Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[MaxTheFox]

I only believe in free will because I am a Christian. If I did not believe that souls existed then I'd have no reason to believe that free will was a thing. Quantum randomness is too small-scale for anything resembling free will. I believe it's a moot point anyway because, within the scope of the Universe, there is no difference between free-willed actions and... not-free-willed actions.

[TD1]

But there is a distinction within the scope of the individual, which is the only universe we will ever know.

[MaxTheFox]

But there is a distinction within the scope of the individual, which is the only universe we will ever know.

You, as an individual, would not be able to perceive the presence or absence of free will.

[Schmaven]

I believe in free will because the mind seems to be independent of the body.  When we dream, we have a dream body, and experience dream worlds.  So I think there's much more to us as living beings than just the physical aspect of cells, chemicals, electric energy, etc.  The mind is not a physical thing, and can't be measured.  The brain can, but it's not the mind.  I see it as like a car and a driver.  If the driver were the mind, and invisible, we would still be able to see the pedals and other controls move around, and how that results in the car operating out on the road.  In a similar way, we can see all the chemical / electrical signals and activity in the brain and how they result in movement and emotion, but that's just due to our mind operating our physical body.  We're not actually observing the mind itself.  Recognizing this independence of body and mind, I can choose to act despite emotion, and despite hardship, going against the grain in life.  Or I can do what is easy and familiar.  It very much feels like a choice I consciously make.  I suppose there can be the illusion of conscious choice, but that would imply everything else is similarly an illusion, and so all things being equal, there is still equally valid conscious choice occurring in that illusory world. 

I know not everyone will agree with this, and that's fine.  I just wanted to share why I personally believe in free will.

[McTraveller]

If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.

If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc.  The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics."  It's a bleak, harsh worldview.  The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe...  there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations.  Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations.  There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy."  There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe.  There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love."  They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.

[feelotraveller]

What he said ^^.

Came to post:
I'm not sure if I decided or was destined to like The Diceman but I do know that I like The Dice Man.

(The only reply to McTraveller's position is to say that it all happens 'as if' we had free will even though we don't.  Against the 'as if' position, read that book and see if believing in no free will is still an option.)

[Eric Blank]

Yeah, I understand we are technically limited by our own meaty goodness and the habits we develop over our lives, but within the bounds of those things, we have free will to act and make decisions, and to test those limits by developing new habits and ideas and, on the strictly per-individual level, the talents and genius unique to an individual that could very well be developments as a result of our upbringing or experiences we have that cause us to develop those skills early and make those brain pathways and patterns that serve that talent into our adult lives.

I believe thus that it's important to teach kids creative thought on any subject they take interest in, as much as how to think inside the box enough to function in our society and use language and math, and only discourage behaviors, not ideas but actions, that are destructive to themselves or those around them. We are made of meat, full of limitations and flaws that hold us back, but that meat is both malleable and adaptable, and those flaws simulate true randomness enough to effectively be indistinguishable from free will.


[Edit]
I realize that I basically wrote a couple paragraph length run on sentences. I don't know why I always do this, and I am sorry.

[MaxTheFox]

If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.

If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc.  The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics."  It's a bleak, harsh worldview.  The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe...  there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations.  Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations.  There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy."  There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe.  There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love."  They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.

I disagree.

From a perspective outside of the universe (like if the universe is a simulation), perhaps that is true. But it is simply strange to say that those things are irrelevant in this universe. We are not outside of it and, let's face it, will never be. Thus, morality should be focused on this universe's perspective. Thus, the existence or lack thereof of free will is irrelevant to my moral framework.

[WealthyRadish]

If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.

If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc.  The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics."  It's a bleak, harsh worldview.  The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe...  there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations.  Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations.  There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy."  There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe.  There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love."  They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.

Here's my perspective from that bleakness:

The bridge is understanding that while we can clearly see the true physical reality (suggestive of no free will and no meaning) the observation is itself made mostly irrelevant by other facts of living. Mere exposure to knowledge of meaninglessness (and even lengthy brooding upon it) are rarely enough to alter the other inescapable drives that actually occupy a person's life and keep them emotionally engaged with others. Internalizing meaninglessness has some effects I'm sure, but the bottomless capacity for humans to rationalize anything, move on, and drop it completely later is at least one strong mitigating factor on how dangerous an idea can actually be. (I might also add that the alternative model of reality is very frequently used to mentally justify the very same indifference and carelessness for others listed above; the actual cause of these problems is clearly something else.)

While the abyss might open up beneath your feet momentarily when thinking about things like the experience of death, the number of stars in the universe, every person being a sack of chemicals and electricity and so on, eventually you'll just get hungry or fall asleep. When not left alone to sit around brooding and instead put in the physical presence of other people, a person goes back to running on autopilot doing what a social animal does (the knowledge that those other animals are just sacks of chemicals becomes a conversation piece).

