Determinism vs Free Will

[JoeNoshow]

Believing in a god usually requires the belief in free will, (at least, it does for YHWH), but believing that there is no god does not demand either the belief in free will nor the belief in determinism and I was wondering in general where the atheist community stands on this.

Just so we've got our definitions clear...

Determinism is basically the belief that there is a cause for every effect for everything which entails that everything is ultimately predetermined by a chain of causes.

Note: Cause and Effect has been proven through Science time and time again, however, determinism is still essentially a philisophical theory, because until we prove that there is a cause and effect for everything that happens in the universe, (like qauntum mechanics and the big bang theory), we have yet to prove that determinism is irrefutably true. Although attempting to prove that randomness exists does not neccessarily support the argument of free will.

Free will is defined as: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.

Free will and determinism can be compatable, (known as Compatibilism). This is the belief that Free Will is simply another factor in the causal chain of events. It still involves the belief in predetermination.



So, my questions for you are, what do you believe? Do you think the question matters? (Are there any pros and cons to believing either?) If you do believe in Free Will then what exactly is it? (What kind of properties does something like Free Will possess? Is it spiritual and how so?)

Personally, I'm a determinist. I think the question matters, because I believe that the belief in Free Will causes unhealthy degrees of guilt and self-contemp. It's no secret that most of us are not entirely the people we wish we were. Most of us want to be happy, outgoing, adventureous and fearless and yet we're not also so. We're not always happy and we're not always fearless, either. This in itself seems to me like a contradiction to free will.

If I want to be happy and I have free will then why can't I just flick a switch and be happy? If I'm in a war and I don't want to feel guilt for the soldiers I'm killing and would much rather be apathetic, then why can't I switch on apathy?

There's my two cents, I'd be more than happy to hear yours.

[Violet]

Believing in a god usually requires the belief in free will, (at least, it does for YHWH), but believing that there is no god does not demand either the belief in free will nor the belief in determinism and I was wondering in general where the atheist community stands on this.

I disagree entirely already In fact... determinism has throughout the ages been primarily considered as religious.

I cannot speak for the rest of the atheist community, although I am quite sure that most atheists have no capacity to believe a damn thing. It's hard to believe things when you don't have a brain, after all ^_^

Just so we've got our definitions clear...

Determinism is basically the belief that there is a cause for every effect for everything which entails that everything is ultimately predetermined by a chain of causes.[quote]
Not necessarily... but for the most part workable. There are problems that might be encountered under such a definition... such as 'causeless causers', and a cycling state of existence. But I'll go with it.

[quote]Note: Cause and Effect has been proven through Science time and time again, however, determinism is still essentially a philisophical theory, because until we prove that there is a cause and effect for everything that happens in the universe, (like qauntum mechanics and the big bang theory), we have yet to prove that determinism is irrefutably true. Although attempting to prove that randomness exists does not neccessarily support the argument of free will.

...?!

May I grill you... please!? Why should I even jokingly ask?! You're getting grilled! Like a cheeseburger! (Hmmm... i wonder what a burger of cheese would taste like... isn't that self-contradictory? ^_^)

Then I am filled with mercy... :S Very well... I shall not shred the above quote ^_^ (hints: 1: science "proves" nothing, it only provides evidence for belief. 2: We need not prove a thing to come to a scientific conclusion of its fact, else we would have no scientific conclusions. 3: there is no argument for free will... only misunderstandings about what determinism means. 4: lingual pedantry: please don't capitalize 'cause', 'effect', or 'science' excepting grammar. )

Free will is defined as: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.

Free will and determinism can be compatable, (known as Compatibilism). This is the belief that Free Will is simply another factor in the causal chain of events. It still involves the belief in predetermination.

As you have defined 'free will' and 'determinism', they cannot be compatible. By your definition of 'determinism', all things come from prior causes. By your definition of 'free will', will is free of determinism. Hence: incompatibility. You either have incomplete determinism... or you have determined will... and neither of which is what you would appear to imply.

