[Jason2]

Many neurologists say we are nothing more than fleshy-machines being controlled by the laws of physics. If this is true then well, everything we know goes out the window.

First I'll start. I do not believe in the slightest that we don't have free-will. Rather, naturalism is the illusion. If we don't have free-will, then why do we feel "responsible" for our actions? Why would there be guilt? Afterall, evolution is "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why it would care if we all lived in harmony with each other. To whom does it benefit? I mean, lions don't help other prides to get food. Not only that, if free will doesn't exist, how can we be held responsible for our actions? I mean, if a murder kills, we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he had no choice? I would seriously like to see you evolutionists explain that one to the family of a victim.

To conclude, we are free-willed beings made in the image of God, whom are responsible for our actions, and at the end of this life will give an account of the deeds done in the flesh to Christ.

[viriol]

(Original post by Jason2)
Many neurologists say we are nothing more than fleshy-machines being controlled by the laws of physics. If this is true then well, everything we know goes out the window.

First I'll start. I do not believe in the slightest that we don't have free-will. Rather, naturalism is the illusion. If we don't have free-will, then why do we feel "responsible" for our actions? Why would there be guilt? Afterall, evolution is "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why it would care if we all lived in harmony with each other. To whom does it benefit? I mean, lions don't help other prides to get food. Not only that, if free will doesn't exist, how can we be held responsible for our actions? I mean, if a murder kills, we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he had no choice? I would seriously like to see you evolutionists explain that one to the family of a victim.

To conclude, we are free-willed beings made in the image of God, whom are responsible for our actions, and at the end of this life will give an account of the deeds done in the flesh to Christ.

It really surpasses me how you somehow managed to get evolution in the middle of this.

If you want to be rational, you can never accept complete freedom and you can never discard complete lack of freedom. This is to say that, even if there is free will, the are many physical and environmental conditionings that force your choices to be your choices at not other. That is why someone who knows you well can often predict your choices in different situations. You chose to write this post because you disagree with the views you've mentioned. There are also reasons for that disagreement. Your opinions would be different if you had been raised differently. Your opinions would be different if you had lost a part of your brain. In the end, your decision to write this OP could have been decided by the time your grandmother got married or before! In the end, this question will end up in whether there is a soul (i.e. is there something non-physical that makes you you and that might affect your choices) and just how much that soul can influence your choices over you physical state and the environment you're in.

[Martyn*]

Actions are arbitrary to say the least. Moreover, actions say nothing about the human Will. Like Nietzsche said, we know nothing about the Will, or the essence of the Will (free or un-free) other than it simply wills or doesn't will; either it is weak or it is strong. Positing a free or un-free Will is nothing more than an interpretation or a perspective, perhaps one based upon errors.

Nietzsche belived that the belief in Free Will was nothing more than an extravagant pride.

[Indraniismybabe]

Everything is cause and effect. We have choice in that we can choose causes to some extent.

[Aoide]

Humans brains are very much like complex computers. We respond to stimuli with a response. The way we respond is determined by genetics and the environment neither of which we can control. We only percieve that we have free will because we cannot consciously feel all the subcoscious thoughts taking place whenever we make a decision.

[Aoide]

No because given the choice there is only one decision you woud be able to make. There are no physical factors preventing you punching her but there are limits within your own brain that you cannot overcome. These mental rules are as restricting as physical ones.

[IFondledAGibbon]

(Original post by Jason2)
First I'll start. I do not believe in the slightest that we don't have free-will. Rather, naturalism is the illusion. If we don't have free-will, then why do we feel "responsible" for our actions? Why would there be guilt?

Your genes are like a recipe for the body, interacting with the environment to produce the final meal. The brain is part of this meal, it's activity determined by past and immediate interactions with the environment i.e. stimuli. Guilt is just another response to a certain set of stimuli, past and present.

Afterall, evolution is "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why it would care if we all lived in harmony with each other. To whom does it benefit? I mean, lions don't help other prides to get food.

