Is free will an illusion?

[olavisjo]

I find that under a naturalistic philosophy it is impossible for free will to exist, for the simple reason that when we make decisions about things we are performing electrical and chemical reactions in our brains, very much like our computers process data under the control of natural laws, so the outcome of any such process must be strictly determined by past events.
A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

[bernee51]

We can see our universe to about 13 billion light years away, and matter, energy and space way out there is just like it is here. ... We try to explain things by string theory and the like, but the only thing we can be truly confident about is that the universe was not created by God. Our own personal incredulity will not allow for that possibility.

Not incredulity - lack of any need, or reason for, nor evidence of any god.. If they were present credulity would not be an issue.

So if free will is an illusion, as you seem to believe, then so is morality and a lot of other things that we as humans experience. In essence we are in a dream from which we can't seem to awaken from.

That is closer to the truth as I understand it.

We are biological creatures which have evolved a level of consiousness that allows self reflectivity. All that we make of what we perceive of the manifest universe - all our thoughts, beliefs, ideas - is, like a dream, a mental construct. We have not 'woken up' to the simple fact that the very idea of a seperate self is indeed an illusion.

But we have good reason to believe that our free will is truly free so there must be a supernatural law that overrides natural law.

And what 'good reason' would that be? And why is not the second part of youe\r sentance a non-sequitor from the first?

I would suggest that if God does exist, that if you express a sincere desire for God to reveal himself to you, he will do just that.

IOW you have to want to believe in god in order to believe in god.

[olavisjo]

We can see our universe to about 13 billion light years away, and matter, energy and space way out there is just like it is here. So there is no reason to think that it would be any different 26 billion light years away or 26,000,000 billion light years away. But, since what we know about matter, energy and space is not sufficient to explain the world we find ourselves in we look for some twist that is not apparent to us. We try to explain things by string theory and the like, but the only thing we can be truly confident about is that the universe was not created by God. Our own personal incredulity will not allow for that possibility.

i feel that accepting that a god created this universe is essentially the same as accepting that existence itself was never created. it's just a change from "existence" to "God" in regards to the origins of everything. christians believe God is eternal and never created, so why can't the same apply to existence?

This is a good topic for another thread, but I do agree with you. That which you call existence is what I call God, where we differ is that I believe this existence is intelligent and you don't. You just need to consider that some parts of existence exists contingently and some exists necessarily. All contingent things were created from or by some other contingent thing or from or by something that is not contingent. In order for something to have never been created it must exist necessarily so that it would be impossible for that thing to not exist.
As an example all the stuff in the room you are in is contingent, it would be possible for any of it to not exist except for the void of space in the room. It is impossible for the space inside your room to not exist, so space is most likely not contingent.
There are some that believe that even the void of space was created at the big bang, but they can't explain what was there before the void. They say nothing, but that is just another word for the void.
In the same way that space exists necessarily there must exist something that had the ability to create all the contingent stuff that we are so familiar with.

So if free will is an illusion, as you seem to believe, then so is morality and a lot of other things that we as humans experience. In essence we are in a dream from which we can't seem to awaken from.

this is what i believe, but it is no excuse for a serial killer's behavior. all choices are naturally "predetermined", but that doesn't mean we aren't responsible for our actions. we have a choice whether or not it is already determined. Determinism is simply part of the explanation for how free will is possible to begin with.

As a Christian I have a very high tolerance for ambiguity, but under a natural framework, I can't see how you can reconcile having a choice when the outcome is already determined. It is like watching "Gone With the Wind" and expecting Clark Gable to actually give a darn at the end.

for what reason should we believe that our free will is truly free of influence? choice cannot exist without influence.

I never said we are free from influence, you will choose what you want regardless of the influence around you, that is what free will is and that is why you are held responsible for your actions.
It is possible for society to hold you responsible for something you can't control, like your skin color, but we do not consider that to be fair. So if the universe is determined, then we would not be responsible for anything we do, and it would be unfair to be punished for anything since we have no control over the events that drive us.

[olavisjo]

Not incredulity - lack of any need, or reason for, nor evidence of any god.. If they were present credulity would not be an issue.

Agreed, very few people feel any need or reason to understand the universe that they find themselves in.
As for evidence, it seems like you have been reading the atheist bible again...

verse 1: There is no evidence of any god.
verse 2: If there is is any evidence of some god, refer to verse 1.

There is evidence, so I am sure that you meant to say, no evidence that is convincing to you. Even this thread has evidence that you could have easily refuted, but since you have that atheist bible handy, it is only necessary to quote that trite and true verse 1.