So, my questions for you are, what do you believe? Do you think the question matters? (Are there any pros and cons to believing either?) If you do believe in Free Will then what exactly is it? (What kind of properties does something like Free Will possess? Is it spiritual and how so?)

When discussing philosophy... one should be less interested in the benefits of a certain belief, and rather more interested in debate, comparing opinions, and learning from the both

I am a nihilistic existential determinist. I believe that everything happens based on prior 'events', that all of it is inherently meaningless, and that meaning is given by observing, inferring, and attributing what is perceived (all of which is done subjectively). I think that the question of "does free will exist" is a question worth considering (if one has not already done so)... and on occasion worth revisiting when another asks it of this one

Personally, I'm a determinist. I think the question matters, because I believe that the belief in Free Will causes unhealthy degrees of guilt and self-contemp. It's no secret that most of us are not entirely the people we wish we were. Most of us want to be happy, outgoing, adventureous and fearless and yet we're not also so. We're not always happy and we're not always fearless, either. This in itself seems to me like a contradiction to free will.

At least I am happy with the first 3 words ^_^

I do not believe that free will necessarily cause either guilt or self-contempt. Why would this be so?

I actually am precisely the person I want to be... rather I am concerned with the status of my platform.

Who is this "we"? Why would there not be people who are always happy, or without fear? How would the lacking of existence of such contradict 'free will'?

If I want to be happy and I have free will then why can't I just flick a switch and be happy? If I'm in a war and I don't want to feel guilt for the soldiers I'm killing and would much rather be apathetic, then why can't I switch on apathy?

Perhaps it would be precisely because you have free will that you cannot 'flip a switch' to be happy. After all, there would be no physical cause that could be 'corrected' to make you happier... and all you would be left with would be your unhappiness. Plenty of people do go to war with no guilt for what they kill... but the same applies to apathy as to happiness.

There's my two cents, I'd be more than happy to hear yours.

I'd rather give my 2 cents to a friend who could turn it into 1000 USD inside of a year... but there is my opinion for you.

[Eilonnwy]

I've heard the determinism argument, and while it has some interesting points, but ultimately I still think people have free will, and even if determinism was proven, we still need to act as a society with free will.

[Violet]

I've heard the determinism argument, and while it has some interesting points, but ultimately I still think people have free will, and even if determinism was proven, we still need to act as a society with free will.

Freedom isn't everything it's cooked up to be...

Why not instead act as a society that understands that had they been subjected to the same circumstances and attributes: that they would have done the same thing?

That seems a much humbler and forgiving society to me than one where we assume that a person can spontaneously be 'right' or 'wrong'... A bit like the idea that there are no 'civilized' or 'savage' peoples: only different cultures... but on a more individual basis.

[Eilonnwy]

My point is that if somebody murders someone do you say "Oh, they're not really responsible for the murder, they couldn't help it"? No, it's absurd.

People need to be held responsible for their actions, it's not a question of right or wrong, but responsibility within a society.

[JoeNoshow]

"I disagree entirely already In fact... determinism has throughout the ages been primarily considered as religious."

In that case, I was referring to YHWH. I admit, I made the err of assuming I knew something about other religions which in all honesty I don't. My knowledge of religion pretty well starts and ends with christianity, because that's what I primarily hear about in my geographical location. My apologies.

"I cannot speak for the rest of the atheist community, although I am quite sure that most atheists have no capacity to believe a damn thing. It's hard to believe things when you don't have a brain, after all"

Sorry if I've misinterpretted this. Are you claiming that atheists are mindless? That seems like a harsh assertation as it pertains to a sterotypical assumption.

