Do you believe in free will?

[Mister Agenda]

Hey guys, I'm Catholic but I enjoy talking with people of other view points and I'm just looking to learn a little bit about some of your ideas so help me out if you would please.

Sorry to jump in late, Flobee. Welcome.

I'm just looking to get some insights as to how most of you feel about free will and how exactly it fits into the materialist world view.

We're not all necessarily materialists. Both theism and atheism are merely opinions on a very specific topic, we're not in the habit of assuming much about theists without knowing some details of their religion or worldview, hopefully it will be the same with atheists someday. There are atheists who believe in an afterlife, astrology, psychic powers, and so forth. The thrust of Western atheism seems to involve rational skepticism and humanism, and those labels can probably be fitted to most atheists on this forum. As skeptics, we tend to not believe in physical/spiritual dualism due to lack of convincing evidence for it.

If we are composed of nothing other than matter then doesn't that mean all that we are as humans is a bunch of chemicals and particles being governed by physical laws?

You've loaded the question and inadvertently committed a fallacy of composition, that is, that what we're made of is all we are. None of the molecules of water have the properties of wetness or liquidity or iciness or vapor. Even if matter, energy, space, time, and physical laws are all there is; it doesn't mean that 'human beings are matter and energy in space and time governed by physical laws' is an adequate summary of humanity.

Do we have no more control over ourselves then a rock does when falling down a hill, or a computer governed completely by our programming?

I don't know, but it doesn't feel that way, and I find myself incapable of acting as if I have no control over myself.

It seems like that is the only option if materialism is true, however it just doesn't seem like that explanation fits in with the universal experience of free will. I mean if an object is dropped it must necessarily fall to the ground because of gravity. But there is no physical law that makes it necessary for me to post on this forum, it seems like I freely chose to do it myself.

Materialism doesn't imply predetermination. It's pretty clear that there's so little determinacy at the quantum level that much of what occurs, particularly in any given tiny corner of the cosmos, couldn't possibly have been predicted just knowing the initial conditions of the universe. The only thing I know of that would definitely imply predetermination would be an omnipotent, omniscient creator. If a God exists who set the initial conditions and know every detail of how it will unfold, no one can do other than what has been foreseen by this hypothetical being.

Any way if any one feels up to it please explain your thoughts on the topic for me. Thanks

You're quite welcome. I hope you find our discourse helpful.

---

According to your world view rocks and computers are quite analogous to the human mind because they are all the product of unintelligent physical laws governing matter actually. It is atheist scientists like Steven Pinker who are the ones that compare the human person to a computer not me.

You went from asking about our worldview to telling us about it rather quickly. Your argument means no more than saying rocks are quite analogous to human minds because they both the product of a divine creator. Human brains and computers ARE analogous, to an extent. So what?

You say above that free will is our own and not given to us by God. I'd like to know how you can prove that and demonstrate how in a purely naturalistic universe unintelligent forces can combine unconscious matter to somehow create consciousness and a free will that stands apart from such matter.

You say free will is not our own and is given to us by God. I'd like to know how you can prove that and demonstrate it any way, shape, or form.

Boy you sound just like another prepositional naturalist who argues from the belief that only the natural world exists and your not willing to consider the possibility of anything more even though there has yet to be a naturalistic explanation for the big bang, fine tuning, the origins of life, consciousness, the moral law, rationality, or free will.

I'm perfectly happy to consider something existing that is not part of the natural world. Just show it to me. You don't consider it reasonable to just take your word for something like that, do you? For starters, I'd like to know how you know. If you want to argue cosmology, a separate thread would be appropriate. It's easy to throw questions around, not so easy to answer the big ones in a post. Maybe you should consider reading up on these subjects from a different point of view?

Show me one way that my beliefs are not reasonable.

So far you have not demonstrated that your religious beliefs are based on reason or evidence. Being based on reason and evidence is what makes a belief reasonable. You do have the argument from ignorance on your side, in the form of 'we can't know for sure your beliefs aren't true, therefore they are reasonable'.

You know you guys really aren't arguing against me you are arguing against leading atheists such as Francis Crick, E.O. Wilson, Will Provine, Susan Blackmore and many others who all state that atheism is simply incompatible with free will.

Most atheists are freethinkers. The idea that we should kowtow to your argument just because you cherry-picked a list of atheists who agree with you carries no weight here. Argument from authority dismissed.

I believe in free will just as all of you seem to be saying that you do, however if you think through what naturalism really means and if you read the works of your own atheist philosophers and scientists, a few of whom I have named above, you find that they disagree with you.

So? Does it matter to you if Shinto theologians disagree with you? They're theist religous authorities, you're a theist, so how much weight do their teachings carry with you?

If you think you can prove them wrong and somehow show how it is possible to have things such as consciousness, rationality, absolute objective morality, and free will while still maintaining your belief in a purely naturalistic universe then I would be glad to hear what you have to say.

They aren't here. If you find their arguments so convincing, present them. It is sad that you think 'you guys prove these other guys wrong if you want me to listen to you' is somehow clever. And we don't really care if you listen to us. Judging by your post count, you weren't here long, and we've managed to muddle on.

If not I suggest you either come to the natural consequences of your belief system like those people above have done, or you continue believing in free will and consciousness and absolute objective morality and you embrace a world view that does not eliminate forces beyond mere matter which can actually explain such phenomenons.

That was quite a sentence! Atheism isn't a belief system, although I suppose materialism could be a small portion of one. Made up stuff can't explain phenomena. Saying free will comes from God doesn't provide any more information than saying free will comes from leprechauns. In case you check back, I think you should know that I defeated all of your atheist philosophers in another thread on another forum. If you want to know how, look it up.