Life is meaningless and why that's a good thing.

[Twiggy]

Theists love to assert that without god "life would have no meaning". Well, there is no actual valid evidence to accept the existence of any god, so it logically follows that life has no meaning.

And that's a good thing. Imagine a world with presupposed objective meaning? That would mean no freedom, and we'd just be pawns, enslaved to all live our lives in the same way, for a predetermined end.

It is lucky that we are indeed actually free, there is no single objective meaning, we are free to live according to our own values, and own interests, we decide our own meanings for our own lives. As A Satanist, that is a core aspect of it as well. There is an aspect of existentialism to it.

To sum, an objective meaning to life, would mean no freedom, and I kind of like freedom. Don't you?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Theists love to assert that without god "life would have no meaning". Well, there is no actual valid evidence to accept the existence of any god, so it logically follows that life has no meaning.

And that's a good thing. Imagine a world with presupposed objective meaning? That would mean no freedom, and we'd just be pawns, enslaved to all live our lives in the same way, for a predetermined end.

It is lucky that we are indeed actually free, there is no single objective meaning, we are free to live according to our own values, and own interests, we decide our own meanings for our own lives. As A Satanist, that is a core aspect of it as well. There is an aspect of existentialism to it.

To sum, an objective meaning to life, would mean no freedom, and I kind of like freedom. Don't you?

How do you know you’re free, that there is not actually a predetermined end to your life?

Boru

[Twiggy]

Theists love to assert that without god "life would have no meaning". Well, there is no actual valid evidence to accept the existence of any god, so it logically follows that life has no meaning.

And that's a good thing. Imagine a world with presupposed objective meaning? That would mean no freedom, and we'd just be pawns, enslaved to all live our lives in the same way, for a predetermined end.

It is lucky that we are indeed actually free, there is no single objective meaning, we are free to live according to our own values, and own interests, we decide our own meanings for our own lives. As A Satanist, that is a core aspect of it as well. There is an aspect of existentialism to it.

To sum, an objective meaning to life, would mean no freedom, and I kind of like freedom. Don't you?

How do you know you’re free, that there is not actually a predetermined end to your life?

Boru

Death is the predetermined literal end for all of us, but aside from that, there is no evidence of any sort of objective or predetermined goal or meaning for anyone.

Our goals can be shaped by many things, parentage, culture, beliefs, education, etc, etc but people can also choose to break away from those as well, and those are also not things that are set in stone by the "universe" either, and are also subjective in and of themselves.

For example, for some people having a family, and being a mother/father is a very important goal in, or aspect of life for them, for me that is not the case at all, I have no such desire or value, and I will not be doing that. Some people devote their whole lives to "Serving god" (Nuns/Monks for example), others of course do not. Some people choose a life based around career and climbing up the corporate ladder, others for example, choose one of world travel, etc, etc. The "universe" does not stop anyone from making any such choices.

[Angrboda]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How do you know you’re free, that there is not actually a predetermined end to your life?

Boru

Death is the predetermined literal end for all of us, but aside from that, there is no evidence of any sort of objective or predetermined goal or meaning for anyone.

Our goals can be shaped by many things, parentage, culture, beliefs, education, etc, etc but people can also choose to break away from those as well, and those are also not things that are set in stone by the "universe" either, and are also subjective in and of themselves.

For example, for some people having a family, and being a mother/father is a very important goal in, or aspect of life for them, for me that is not the case at all, I have no such desire or value, and I will not be doing that. Some people devote their whole lives to "Serving god" (Nuns/Monks for example), others of course do not. Some people choose a life based around career and climbing up the corporate ladder, others for example, choose one of world travel, etc, etc. The "universe" does not stop anyone from making any such choices.

What evidence do you have that these are ‘choices’ and not simply how the universe unfolds? As I see it, there’s no evidence for or against free will or determinism (but I’m willing to be convinced).

Boru

[Twiggy]

Death is the predetermined literal end for all of us, but aside from that, there is no evidence of any sort of objective or predetermined goal or meaning for anyone.

Our goals can be shaped by many things, parentage, culture, beliefs, education, etc, etc but people can also choose to break away from those as well, and those are also not things that are set in stone by the "universe" either, and are also subjective in and of themselves.

For example, for some people having a family, and being a mother/father is a very important goal in, or aspect of life for them, for me that is not the case at all, I have no such desire or value, and I will not be doing that. Some people devote their whole lives to "Serving god" (Nuns/Monks for example), others of course do not. Some people choose a life based around career and climbing up the corporate ladder, others for example, choose one of world travel, etc, etc. The "universe" does not stop anyone from making any such choices.