"Then I am filled with mercy... :S Very well... I shall not shred the above quote ^_^ (hints: 1: science "proves" nothing, it only provides evidence for belief. 2: We need not prove a thing to come to a scientific conclusion of its fact, else we would have no scientific conclusions. 3: there is no argument for free will... only misunderstandings about what determinism means. 4: lingual pedantry: please don't capitalize 'cause', 'effect', or 'science' excepting grammar. )"

Okay, my mistake. In that case what I meant to say is that science has demonstrated the liklihood of cause and effect. Now, obviously there is an argument for free will, because otherwise people wouldn't believe in it. Perhaps there isn't a scientific argument, but what I'm interested in is people's individual arguments. My apologies about my grammer, I admit that I am not perfect.

"As you have defined 'free will' and 'determinism', they cannot be compatible. By your definition of 'determinism', all things come from prior causes. By your definition of 'free will', will is free of determinism. Hence: incompatibility. You either have incomplete determinism... or you have determined will... and neither of which is what you would appear to imply."

Perhaps then it would be fair to allow people to define the terms however they see fit. I was simply asserting my own definition of the terms. I merely included compatibilism so that people were aware of the argument's presence.

"I do not believe that free will necessarily cause either guilt or self-contempt. Why would this be so? "

Some people fall prey to the notion that they are ultimately in control and can will themselves to do anything. (Free Will). When they discover that they can't will themselves to do anything they blame themselves, because they feel like they're choosing to fail.

"I actually am precisely the person I want to be... rather I am concerned with the status of my platform."

That's great! You must be quite content.

"Who is this "we"? Why would there not be people who are always happy, or without fear? How would the lacking of existence of such contradict 'free will'?"

We is in reference to humanity as a whole. The reason I think that free will implies that there would be no unhappy people and no fearful people is because my basic understanding of humans is that we pursue happiness and avoid pain. Feel free to argue that if you wish.

So, assuming that people do in fact want to be happy and do in fact wish to avoid pain then people with free will should be free to will themselves into happiness and it would seem reasonable that they'd be inclinded to do so.

Perhaps you regard freewill differently. It could be regarded as the freedom to will without pre-emptive, restrictive measures to prevent that will, but I regard it as the freedom to will whatever you please without emotional, psychological, neurological barriers.

"I'd rather give my 2 cents to a friend who could turn it into 1000 USD inside of a year... but there is my opinion for you."

Is that comment for the sake of showing your cunning or are you mocking the fact that I'm willing to express my opinion and hear out yours?

---

My point is that if somebody murders someone do you say "Oh, they're not really responsible for the murder, they couldn't help it"? No, it's absurd.

People need to be held responsible for their actions, it's not a question of right or wrong, but responsibility within a society.

People have to be held accountable, because otherwise we'd live in a world of anarchy. People want to be happy so if somebody steals their products or murders a relative then they're going to want to do something to prevent that person from doing those things again.

However, I think this is all cause and effect. Mental and physical discontent causes a person to commit a crime. Crimes are basically situations where somebody's actions conflict with somebody else's peace and prosperity. When somebody commits a crime the effect is people becoming discontented and upset with the criminal. So they lock up the criminal.

I think it's important though to focus on rehabilitation rather than simply locking away the 'bad guys'. I think under the right circumstances a lot of people would do a lot of cruel things if they thought it was going to make them happy. In other words, I think a lot of people could be criminals, bad guys or sinners under the right circumstances.

I value the idea of rehabilitating the criminals, when possible, to allow them to be happy and compatible with society so that they're not infringing on the happiness of others. Perhaps one day humanity will cure the psychopath who is known to have neurological damage and as a result lacks the capacity for empathy. Sure, societies only option is to lock the psychopath up, because he'll feel no remorse or guilt from exploiting others and causing them pain, but despite the neccesity to hold him accountable it isn't ultimately his fault.

[Violet]

My point is that if somebody murders someone do you say "Oh, they're not really responsible for the murder, they couldn't help it"? No, it's absurd.

Blame rests entirely upon no one thing. The merest change in circumstance could have prevented a murder. Is this to suggest that a person be blameless? Of course not: they were a cause, and they should be treated accordingly. I see doing otherwise to be absurd

People need to be held responsible for their actions, it's not a question of right or wrong, but responsibility within a society.