When someone says: "survival of the fittest" they mean "survival of genes best able to program organisms capable of passing on those genes". Altruism has evolved because it can be selected for. Investing time in helping and cooperating with others (especially close relatives) can increase the chances of one's own genes surviving, either through increasing the chances of one's own genes being passed on though siblings, or through the survival advantages that come with working as a team and directly passing on genes.

Not that this has anything to do with what we should be doing, or whether or not we have any free choice in the matter.

Not only that, if free will doesn't exist, how can we be held responsible for our actions? I mean, if a murder kills, we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he had no choice? I would seriously like to see you evolutionists explain that one to the family of a victim.

To conclude, we are free-willed beings made in the image of God, whom are responsible for our actions, and at the end of this life will give an account of the deeds done in the flesh to Christ.

Just because you find the consequences of determinism disturbing doesn't render it true or false. Nor does it imply the existence of a deity mentioned in a children's book.

[Lightman123]

(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)


Just because you find the consequences of determinism disturbing doesn't render it true or false. Nor does it imply the existence of a deity mentioned in a children's book.

It frustrates me how many philosophy threads turn into hard boiled Theists doing battle against slandering Atheists.


Anyway on the question. So it's the standard question of free will and determinism.

First lets clear up a few inaccuracies thus far.
There are those in this thread that in short have claimed a deterministic position based on the fact that basically 'everything has a cause or reason determining it prior to it occurring.' Things such as the way we were raised and so on are mentioned. I'd like to point out that if we take this position, we assume that all actions that have reason are not free and therefore only random actions are free. So we are stuck with the absurd conclusion that actions of complete randomness give us free-will. How does this allow us to choose the actions we desire (which is in a sense, the type of free will that matters). It doesn't. And so free will cannot be defined as lacking a cause or reason like implied by this position.

That holding true, we must define free will with the inclusion of reason. Ayer tries in the following way:

(1) I could have acted differently if I had so chosen;
(2) My action was voluntary (rules out inner constraint, as in kleptomania);
and
(3) No one compelled me (rules out outer constraint)

Arguments and counterexamples can be provided for this of course..

Personally, I cannot believe any form of determinism which claims that our beliefs and desires remove us of free will. What is free will for if not to pursue our beliefs and desires?

[JessaminePoppy]

(Original post by Lightman123)
It frustrates me how many philosophy threads turn into hard boiled Theists doing battle against slandering Atheists.

Tell me about it

(Original post by Lightman123)
Anyway on the question. So it's the standard question of free will and determinism.

First lets clear up a few inaccuracies thus far.
There are those in this thread that in short have claimed a deterministic position based on the fact that basically 'everything has a cause or reason determining it prior to it occurring.' Things such as the way we were raised and so on are mentioned. I'd like to point out that if we take this position, we assume that all actions that have reason are not free and therefore only random actions are free. So we are stuck with the absurd conclusion that actions of complete randomness give us free-will. How does this allow us to choose the actions we desire (which is in a sense, the type of free will that matters). It doesn't. And so free will cannot be defined as lacking a cause or reason like implied by this position.

That holding true, we must define free will with the inclusion of reason. Ayer tries in the following way:

(1) I could have acted differently if I had so chosen;
(2) My action was voluntary (rules out inner constraint, as in kleptomania);
and
(3) No one compelled me (rules out outer constraint)

Arguments and counterexamples can be provided for this of course..

Personally, I cannot believe any form of determinism which claims that our beliefs and desires remove us of free will. What is free will for if not to pursue our beliefs and desires?