So if free will is an illusion, as you seem to believe, then so is morality and a lot of other things that we as humans experience. In essence we are in a dream from which we can't seem to awaken from.

That is closer to the truth as I understand it.

We are biological creatures which have evolved a level of consciousness that allows self reflectivity. All that we make of what we perceive of the manifest universe - all our thoughts, beliefs, ideas - is, like a dream, a mental construct. We have not 'woken up' to the simple fact that the very idea of a separate self is indeed an illusion.

Since I am having difficulty understanding what evidence is supposed to look like, perhaps you would be willing to demonstrate what true evidence looks like by supporting the above claims.

But we have good reason to believe that our free will is truly free so there must be a supernatural law that overrides natural law.

And what 'good reason' would that be? And why is not the second part of youe\r sentence a non-sequitur from the first?

Humans perceive free will. Try this simple experiment, take a coin and place it on a table or desk with the heads side up, now turn it over.
Were the actions that you did or did not do, the result of what I wrote, or were they the result of your own decision? Could you have done anything different? Are you just an automaton that blindly follows the cues given by the world around you?
So it is fairly obvious that we do have a will and to deny that leads us to some very bizarre conclusions about our own nature.

It is no more a non-sequitur than the following...

We have good reason to believe that pi is not a rational number, so there must be a set of irrational numbers that can not be expressed in set of rational numbers.

We have good reason to believe that fast moving particles do not follow Newtonian mechanics, so there must be a law that overrides Newtons laws of motion.

[Miles]

Humans perceive free will. Try this simple experiment, take a coin and place it on a table or desk with the heads side up, now turn it over.
Were the actions that you did or did not do, the result of what I wrote, or were they the result of your own decision? Could you have done anything different? Are you just an automaton that blindly follows the cues given by the world around you?
So it is fairly obvious that we do have a will and to deny that leads us to some very bizarre conclusions about our own nature. [

NOT fairly obvious at all that we do have a [free] will. We decide to do X because: _____________! And whatever we put in that space acts as the cause of our action. And! the reason we decided on whatever we filled in the blank with arose because: _____________. And this necessary regression keeps going back to point where we can no longer identify a cause. But just because we can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because the fact is, if there is no reason for doing Y then the resulting chain of events is predicated on pure, absolute, unqualified random chance: it's uncaused. And so far nothing in the universe has been shown to be uncaused.

[Cathar1950]

Humans perceive free will. Try this simple experiment, take a coin and place it on a table or desk with the heads side up, now turn it over.
Were the actions that you did or did not do, the result of what I wrote, or were they the result of your own decision? Could you have done anything different? Are you just an automaton that blindly follows the cues given by the world around you?
So it is fairly obvious that we do have a will and to deny that leads us to some very bizarre conclusions about our own nature. [

NOT fairly obvious at all that we do have a [free] will. We decide to do X because: _____________! And whatever we put in that space acts as the cause of our action. And! the reason we decided on whatever we filled in the blank with arose because: _____________. And this necessary regression keeps going back to point where we can no longer identify a cause. But just because we can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because the fact is, if there is no reason for doing Y then the resulting chain of events is predicated on pure, absolute, unqualified random chance: it's uncaused. And so far nothing in the universe has been shown to be uncaused.

What he fails to understand is how his will is also determined and is anything but free. Free will is largely uncoerced will as used in these kinds of arguments and taken to mean something different.

[Miles]

Humans perceive free will. Try this simple experiment, take a coin and place it on a table or desk with the heads side up, now turn it over.
Were the actions that you did or did not do, the result of what I wrote, or were they the result of your own decision? Could you have done anything different? Are you just an automaton that blindly follows the cues given by the world around you?
So it is fairly obvious that we do have a will and to deny that leads us to some very bizarre conclusions about our own nature. [

NOT fairly obvious at all that we do have a [free] will. We decide to do X because: _____________! And whatever we put in that space acts as the cause of our action. And! the reason we decided on whatever we filled in the blank with arose because: _____________. And this necessary regression keeps going back to point where we can no longer identify a cause. But just because we can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because the fact is, if there is no reason for doing Y then the resulting chain of events is predicated on pure, absolute, unqualified random chance: it's uncaused. And so far nothing in the universe has been shown to be uncaused.

What he fails to understand is how his will is also determined and is anything but free. Free will is largely uncoerced will as used in these kinds of arguments and taken to mean something different.

I do recognize that free will is sometimes regarded as such, but in this case, where olavisjo wrote "But we have good reason to believe that our free will is truly free so there must be a supernatural law that overrides natural law," it begs to be taken in its most philosophical meaning.