What evidence do you have that these are ‘choices’ and not simply how the universe unfolds? As I see it, there’s no evidence for or against free will or determinism (but I’m willing to be convinced).

Boru

I think that's a nonsensical question to ask, it's the same as saying "what evidence do you have to prove god does not exist"?

If someone wants to argue that that is how the universe wants things to unfold, that burden of proof is on them. Until such prove is given, there is no requirement, or even logical basis for accepting it.

I have never bought into determinism though, as I see that as a claim that needs to be proven, which it has not been. People making choices is not in the same realm as claiming that "Everything is predetermined and choices are an elusion" - that's a rather extraordinary claim, which requires extraoridnary evidence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What evidence do you have that these are ‘choices’ and not simply how the universe unfolds? As I see it, there’s no evidence for or against free will or determinism (but I’m willing to be convinced).

Boru

I think that's a nonsensical question to ask, it's the same as saying "what evidence do you have to prove god does not exist"?

If someone wants to argue that that is how the universe wants things to unfold, that burden of proof is on them. Until such prove is given, there is no requirement, or even logical basis for accepting it.

I have never bought into determinism though, as I see that as a claim that needs to be proven, which it has not been. People making choices is not in the same realm as claiming that "Everything is predetermined and choices are an elusion" - that's a rather extraordinary claim, which requires extraoridnary evidence.

‘Boda brought up the evidentiary question of determinism (and I agree that there’s no evidence for it). But if we can object to determinism because of a lack of evidence, it seems fair to do the same with free will. But again, I’m not arguing in favour of either one.

On the contrary, I think ‘Everything is predetermined’ is on exactly the same footing as ‘I have free will.’ They’re both extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. It’s a pity there is none.

Boru

[emjay]

I think that's a nonsensical question to ask, it's the same as saying "what evidence do you have to prove god does not exist"?

If someone wants to argue that that is how the universe wants things to unfold, that burden of proof is on them. Until such prove is given, there is no requirement, or even logical basis for accepting it.

I have never bought into determinism though, as I see that as a claim that needs to be proven, which it has not been. People making choices is not in the same realm as claiming that "Everything is predetermined and choices are an elusion" - that's a rather extraordinary claim, which requires extraoridnary evidence.

‘Boda brought up the evidentiary question of determinism (and I agree that there’s no evidence for it). But if we can object to determinism because of a lack of evidence, it seems fair to do the same with free will. But again, I’m not arguing in favour of either one.

On the contrary, I think ‘Everything is predetermined’ is on exactly the same footing as ‘I have free will.’ They’re both extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. It’s a pity there is none.

Boru

I'm probably going to regret getting involved in a thread about free will/determinism, but for what it's worth, I'll try and briefly explain my reasoning for being a hard determinist:

Just a few simple questions:
1. Do you believe the universe runs on (some) fixed physical laws?
2. Do you believe that anything that follows such fixed physical laws is 'determined'?
3. Do you believe that the brain is a physical, biological machine that follows fixed physical laws?
4. Do you believe that consciousness is directly tied, in whatever sense, to the physical functioning of the brain?

If the answer to all of those for you is 'yes', as it is for me, then the only conclusion I can come to is that just as the brain's behaviour is determined by physical laws, so too is the behaviour of consciousness - which is directly tied to that - also likewise determined... and therefore not 'free'... ie no 'free will' in that sense.

It's as simple as that really, for me. The only thing that complicates the situation, is whatever the effect of quantum randomness would be on the system, but regarding the 'free-ness' of will, quantum indeterministic randomness is no more 'free' than physical determinism. Ie the universe is both deterministic in some senses, and indeterministic in other... quantum... senses. But even on that score, I did read at one point - can't remember where or when I'm afraid - an interesting argument that the statistic nature of the brain... of the behaviour of neurons en masse... actually counteracts any low level quantum fluctuation that might be occurring in the brain. So in other words, even if at a low level in the brain, the electric current quantumly fluctuates in an ultimately indeterministic way, the higher level determined physical activity of neurons, counteracts, overcomes, and suppresses that random, quantum 'noise', and from that point of view the brain can still be considered highly deterministic, even if there is quantum indeterministic interference at lower levels in this sense. So yeah, at least where the brain is concerned, and therefore also the consciousness that directly correlates with it, in my view, it is essentially as determined as it can be, even if there is any quantum interference at low levels like that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘Boda brought up the evidentiary question of determinism (and I agree that there’s no evidence for it). But if we can object to determinism because of a lack of evidence, it seems fair to do the same with free will. But again, I’m not arguing in favour of either one.

On the contrary, I think ‘Everything is predetermined’ is on exactly the same footing as ‘I have free will.’ They’re both extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. It’s a pity there is none.

