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?

[byofrcs]

My friends, I just recently discovered some shocking news regarding this topic that should provide for a more intriguing discussion. Apparently your mind decides what it is going to do, before you become consciously aware of it, read more here

If that isn't a culmination of past experiences determining your actions, I don't know what is.

They say that "This doesn't rule out free will, but it does make it implausible" and I agree if the concept of free-will is the religious form but if we define free will to mean our ability to add new rules to our behaviour then it certainly would help focus education systems not on conscious recall but how you train your unconscious to work as society sees as suitable (ethical).

[cnorman18]

.....

In short, if there is no predictive value to this "determinism" - and if it does not affect our assigning responsibility for our actions to some degree or other - well, what difference does it make?

For someone who says "WHOOO CAAARES? " a week ago you seem to care much more than the rest of us, so much so that I can only guess that your replies last week were simply a mechanism to deflect debate.

Unless you really do care, in which case we accept your original outburst as histrionics rather than meaningful polemics.

How is "What difference does it make?" differ substantially from "Who cares?" The point in both cases is that, in practical terms, it doesn't matter.

But it does matter in very practical terms.

So your objection is not that my position or attitude has changed, as you claimed in your last, but that it has NOT changed. Who's being inconsistent now?

It was the fact that you kept posting that makes your argument inconsistent. If you were consistent with your first argument of "WHOOO CAAARES? " then you wouldn't keep posting.

Your argument was saying that the question should not be debated and yet you continue to reply.

Sorry, I disagree. The proposition that something is a waste of time is a perfectly legitimate argument; as long as OTHERS keep posting, I have an excellent reason to continue to advocate that point of view.

I think the arguments related to free will are crucial in fatally destroying certain definitions of God...

So your objection is not so much motivated by objections to free will, but by antipathy to certain kinds of theism? I find that strange. It also seems a rather indirect way to attack ideas that can more effectively be countered in other ways.

I doubt that you find it strange because you know that to bring down a pedestal on which people place an argument you can push it over or undermine it. I choose as I see fit.

I DO think it strange; if your problem is with theism, I would think it more logical to argue against that. There seem to be plenty of atheists and nontheists who believe in free will, so it's hard to see how it's a major prop for theism.

And I post as I choose, too. I wasn't saying that your post was evidence of inconsistency or possibly hypocrisy, as you were; I merely said I found it strange, which I do.

(I shall pass over the fact that you also just called me a liar without further comment.)

...and qualifying justice and morality...

Please explain, in practical, down-to-earth terms, how that will work. I decline to give examples; all that I can think of seem absurd, insulting, and excessively polemical.

From experience it is somewhat pointless to reply to those that self deprecate for effect.

What self-deprecation? It's a genuine observation. Every "practical application" of these ideas I can think of is ludicrous and implies that anyone who argues for them is an idiot.

For instance: "What do we do with the criminal justice system? How does that work if we abolish the ideas of personal responsibility and choice? Just open the prisons, close the courts and forget about it?"

See? Ludicrous.

My question remains, of course, whatever excuses are given for not answering it. I haven't seen a coherent answer to it yet, on this thread or any other about free will.

What are the practical applications?

...and help define the purpose of humanity with respect to cause and effect.

Again: Please explain the practical application of the nonexistence of free will in everyday life.

The issue isn't the existence nor non-existence of free will....

Huh? Could've fooled me.

...but that there is an imprecise definition of what it is which obscures how humans choose goals.

Now THAT I can agree with.

How can there be a "purpose of humanity" if there is nothing BUT cause and effect? Are we not then just objects without volition, like animals and trees and stars? Does a stone have a "purpose"? Seems to me the corallary of this idea is that humanity has no purpose; it just IS.

Purpose is a human word that is used to state a goal as an effect that is the result of a casual chain.

Given humans haven't defined a goal for any arbitrary rock then asking what purpose that has is irrelevant. If a rock is used with a goal in mind e.g. as a door stop then it has a purpose.

Okay, that makes sense too.

As humans invented the word purpose then the purpose of humanity is simply what goals we want. It is that simple.

But how do we choose goals if we can't choose anything?

Have we been talking past each other this whole time?

So it matters. All things from the minds of human matter in some way.

In the same sense that other absurd and self-contradictory ideas matter, I suppose so.

Why the ad hominem potshot?

There is no ad hominem. Your repeated use of uppercase was an emotional outburst intended to illicit a response. It matches the definition of histrionics.

Does it?

his·tri·on·ics Pronunciation:
\-niks\
Function: noun
plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1864
1 : theatrical performances
2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect

Emphasis does not necessarily imply emotion. Period, full stop.

Even if it did, your statements address my attitude and not my argument, and are therefore absolutely ad hominem.

By the way, the word is "elicit," not "illicit."

I do not care about the person behind the argument i.e. I did not characterise the person but their delivery of the argument. I characterised your use of uppercase with double quotes, mis-spellings as theatrical.