[Cathar1950]

Humans perceive free will. Try this simple experiment, take a coin and place it on a table or desk with the heads side up, now turn it over.
Were the actions that you did or did not do, the result of what I wrote, or were they the result of your own decision? Could you have done anything different? Are you just an automaton that blindly follows the cues given by the world around you?
So it is fairly obvious that we do have a will and to deny that leads us to some very bizarre conclusions about our own nature. [

NOT fairly obvious at all that we do have a [free] will. We decide to do X because: _____________! And whatever we put in that space acts as the cause of our action. And! the reason we decided on whatever we filled in the blank with arose because: _____________. And this necessary regression keeps going back to point where we can no longer identify a cause. But just because we can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because the fact is, if there is no reason for doing Y then the resulting chain of events is predicated on pure, absolute, unqualified random chance: it's uncaused. And so far nothing in the universe has been shown to be uncaused.

What he fails to understand is how his will is also determined and is anything but free. Free will is largely uncoerced will as used in these kinds of arguments and taken to mean something different.

I do recognize that free will is sometimes regarded as such, but in this case, where olavisjo wrote "But we have good reason to believe that our free will is truly free so there must be a supernatural law that overrides natural law," it begs to be taken in its most philosophical meaning.

Agreed as it does look like dualism.
It also fails to take into account the unconscious mind or brain as well as all the influences never asking why they make choices or the processes involved.
.

[tickitytak]

As a Christian I have a very high tolerance for ambiguity, but under a natural framework, I can't see how you can reconcile having a choice when the outcome is already determined. It is like watching "Gone With the Wind" and expecting Clark Gable to actually give a darn at the end.

it would be the equivalent of watching "Gone With The Wind" for the very first time and not knowing anything about the movie prior to watching it. we aren't aware of the outcome, there is only now and we can only speculate on the future. in a good movie, when the characters make choices you tend to understand what motivated them. much like the characters, we are freely making decisions, but since we can never perceive our choices from anywhere other than their own perspective, our actions are "predetermined" by those who have seen it from beginning to end.

I never said we are free from influence, you will choose what you want regardless of the influence around you, that is what free will is and that is why you are held responsible for your actions.
It is possible for society to hold you responsible for something you can't control, like your skin color, but we do not consider that to be fair. So if the universe is determined, then we would not be responsible for anything we do, and it would be unfair to be punished for anything since we have no control over the events that drive us.

i see our choices as a set of developed preferences and these preferences are partly genetic and psychological. any time we choose against our preferences, it is what we consider to be a truly conscious decision.. an act of free will, but i really think the literal definition of free will is an impossibility. we will always choose what we think will be good. if a heroin addict chooses to shoot up, he knows it's bad for him but he's doing it for the sensation, or to subside his withdrawls. if a heroin addict chooses to stop using, he knows how bad the withdrawls will be but he believes being clean will be better for him in the end. absolutely every decision we make is made in attempt to make something desirable happen. this is the nature of choice, and it is this fundamental truth that prevents us from ever being totally free.

i believe the reason that we are capable of choosing against our natural preferences is because of our metacognition. our environment (what we perceive through our 5 senses) motivates our natural preferences, but our self-aware consciousness acts as a separate stimulation and allows us to override our natural preferences. our 5 senses give us the natural option, the only one that animals have, and our self-awareness gives us a second option, the ability to choose whether or not to fulfill our natural preferences. does any of this make sense? i always feel like people get lost along the way when i start talking about this.

[olavisjo]

NOT fairly obvious at all that we do have a [free] will. We decide to do X because: _____________! And whatever we put in that space acts as the cause of our action. And! the reason we decided on whatever we filled in the blank with arose because: _____________. And this necessary regression keeps going back to point where we can no longer identify a cause. But just because we can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because the fact is, if there is no reason for doing Y then the resulting chain of events is predicated on pure, absolute, unqualified random chance: it's uncaused. And so far nothing in the universe has been shown to be uncaused.

That is true if Naturalism is true. (Naturalism being the religion of the atheist.)
So, if I rob a bank tomorrow, I can tell the judge that I had no choice in the matter as it was determined for me to do it because a long chain of events that began at the formation of the universe made me do it.
In other words, if Naturalism is true then there is no such thing as right and wrong actions, there is only determined upon us actions.

Honestly, is that what you are willing to believe?

So, we do have proof that God does exist...

...

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

...

[olavisjo]

i always feel like people get lost along the way when i start talking about this.

I get lost because you are trying to have it both ways, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we are responsible for what will happen tomorrow but there is nothing we can do to change it. And our responsibility is based on the fact that we do not know what the future will bring. If this is not what you are saying, please set me straight and tell me what your position is.