicated the old philosophical notion of determinism, which necessarily negates the traditional (if not incoherent) idea that man is *actually* free to choose his thoughts/behaviors. Determinism is held by the majority of atheists I've encountered and many of them also hold to some idea of moral absolutes, which in my mind entails duties or responsibilities. Can someone explain to me how determinists define free will differently than it has been traditionally understood and how humans can be held morally responsible for actions they were not actually the cause for?

---

So... if our mind is deterministic, how can we be held accountable for what it does? Is that it?

We can, because we're dealing with two different layers of "we" in one sentence.
The low level layer is pure neuron firing...
The higher layer contains our experiences, our memories, our personality, our sensory information and decides on a behavior, based on those. Some of those decisions are made in a split second, almost automatically... others require some "cpu cycles" to gather everything. The potential punishment is one of the factors that have to go in that processing!

This is where the current scientific consensus is leading... not that it's there yet, but... it's where it's going...

Thank you for replying. I'm surprised the other responses consisted only of ignorance of the philosophical problem and the ready embrace of moral relativism. Many of the "New Atheists" obviously don't agree with postmodernism and neither do I. In fact, the only way to accuse religion of promoting evil (rather than merely going "left") is to have some objective compass of morality by which to judge religious teachings as immoral. As to your point about the potential punishment that goes into our brain processes, I'm not really sure how that's relevant. Can atheists justify moral duties--in conjunction with determinism--why a person OUGHT to do something, even if doing so results in punishment for that individual instead of reward? Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris seem to hold that determinism and moral duties can co-exist, unless I've misunderstood their views, and I'd like to understand that better.

(December 1, 2013 at 11:17 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris seem to hold that determinism and moral duties can co-exist, unless I've misunderstood their views, and I'd like to understand that better.

Dennett is a compatibilist. Harris is not. Try to keep that distinction clear.

The four points of the compass: 1) incompatibilism, 2) libertarian free will, 3) compatibilism, 4) hard determinist (aka hard incompatibilism).

Determinism vs free will seems a false dichotomy to me. Pure free will cannot make sense of our experience any better than pure determinism does. Not really looking to open all that up again but I definitely don't come down as a determinist. If the Libet material is the reason you say science has determined that determinism is the way of it, I don't think you've thought through the implications. (Science is not going to settle this little dilemma.)

I surely do not choose a position based on what that gets me. Otherwise why not just join Pascal and become a practical theist? An objective basis for morality is neither possible nor necessary.