Enh, point taken. I can see how it could gave been construed in that way.

I was not being emotional, though - unless "amused skepticism" counts as an emotion. Consider how you feel when a fundamentalist begins to hold forth on, say, the details of Heaven's construction. Like that.

I do use a spellchecker so an error like illicit for elicit is regrettable if somewhat Freudian.

Yes, I prefer to elicit illicit sex myself.

As I've often said; those of us who never, ever make misteaks are use to deeling with you pore benited soles who still do.

Polemic is not derogatory in the form of debate we have here.

I didn't say it was derogatory; I said it was ad hominem, about the debater as opposed to the argument; and that, it absolutely was.

Derogatory usually means something against the person i.e. ad hominem therefore if an argument is ad hominem then it is usually derogatory. A moot point anyway as my original reply was also not attacking the person but their argument which includes their method of delivery.

ad hominem is only against the person. If someone wishes to use emotion to present their argument then it is not ad hominem to comment on this method of delivery. Histrionics is the perfect description.

Okay, okay. You're right, and I was wrong. About the "histrionics" charge, anyway.

If more people used polemic arguments around here then debate would be a lot more exciting.

Is the object of debate excitement or the exchange of ideas?

How about both ?

Yeah, sometimes I get in that mood too.

I don't think aggressiveness for aggressiveness's sake is particularly productive. In my opinion, that's more about ego inflation and chest-pounding than about actual debate. If I want excitement, I'll rent an Arnold movie. I'm interested in ideas.

And I agree.

I think you'll find that you have incorrectly considered that I'm the aggressive one here when I actually characterised your argument as either "histrionics" or "meaningful polemics".

So does that mean that you are characterising me as aggressive (q.v. ad hominem ) ?

Nah. Like I said, you were right in the first place.

I'll ask the same question I've been asking for some time here: if there is no such thing as free will, what are we all doing here? Why this pretense that we are trying to convince others of anything if they have no choice about whether to agree with it or not? How can we decide that an idea is true if we can't decide anything at all?

Given we can set goals then we can set a purpose. If our free will is the ability to define rules then a goal of debate is to present new rules to others.

Okay, see, that seems reasonable too.

If our sensations of thinking and deciding are just illusions, why bother to pretend to "debate"?

You can't have it both ways. If there is no free will, voluntary thought has no meaning or validity. If thoughts can be controlled and choices can be made, then free will exists.

Yes that is obvious.

Then what are we arguing about?

I've never denied that free will is influenced by external factors. I just can't see any evidence that there isn't anything else. That seems, and has always seemed, to me to be an assumption, and no more proven, provable, or self-evident than the existence of God.

Further; as I said in the first place, none of this matters in a practical sense. We seem to be constrained to keep pretending to make decisions whether we actually are, in some rarefied theoretical sense, or not; therefore this theory, whether or not it is true, is of absolutely no practical significance at all.

If this idea can be applied in any practical way, please demonstrate that.

As I have mentioned the practical sense is our rule set that is used to control our causal chain of cause and effect.

What set of rules we learn and how we learn to add new rules is very important to what society we get.

Okay: but I have never seen a specific, concrete example of such a rule change and what it would mean in practical terms. Can you give one?

(The rest of my post was not addressed to you, as you said, and I shall delete it here.)

[flavi0]

Question: "Do human beings truly have a free will?"

Answer: If “free will� can mean that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then, yes, human beings do have a free will. The world’s sin status is directly associated with choices made by Adam and Eve. All accounts of the fall of mankind indicate it was as the result of a wrong choice. From that point on, individuals have had the opportunity to choose to follow God or to experience the consequences for not making that choice.

Even in light of God’s choosing Abraham and his descendants, God held individuals accountable for their choices. In the Old Testament, individuals outside of the chosen nation (Israel) were able to choose to believe and follow God (examples: Gentiles that left with the Israelites at the Exodus, Ruth, and Rahab). Therefore, He who chooses (elects) also allows individuals to choose. The Book of Romans is famous for explaining salvation and the sovereignty of God. It uses words like chose, predestined, elect, etc., yet it also holds people accountable for not choosing.

In the section where Romans discusses the sinful depravity of humans, God bluntly states that those outside of salvation are without excuse--“no defense.� This is specifically in light of the rejection of general revelation, showing His existence through His creation (Romans 1:20-21).

In other passages we learn that (1) individuals are expected to choose to believe (John 3:16; Romans 10:11; etc). (2) Individuals have a choice to be foolish or wise (Matthew 7:26). (3) The Scriptures are given to provide instruction for salvation – obviously to be chosen or rejected (2 Timothy 3:15; John 20:30-31). (4) Jesus established the choosing of obedience as a sign of our love for Him (John 14:21).

It is God’s will that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9), therefore, it must be someone else’s choice that separates individuals from God. God says we will reap what we sow – we can choose to reap differently (Galatians 6:7-8).