Fortunately, justice and morality are also part of that autopilot for most people, and human life and culture also contain the means to propagate and rediscover "moral" behavior with or without an intellectual belief in free will (only a commitment to life and respect for it in others is necessary). One observation is that the abstract question of whether a bad actor is technically "responsible" or not often doesn't affect how people should respond to a problem if they have a sincere interest in fixing the problem. Instead, the question of responsibility is often used to smuggle in a needlessly expedient or careless response (one case where adhering too strongly to the alternative model of reality creates real problems rather than merely hypothetical).


A simple reconciliation of meaninglessness with continued investment in living could be described like this. When confronted with the physical truth and our own insignificance within it, which of the alternatives will we select in light of this, with that free will of ours? The question erodes to nothing and generates an answer: there is no alternative. The decision to continue anyway has already been made. A bird pecking in the dirt for seeds outside your window will spend most of its life locked in a tragic state of meaningless fear and suffering, but it won't stop. There's little that can make us stop either. Recognizing this "decision" as yours (despite not having ever had a choice in the matter) is one way to resolve the various mysteries well enough to move on completely and appreciate a new understanding of significance.

[MorleyDev]

The universe being deterministic or not is a question at the level and scale of an entire universe, but people in it don't live at that scale. It's an ant trying to figure out whether the Earth is round or flat. For the ant, it may as well be flat because it doesn't matter that it's really round to the ant. For a human, may as well live as if we have choice because it's a convenient simplification and if the universe is deterministic then at our limited scale of perspective it doesn't really matter.

It may be one day that humanity will live at a scale where the simplification is no longer useful, just like how we now operate at such a scale of perspective that the Earth being round is relevant. It may be we can never reach that kind of scale.

[lemon10]

If you believe in the concepts of injustice, or that there is such a thing as abhorrent behavior, then you believe in at least some level of free will.

If you think there is no free will, then the concept of injustice itself is dishonest; everything is merely the result of the progression of the physical state of the universe, no just or unjust, no "should or shouldn't", etc.  The capability to be horrified at anything is a transient pattern in the quantum fields and the spacetime continuum; there is no room for "ought" without free will, there is only "physics."  It's a bleak, harsh worldview.  The entire existence of social morality is just a solution to the equations of the universe...  there is no "individual" as everything literally is part of the same system of equations.  Love, hate, good, evil, atrocities - they are all just patterns, they are all valid "solutions" to the equations.  There is nothing "behind" the emotion or anything other than just "this is a valid state of mass-energy."  There is no true blame; even society "assigning blame" or "attributing responsibility" is just a progression of the universe.  There is no true hate, anger, but also no true "love."  They are all truly meaningless concepts without free will.

I mean, there is no such thing as objective injustice, just as there is no such thing as objective morality, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that subjective injustice or me thinking something is right or wrong aren't things.

But even if there was free will, I don't see how that makes objective injustice a thing.
Is it fair that a dude is sitting eating while a kid on the sidewalk is starving to death a few feet away when he could just feed her? Not at all. Such a thing is horrible and clearly unfair.
Would the situation be more fair if unbeknownst to him his decision not to feed the kid and the fact that the kid would starve was fated from the start of the universe? Still no.

[martinuzz]

Monotheist are basically atheists. By claiming there is only one god, they deny the existence of so many other gods that their single god becomes so insignificant that it approaches zero.

[Rolan7]

Okay I used to enjoy the "Monotheists are atheists to all but one god" thing, but I'm going to step on your joke   The one god they *do* believe in becomes the entire universe, to whatever metaphysical degree.  Like being described as "everywhere" and "within all things".  Like the holy spirit being within every "person".

What I find interesting about that is how difficult it is to anthropomorphize a being which is basically the universe.  It seems that the Christian Trinity may be a result.  Y-hw-h remains the creator, master, and literally is the universe.  Jesus is god as a human being.  The holy spirit is... perhaps the aspect of god one can have a personal relationship with?  Since I don't think most Christians around the time of Constantine believed they could pray directly to Jesus, much less Y-hw-h, at least not 2-way.

I'm not clear on the Holy Spirit either historically or contemporarily though.  ("contemporaneously"?  That's TOO pretentious, I'm not correcting that)

[EuchreJack]

The great part about Christianity is that the Trinity is Unknowable, so we don't have to figure it out.
But it could be thought of as:
God is God as the Universe & Time (it's not just the Universe)
Jesus is God that visited humanity
Holy Spirit is God within us

Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is as old as Jesus, as Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.

Monotheist are basically atheists. By claiming there is only one god, they deny the existence of so many other gods that their single god becomes so insignificant that it approaches zero.

I think the counterargument is that Polytheists dilute their god among many entities, to the point that they stop being truly divine.
OR
Atheists are basically Monotheists. By claiming god does not exist, they deny the existence of god or gods so fervently they create their own all powerful and all knowing solitary divine being.

[Scoops Novel]

Reality vs The Universe

Which one is more philosophically important