To my mind that leads to another question: you're implying that free will has a particular purpose (what is it for?). I don't think we can say it does without admitting that an exterior thing made us have free will for something.That sounds a bit theist to me.
If I understood wrongly (I probably did ), then perhaps the fact that humans have come up with the concept of free will was to oppose the very popular theory of a divine plan or a more archaic one of fate.
The actual purpose of free will from a religious point of view, is togive man a chance to love God freely, without God making him (I'm not sure).
From an atheist point of view, free will can prove that man is one of three things: a being that is innately moral, morals differing nonetheless from culture to culture(internal); a being that is neutral, effected by rules (external) and conditions of society, but has the capacity of ignoring them for personal gain; a being that is amoral and must repress the bad stuff to conform to an unnatural external pressure of society.

As a species we are pretty rebellious and adaptable. The idea that everything is preordained can shock those you aren't used to the idea. Free will strikes some people as a given value of life.

Sorry, I might not be answering the question dude, but this is all so interesting

[Brianop]

Why does everyone care so much?

If you believe in God, well then enjoy life with God.
If you don't believe in God, well then just just enjoy life without one.

We all just want to connect to a meaningful life that's all. We are not free in a sense that we are governed by laws, but that's a good thing.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Lightman123)
It frustrates me how many philosophy threads turn into hard boiled Theists doing battle against slandering Atheists.


Anyway on the question. So it's the standard question of free will and determinism.

First lets clear up a few inaccuracies thus far.
There are those in this thread that in short have claimed a deterministic position based on the fact that basically 'everything has a cause or reason determining it prior to it occurring.' Things such as the way we were raised and so on are mentioned. I'd like to point out that if we take this position, we assume that all actions that have reason are not free and therefore only random actions are free. So we are stuck with the absurd conclusion that actions of complete randomness give us free-will. How does this allow us to choose the actions we desire (which is in a sense, the type of free will that matters). It doesn't. And so free will cannot be defined as lacking a cause or reason like implied by this position.

That holding true, we must define free will with the inclusion of reason. Ayer tries in the following way:

(1) I could have acted differently if I had so chosen;
(2) My action was voluntary (rules out inner constraint, as in kleptomania);
and
(3) No one compelled me (rules out outer constraint)

Arguments and counterexamples can be provided for this of course..

Personally, I cannot believe any form of determinism which claims that our beliefs and desires remove us of free will. What is free will for if not to pursue our beliefs and desires?

Ayer should have known that the 'I' is a fiction of grammar, and that actions are controlled by intentions, but these intentions are only symptoms of the Will; it does not explain the Will's essence. If the Will is free then perhaps it must be a causa sui, a first cause.

[probablytom]

(Original post by Jason2)
Many neurologists say we are nothing more than fleshy-machines being controlled by the laws of physics. If this is true then well, everything we know goes out the window.

First I'll start. I do not believe in the slightest that we don't have free-will. Rather, naturalism is the illusion. If we don't have free-will, then why do we feel "responsible" for our actions? Why would there be guilt? Afterall, evolution is "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why it would care if we all lived in harmony with each other. To whom does it benefit?

There's an idea that, as humans developed, we become social because a whole society of people not being social but being intelligent becomes problematic. If I'm a very clever monkey, I can see that you can collect the tribe's bananas and that, if I can trick you into working by making you think I'm working too, I can go play monkey games all day instead. But if everybody was as clever, nobody would collect the tribe's bananas.
The point is that, without the social responsibility, nothing would really have gotten done. Thus, in tribes where we were still intelligent but didn't have some form of responsibility due to our sparkling new neocortices, we would die out, and only the fittest - those people who did have the social obligation - would survive. So that's the benefit, and the reason for the responsibility in murder and things; it wouldn't be acceptable to murder in our Palaeolithic tribe, and so it's still not acceptable today, because we haven't changed all that much since we evolved really.
I'm not sure quite the source of this, it's just something I remember from a book somewhere. But it DOES seem reasonable, and has about as much by way of sources as your own argument, so I'm not considering that a big deal. It's logical, at least.

Besides, you make a point about whether evolution would benefit people who lived in harmony. Don't you think lots more people would survive who weren't arguing all the time than those who didn't? That's survival of the fittest again.