And yet... should that one actor be held responsible for the performance of the theatre, and the act which was put on within it? I am hardly suggesting that people be free of blame for what through them has occurred... I intend only to suggest that there are many cogs at work within the great clock, and calling a single one out for any action does a disservice to the rest of the cogs. /end allusive speech. ^_^

Further... holding people as responsible implies that a thing was 'right' or 'wrong' for which they are being held responsible in the first place.

---

"I disagree entirely already. In fact... determinism has throughout the ages been primarily considered as religious."

In that case, I was referring to YHWH. I admit, I made the err of assuming I knew something about other religions which in all honesty I don't. My knowledge of religion pretty well starts and ends with christianity, because that's what I primarily hear about in my geographical location. My apologies.

Even among christians... many of them believe that some god has a plan for them. Whilst many would claim that they believe in free will... both cannot be true. ^_^

"I cannot speak for the rest of the atheist community, although I am quite sure that most atheists have no capacity to believe a damn thing. It's hard to believe things when you don't have a brain, after all"

Sorry if I've misinterpretted this. Are you claiming that atheists are mindless? That seems like a harsh assertation as it pertains to a sterotypical assumption.

Hardly. ^_^ Every single rock, water molecule, and 'sour cream and onion' chip that I am eating: is an atheist. Of course, i am assuming that rocks, water molecules, and these delicious chips all have zero capacity for thought

"Then I am filled with mercy... Very well... I shall not shred the above quote ^_^ (hints: 1: science "proves" nothing, it only provides evidence for belief. 2: We need not prove a thing to come to a scientific conclusion of its fact, else we would have no scientific conclusions. 3: there is no argument for free will... only misunderstandings about what determinism means. 4: lingual pedantry: please don't capitalize 'cause', 'effect', or 'science' excepting grammar.)"

Okay, my mistake. In that case what I meant to say is that science has demonstrated the liklihood of cause and effect. Now, obviously there is an argument for free will, because otherwise people wouldn't believe in it. Perhaps there isn't a scientific argument, but what I'm interested in is people's individual arguments. My apologies about my grammer, I admit that I am not perfect.

That's better ^_^

However... why would belief necessitate a reason? So many theists claim that faith is this reasonless belief... I do not agree with them, of course ^_^ When I said that there is no argument for free will, i was jokingly suggesting that the only people who believe in free will do so intuitively. There are arguments for anything, observe:

Pikachu is sapphire because Portal 2 will be an awesome tiger.

^ However... few arguments (in comparison) are sensible. I know not of any sensible argument for free will

"As you have defined 'free will' and 'determinism', they cannot be compatible. By your definition of 'determinism', all things come from prior causes. By your definition of 'free will', will is free of determinism. Hence: incompatibility. You either have incomplete determinism... or you have determined will... and neither of which is what you would appear to imply."

Perhaps then it would be fair to allow people to define the terms however they see fit. I was simply asserting my own definition of the terms. I merely included compatibilism so that people were aware of the argument's presence.

I did allow your own definition... it was the one i used. See the bold in what you quoted. Your definitions are hardly 'off'... they just aren't 'all inclusive'

"I do not believe that free will necessarily cause either guilt or self-contempt. Why would this be so? "

Some people fall prey to the notion that they are ultimately in control and can will themselves to do anything. (Free Will). When they discover that they can't will themselves to do anything they blame themselves, because they feel like they're choosing to fail.

I can understand that. But then there are people who never discover this (or at least, have not yet done so), and perhaps more that do otherwise. Hence why it is not necessarily (in my understanding) true of all believers in free will

"I actually am precisely the person I want to be... rather I am concerned with the status of my platform."

That's great! You must be quite content.

Hardly. The person I am is at odds with my state of existence, and this drastically reduces my contentment generally.

"Who is this "we"? Why would there not be people who are always happy, or without fear? How would the lacking of existence of such contradict 'free will'?"

We is in reference to humanity as a whole. The reason I think that free will implies that there would be no unhappy people and no fearful people is because my basic understanding of humans is that we pursue happiness and avoid pain. Feel free to argue that if you wish.