The multitudes of directives given by God assume that the hearers can make a choice to obey or disobey. It seems logical that God could only hold us accountable if we indeed have free will to choose. Therefore, a just God would not declare expectations on those who are not free to choose. It would be unjust for God to then punish those who had no choice in their actions. God, in His absolute sovereignty, created the human race with ability to make genuine and free choices.

from gotquestions.org

[Ms_Maryam]

Has there been a definition of free will?

Are defining free will in terms of causality?

[cnorman18]

Question: "Do human beings truly have a free will?"

Answer: If “free will� can mean that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then, yes, human beings do have a free will....

from gotquestions.org

This is a very fine post - except for two things:

(1) This has nothing to say to those who do not believe in the authority or relevance of the Bible. Our community is made up of people with a wide variety of beliefs, including some with none at all.

(2) The common practice here is to post one's own thoughts, and refer to websites for support, examples, documentation, and the like. Cutting and pasting an entire post from another website is, well - well, the point of this forum is not for reference or to determine the correct answers or the right positions on the subjects we debate. The point is to find out -

What do YOU think?

[bernee51]

Question: "Do human beings truly have a free will?"

Answer: If “free will� can mean that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then, yes, human beings do have a free will.

Leaving the existence of otherwise of ‘god’ out of it for a moment…Are the supposed choices humans make actually choices or do we react to ‘buttons’ – influences rooted in our sense of self that we have spent a life time building?

The world’s sin status is directly associated with choices made by Adam and Eve. All accounts of the fall of mankind indicate it was as the result of a wrong choice. .[/quote]

What exactly do you hold the metaphor of the ‘fall’ to mean?

From that point on, individuals have had the opportunity to choose to follow God or to experience the consequences for not making that choice.

And the consequences are?

In the section where Romans discusses the sinful depravity of humans, God bluntly states that those outside of salvation are without excuse--“no defense.� This is specifically in light of the rejection of general revelation, showing His existence through His creation (Romans 1:20-21).

Are you a christian? Or a Paulian?

In other passages we learn that (1) individuals are expected to choose to believe (John 3:16; Romans 10:11; etc). (2) Individuals have a choice to be foolish or wise (Matthew 7:26). (3) The Scriptures are given to provide instruction for salvation – obviously to be chosen or rejected (2 Timothy 3:15; John 20:30-31). (4) Jesus established the choosing of obedience as a sign of our love for Him (John 14:21).

Which ‘scriptures’ does 2 Tim refer to?

It is God’s will that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9), therefore, it must be someone else’s choice that separates individuals from God. God says we will reap what we sow – we can choose to reap differently (Galatians 6:7-8).

I always find it interesting that the will of a mere human can outdo that of an all powerful god.

The multitudes of directives given by God assume that the hearers can make a choice to obey or disobey. It seems logical that God could only hold us accountable if we indeed have free will to choose. Therefore, a just God would not declare expectations on those who are not free to choose. It would be unjust for God to then punish those who had no choice in their actions. God, in His absolute sovereignty, created the human race with ability to make genuine and free choices.

Then he is responsible for his own non existence.

from gotquestions.org

Pity…what does “flavi0" think?

Or does "flavi0" not have the ‘will’ to think for his/her self?

[Greatest I Am]

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?

I am not an atheist but my God is not the God of the Bible. I explain free will this way as it pertains to the God of the Bible.

Has God given up the right to punish through free will? If so, there is no hell.

It is said that God gave man free will.
This to me, means that God gave man dominion over himself and over the earth. Without any restrictions or coercion from Him.

The idea then that He would mean that we must do as He says or go to hell cannot be a true concept.

If we as parents give or allow our children to have freedom when they leave our homes, then that means that we give up any right or responsibility to punish them.

To keep things simple, let us say that the rules of my home includes making the bed.
I notice when visiting them in their home that they have chosen not to make their beds.
I then would be out of line to reprimand or punish them for not making their beds. They are free to do so or not if they have free will.

This seems right. It is no longer my place as a father to punish them. They are free and have dominion over themselves.

God then should not and would not hold a hell over our heads to demand compliance to His rules.

Is free will with consequences from God, hell for non compliance, free will at all?
Is being free to only follow His rules free will?
Has God given up the right to punish free men?

Regards
DL

[Ms_Maryam]

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?

You are defining "free will" in a context of causality, correct?

I don't think that is what free will is. I think free will has more to do with constraint/restriction.

[Gonzo]

You are defining "free will" in a context of causality, correct?

I don't think that is what free will is. I think free will has more to do with constraint/restriction.

Then how is it "free"?

[Ms_Maryam]

You are defining "free will" in a context of causality, correct?

I don't think that is what free will is. I think free will has more to do with constraint/restriction.

Then how is it "free"?

\

Free will, to me, has to do with the absence of contraint/restriction