(Original post by Jason2)
Not only that, if free will doesn't exist, how can we be held responsible for our actions? I mean, if a murder kills, we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he had no choice? I would seriously like to see you evolutionists explain that one to the family of a victim.

It's a dangerous piece of philosophy, whether we can be held accountable for our actions if we have no free will. But you can't argue that free will must exist BECAUSE without it the whole murder thing and responsibility is pretty complex and seems messed up. Free will is something which could solve the issue of responsibility there, but perhaps not the only thing, and a potential solution for a problem is not proof of the solution's existence.

(Original post by Jason2)
To conclude, we are free-willed beings made in the image of God, whom are responsible for our actions, and at the end of this life will give an account of the deeds done in the flesh to Christ.

This is inappropriate. You provide no reasonable argument for this to be true, only that we may have free will.


Additionally; by the laws of physics, not EVERYTHING is deterministic. The idea that everything is deterministic is called the Clockwork Universe theory, but in quantum mechanics, things which are random DO appear to happen.
However, quantum mechanics naturally happens on an absurdly small scale, and our brains are too large for our thoughts to be affected by there affects and this randomness. There is an argument to be made that, if there is a soul external to the body, that could hold a semblance of free will, but you would have to make that argument yourself; it's not one I believe, and I'm not aware of any evidence.

[lucaf]

why would not having free will mean we would not feel guilt? guilt is a neurological process like any other, and can can be traced back to physical processes in the brain. the evolutionary reason for guilt is because altruism is an extremely useful property in a species: by helping each other you increase the overall chances of survival for you and your relatives (who share many of your genes), and so is an evolutionarily beneficial trait.

the reason we can be held responsible is because we still made the choices, even if we did not not make them freely. if I murder somebody I still chose to kill them, but at that moment a billion factors I had no control over have put me into the situation where killing them is the only decision I would make. our decisions are determined by our brain structure, down to a cellular level, which is in turn determined by our genetics and environment, which we have no control over.

[Scootaloo]

Hi, I have several problems with what you put forward.

(Original post by Jason2)
Afterall, evolution is "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why it would care if we all lived in harmony with each other.To whom does it benefit?I mean, lions don't help other prides to get food

Darwin didn't even coin the phrase survival of the fittest, contemporary Philosopher Herbert Spencer did and modern biologists rarely use this phrase to explain evolution properly (the colloquial understanding of fit isn't the same as evolutionary fit [being muscular, big and agressive =/= automatic evolutionary fitness] and there is such as differential reproductive success.
please read this and this to understand where I'm coming from properly
What you're doing there by thinking just because its apparently survival of the fittest therefore this implies I should ignore people who need my help, is committing a Naturalistic Fallacy (this is what Social Darwinism did, I have to do my EPQ on it you see). Natural selection is simply a description of what happens in the living world. It does not tell us how we should behave towards others.


To whom does it benefit?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY
Living in harmony and being co-operative means when situations like this arise there is going to somebody to help. Living in harmony means where there is a predator on prowl, somebody will scream and alert the others. Living in harmony means there is a higher chance that you'll bring the wildebeest down. Living in harmony means that you'll have higher chance of snagging a mate(who wants to mate with an anti-social and horrid creep? Rather avoid them). Living in harmony means somebody is going to be there to babysit when you go out and hunt.
In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000).

I see no reason why it would care
Please stop anthropomorphising evolution like its some magical being that gets into a hissy fit when I give a cupcake to a homeless person. Natural selection is descriptive and not a personal force that actively thinks or has opinions like hmm A is an amazing organism and grrr C isn't, I'm gonna destroy C or has a plan (this is what makes evolution different from article selection) like I'm going to create a pink banana to please that good child Snooki. Also do we only have to do something because someone cares!?! Jason, are you only a good person because Jesus and God cares if you are? I hope not ^-^! If evolution didn't care if I did this why should I stop being polite or try to respond to your question without calling you something bad? We need people who want to work together if we as a people are to progress.