Masochist: pursue both baths at once!

I'm not likely to argue against that ^_^ However, it not only applies to humans, but to most (if not all) life that can feel either pleasure or pain.

So, assuming that people do in fact want to be happy and do in fact wish to avoid pain then people with free will should be free to will themselves into happiness and it would seem reasonable that they'd be inclinded to do so.

That will is free does not mean it is all-powerful... only that it is capable of acting on its own Hence: even if one wills the spoon to move with all their might... they may have accomplished nothing more than a headache ^_<

Perhaps you regard freewill differently. It could be regarded as the freedom to will without pre-emptive, restrictive measures to prevent that will, but I regard it as the freedom to will whatever you please without emotional, psychological, neurological barriers.

I don't disagree... there are many ways to understand 'free' as it relates to one's will... but I warn you that my will is neither free nor for sale. I don't want you killing me for a free will >_^

I honestly regard free will as silly. I once believe it to be true... and that was silly ^_^ Indeed... I am very silly ^_<

"I'd rather give my 2 cents to a friend who could turn it into 1000 USD inside of a year... but there is my opinion for you."

Is that comment for the sake of showing your cunning or are you mocking the fact that I'm willing to express my opinion and hear out yours?

No no... it was a joke ^_^ I do that a lot ^_^

[Scented Nectar]

May I grill you... please!? Why should I even jokingly ask?! You're getting grilled! Like a cheeseburger! (Hmmm... i wonder what a burger of cheese would taste like... isn't that self-contradictory? ^_^)

Like a grilled cheese sandwich. I don't see the contradiction, they are complimentary in fact, tasting good either together or alone. And the thoughts of the grilled cheese is making me hungry. I don't know if it was predetermined though that those thoughts should make me hungry, or if my free will to choose for myself which foods are aesthetically pleasing comes into play. Both probably, feels like both anyways.

[JoeNoshow]

In that case, I was referring to YHWH. I admit, I made the err of assuming I knew something about other religions which in all honesty I don't. My knowledge of religion pretty well starts and ends with christianity, because that's what I primarily hear about in my geographical location. My apologies.[/quote]
Even among christians... many of them believe that some god has a plan for them. Whilst many would claim that they believe in free will... both cannot be true. ^_^

Interesting, you're right. Although, sadly enough some christians are starting to adopt a different look on god's plan. Rather than god having a perfect plan for everyone some christians are starting to believe that there is a war going on between good and evil. As a result, everything pleasent that happens is the work of god and everything bad that happens is the work of the devil and throughout that struggle they believe they're expected to utilize their free will in order to remain in god's good grace. It's kind of annoying cuzz then even the most horrific catastrophes can be acredited to satin rather than god's negligence. (Even though he's supposed to be all powerful...)

"I cannot speak for the rest of the atheist community, although I am quite sure that most atheists have no capacity to believe a damn thing. It's hard to believe things when you don't have a brain, after all"

Sorry if I've misinterpretted this. Are you claiming that atheists are mindless? That seems like a harsh assertation as it pertains to a sterotypical assumption.

Hardly. ^_^ Every single rock, water molecule, and 'sour cream and onion' chip that I am eating: is an atheist. Of course, i am assuming that rocks, water molecules, and these delicious chips all have zero capacity for thought

Ah, I see what you're getting at. So, do you think humans are capable of being truly atheist?

"Then I am filled with mercy... Very well... I shall not shred the above quote ^_^ (hints: 1: science "proves" nothing, it only provides evidence for belief. 2: We need not prove a thing to come to a scientific conclusion of its fact, else we would have no scientific conclusions. 3: there is no argument for free will... only misunderstandings about what determinism means. 4: lingual pedantry: please don't capitalize 'cause', 'effect', or 'science' excepting grammar.)"