Boru

I'm probably going to regret getting involved in a thread about free will/determinism, but for what it's worth, I'll try and briefly explain my reasoning for being a hard determinist:

Just a few simple questions:
1. Do you believe the universe runs on (some) fixed physical laws?
2. Do you believe that anything that follows such fixed physical laws is 'determined'?
3. Do you believe that the brain is a physical, biological machine than follows fixed physical laws?
4. Do you believe that consciousness is directly tied, in whatever sense, to the physical functioning of the brain?

If the answer to all of those for you is 'yes', as it is for me, then the only conclusion I can come to is that just as the brain's behaviour is determined by physical laws, so too is the behaviour of consciousness - which is directly tied to that - also likewise determined... and therefore not 'free'... ie no 'free will' in that sense.

It's as simple as that really, for me. The only thing that complicates the situation, is whatever the effect of quantum randomness would be on the system, but regarding the 'free-ness' of will, quantum indeterministic randomness is no more 'free' than physical determinism. Ie the universe is both deterministic in some senses, and indeterministic in other... quantum... senses. But even on that score, I did read at one point - can't remember where or when I'm afraid - an interesting argument that the statistic nature of the brain... of the behaviour of neurons en masse... actually counteracts any low level quantum fluctuation that might be occurring in the brain. So in other words, even if at a low level in the brain, the electric current quantumly fluctuates in an ultimately indeterministic way, the higher level determined physical activity of neurons, counteracts, overcomes, and suppresses that random, quantum 'noise', and from that point of view the brain can still be considered highly deterministic, even if there is quantum indeterministic interference at lower levels in this sense. So yeah, at least where the brain is concerned, and therefore also the consciousness that directly correlates with it, in my view, it is essentially as determined as it can be, even if there is any quantum interference at low levels like that.

My view on this that it simply isn't possible to know, one way or the other. There are arguments both for and against, but the chief stumbling block is that if a 'choice' is made - what career to follow, whom to marry, what to have for brekkie, etc - there isn't any verifiable way to know if it's actually a free choice or simply the workings of an indifferent universe.

I don't know if I have free will, but it pleases me to behave as if I do.

Boru

[emjay]

I'm probably going to regret getting involved in a thread about free will/determinism, but for what it's worth, I'll try and briefly explain my reasoning for being a hard determinist:

Just a few simple questions:
1. Do you believe the universe runs on (some) fixed physical laws?
2. Do you believe that anything that follows such fixed physical laws is 'determined'?
3. Do you believe that the brain is a physical, biological machine than follows fixed physical laws?
4. Do you believe that consciousness is directly tied, in whatever sense, to the physical functioning of the brain?

If the answer to all of those for you is 'yes', as it is for me, then the only conclusion I can come to is that just as the brain's behaviour is determined by physical laws, so too is the behaviour of consciousness - which is directly tied to that - also likewise determined... and therefore not 'free'... ie no 'free will' in that sense.

It's as simple as that really, for me. The only thing that complicates the situation, is whatever the effect of quantum randomness would be on the system, but regarding the 'free-ness' of will, quantum indeterministic randomness is no more 'free' than physical determinism. Ie the universe is both deterministic in some senses, and indeterministic in other... quantum... senses. But even on that score, I did read at one point - can't remember where or when I'm afraid - an interesting argument that the statistic nature of the brain... of the behaviour of neurons en masse... actually counteracts any low level quantum fluctuation that might be occurring in the brain. So in other words, even if at a low level in the brain, the electric current quantumly fluctuates in an ultimately indeterministic way, the higher level determined physical activity of neurons, counteracts, overcomes, and suppresses that random, quantum 'noise', and from that point of view the brain can still be considered highly deterministic, even if there is quantum indeterministic interference at lower levels in this sense. So yeah, at least where the brain is concerned, and therefore also the consciousness that directly correlates with it, in my view, it is essentially as determined as it can be, even if there is any quantum interference at low levels like that.

My view on this that it simply isn't possible to know, one way or the other. There are arguments both for and against, but the chief stumbling block is that if a 'choice' is made - what career to follow, whom to marry, what to have for brekkie, etc - there isn't any verifiable way to know if it's actually a free choice or simply the workings of an indifferent universe.

I don't know if I have free will, but it pleases me to behave as if I do.

Boru

Yeah well, ultimately the main problem for me, and the reason I usually don't get involved in discussions about free will, is just generally that we're usually talking about 'free will' with different meanings and definitions, so often we're not really speaking the same language, so we often end up speaking past each other and never getting anywhere (I don't mean you specifically, I just mean anyone in this sort of discussion). But I just thought 'why not?' say this, because it's rare that I come across non-deterministic atheists or agnostic atheists on this question.