Now Scoot-Scooot and have a nice day Jason.

[Rastagong]

(Original post by Lightman123)
I'd like to point out that if we take this position, we assume that all actions that have reason are not free and therefore only random actions are free. So we are stuck with the absurd conclusion that actions of complete randomness give us free-will.

I think that you haven't defined the terms properly. A free action isn't an action without cause, it's an action whose first cause is the mind, the latter having no other cause than itself. The mind wouldn't depend on genetics, logic, sociological and physical laws.

And that's why the thesis of free-willingness seems so wrong to me: if we assume that all actions have reasons, then why wouldn't our actions have any reason?

Randomness doesn't contradict determinism either. In my opinion, randomness is a cause which can influence the mind, just like the laws of physics: it doesn't make the mind free in any manner. Whether I like literature because of my social background or because a random teacher taught it well to me, it's all the same in the end, I haven't chosen to like it, my mind isn't free.

That being said, I do find determinism rather depressing.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
Many neurologists say we are nothing more than fleshy-machines being controlled by the laws of physics. If this is true then well, everything we know goes out the window.

First I'll start. I do not believe in the slightest that we don't have free-will. Rather, naturalism is the illusion. If we don't have free-will, then why do we feel "responsible" for our actions? Why would there be guilt? Afterall, evolution is "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why it would care if we all lived in harmony with each other. To whom does it benefit? I mean, lions don't help other prides to get food. Not only that, if free will doesn't exist, how can we be held responsible for our actions? I mean, if a murder kills, we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he had no choice? I would seriously like to see you evolutionists explain that one to the family of a victim.

To conclude, we are free-willed beings made in the image of God, whom are responsible for our actions, and at the end of this life will give an account of the deeds done in the flesh to Christ.

If we are "made in the image of God," you're saying that god created the murderer. Hence, YOU try to explain to the family why this deity they should supposedly worship created a person that killed someone they loved.

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
If we are "made in the image of God," you're saying that god created the murderer. Hence, YOU try to explain to the family why this deity they should supposedly worship created a person that killed someone they loved.

No he created a free-will being. That said free-will being then abused this free-will to do wrong. But the wrong he was doing he thought was good because he got some kind of sadistic pleasure from it. If god intervenes and takes away someones free-will, then he must also take away yours when you do wrong. But of course, you're a good person with no sins so there would be no need.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
No he created a free-will being. That said free-will being then abused this free-will to do wrong. But the wrong he was doing he thought was good because he got some kind of sadistic pleasure from it. If god intervenes and takes away someones free-will, then he must also take away yours when you do wrong. But of course, you're a good person with no sins so there would be no need.

The argument of free-will is irrelevant. Assuming god is all-knowing, he creates a free-willed being (the killer) knowing full well what that being will do (kill someone). Through extension, god murdered the killer's victim.

[Jason2]

(Original post by KasanDude)
The argument of free-will is irrelevant. Assuming god is all-knowing, he creates a free-willed being (the killer) knowing full well what that being will do (kill someone). Through extension, god murdered the killer's victim.

Well yes, God knew what would happen, but as already explained, if God thinks the current state of affairs is a price worth paying in order that he may have a world of free-willed beings, then we must accept that it is a price worth paying. A creature that was only capable of being good wouldn't be a free-willed creature. It would just be another animal.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
Well yes, God knew what would happen, but as already explained, if God thinks the current state of affairs is a price worth paying in order that he may have a world of free-willed beings, then we must accept that it is a price worth paying. A creature that was only capable of being good wouldn't be a free-willed creature. It would just be another animal.

What a load of nonsense. A deity that deems the death of innocent people as "a price worth paying" is not one that should be respected or even acknowledged. You're hopelessly trying to show that the god you worship has any control over our actions, which simply isn't true.