Okay, my mistake. In that case what I meant to say is that science has demonstrated the liklihood of cause and effect. Now, obviously there is an argument for free will, because otherwise people wouldn't believe in it. Perhaps there isn't a scientific argument, but what I'm interested in is people's individual arguments. My apologies about my grammer, I admit that I am not perfect.
That's better ^_^

However... why would belief necessitate a reason? So many theists claim that faith is this reasonless belief... I do not agree with them, of course ^_^ When I said that there is no argument for free will, i was jokingly suggesting that the only people who believe in free will do so intuitively. There are arguments for anything, observe:

Pikachu is sapphire because Portal 2 will be an awesome tiger.

^ However... few arguments (in comparison) are sensible. I know not of any sensible argument for free will

lol, I see. True enough.

"As you have defined 'free will' and 'determinism', they cannot be compatible. By your definition of 'determinism', all things come from prior causes. By your definition of 'free will', will is free of determinism. Hence: incompatibility. You either have incomplete determinism... or you have determined will... and neither of which is what you would appear to imply."

"I do not believe that free will necessarily cause either guilt or self-contempt. Why would this be so? "

Some people fall prey to the notion that they are ultimately in control and can will themselves to do anything. (Free Will). When they discover that they can't will themselves to do anything they blame themselves, because they feel like they're choosing to fail.

I can understand that. But then there are people who never discover this (or at least, have not yet done so), and perhaps more that do otherwise. Hence why it is not necessarily (in my understanding) true of all believers in free will

Yes, true enough. In that case I see it as a harmful potential.

"I actually am precisely the person I want to be... rather I am concerned with the status of my platform."

That's great! You must be quite content.

Hardly. The person I am is at odds with my state of existence, and this drastically reduces my contentment generally.

Interesting. So am I correct in deducing that you're the person you want to be, but you're not neccessarily content with how that person is existing?

"Who is this "we"? Why would there not be people who are always happy, or without fear? How would the lacking of existence of such contradict 'free will'?"

We is in reference to humanity as a whole. The reason I think that free will implies that there would be no unhappy people and no fearful people is because my basic understanding of humans is that we pursue happiness and avoid pain. Feel free to argue that if you wish.

Masochist: pursue both baths at once!

Masochists are a strange anomoly. I wonder how somebody's mind develops that way.

I don't disagree... there are many ways to understand 'free' as it relates to one's will... but I warn you that my will is neither free nor for sale. I don't want you killing me for a free will >_^

lol. Don't worry, I'm too empathetic too kill people. (Plus, not the most physically fit of specimens).

honestly regard free will as silly. I once believe it to be true... and that was silly ^_^ Indeed... I am very silly ^_<

Not really. The nice thing about believing in determinism is that nothing can really be silly or senseless, because one believes that there's a reason for everything that happens.

"I'd rather give my 2 cents to a friend who could turn it into 1000 USD inside of a year... but there is my opinion for you."

Is that comment for the sake of showing your cunning or are you mocking the fact that I'm willing to express my opinion and hear out yours?

No no... it was a joke ^_^ I do that a lot ^_^

Ah, okay. That's the problem with reading shit over the internet. Trying to discern context is a bitch. Come to think of it, it does make sense to give 2 cents to somebody that'll use it for the sake of greater benefit. No sense in wasting 2 cents on somebody who's going to throw it over their shoulder in hopes that supernatural powers will assist them.

[Violet]

May I grill you... please!? Why should I even jokingly ask?! You're getting grilled! Like a cheeseburger! (Hmmm... i wonder what a burger of cheese would taste like... isn't that self-contradictory? ^_^)

Like a grilled cheese sandwich. I don't see the contradiction, they are complimentary in fact, tasting good either together or alone. And the thoughts of the grilled cheese is making me hungry. I don't know if it was predetermined though that those thoughts should make me hungry, or if my free will to choose for myself which foods are aesthetically pleasing comes into play. Both probably, feels like both anyways.

Ahh... i see. 'burger' is just short for 'hamburger'.

You are correct Blessed be the cheeseburgers... for I have the lot of them.