Do Atheists believe in free-will? (choices, choice, evolution, doctrine)

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Wherein does responsibility arise then?

I may be getting my philosophers confused, but I believe that Sarte would have said that it comes from our responses to the world. If we feel bad about starving kids in China, then we have responsibility for them.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

I may be getting my philosophers confused, but I believe that Sarte would have said that it comes from our responses to the world. If we feel bad about starving kids in China, then we have responsibility for them.

I was thinking of responsibility in the context of being accountable for one's actions.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

That's fine, but it means your judgments and opinions are no more meaningful or true than a rock's.

I'm curious how you reach that conclusion.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I'm curious how you reach that conclusion.

I think it means he would have a more agreeing audience in a rock quarry.

[gmelrod]

I have read over this thread and I think that it is time for a healthy dose of Spinoza!

Baruch de Espinoza was a philosopher who lived in the Jewish comunity of Amsterdam born in the year 1632. The most influential of his works was the book "Ethics" which he wrote in a geometric proof style. The Ethics is an attempt to formulate a system of human actions starting with metaphysics instead of morality. While there is no need to go into a complete treatment here (though I could) I think you might enjoy some of the highlights.

God is infinte. The universe is infinite, if there is something outside of either of them they would not be infinite. So God and the universe must be the same thing. (Yes I know there are degrees of infinity but Spinoza preceded set theory. Plus he considered both the God/universe as Substance, an absolutly universal thing. Clearly Spinoza was a pantheist.)

All effects are the ersult of a cause. every event is the result of a chain of causes stretching back to infinity. There are no random or uncaused events in the universe. This must include human actions. Emotions are a cause and can only be replaced by anothe emotion. This denies the conventional definition of free will as an uncaused action but Spinoza offers a diffrent definition of freedom.

Freedom for Spinoza is not uncaused acts but understanding. Humans as rational being are unique in that we can examine the causes of our actions (thougu in a limited sense) and through such examination can introduce new antercedent causess. Once a person becomes aware that the are not "free" they can reflect on what holds them in bondage. The master for Spinoza is emotion, external causes. People are too often dominated by external forces acting on their will. Fear, Hate, Pain, Greed and others including Love and Honor. Spinoza says we can only be free when we understand that everything has a cause. The bad things that happen are not a result of bad luck but of a system of causes that could not have happned otherwise. If it could not be diffrent than it is how could we be mad.

Some people criticise that this abrogates personal responsibility and in a way it does. We can no longer moraly advocate punishment or retribution. But we can see peoples wrong actions as the result of unhealthy antecedent causes that made the crime happen. So the person has to be restrained and new caused introduced into their identity until they understand. The focus of prison is then reform and rehabilitaition instead of punishment and vengence.

I have seen many Spinitizt posts in this thread and I hope you find somthin you like. If not post your disagreement and I will be glad to go into more detail. But in essence the conflict of freedom stems from the nature of the definition of what it means to be free.

(So that you know I am not making this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I'm curious how you reach that conclusion.

determinism = mechanism = all the judgment of a rock: it is the inevitable result mechanism or mathematical probabilities and not judgment at all.

As for Spinoza...He had some good ideas, but I'm much more impressed by what the unknown author of The Cloud of Unknowing had to say (once I got past the references to Christ). I do wonder, however, what meaning Spinoza would have attached to quantum non-locality, if any.

I think the key difference between Spinoza and The Cloud of Unknowing is that the latter makes a strong distinction between the one and the many. While recognizing that God constitutes our being, we are not God's being. Hence, my analogy of God being the light on the other side of the cosmic prism and we having our being in the spectra of his light.

I do, in a sense, agree that ignorance is bondage and we are free only inasmuch we have understanding, but the understanding that makes us free does not come by way of reason or the intellect. On the contrary, they get in the way; they come between our self and the infinite sea of information--the body of God, if you will. We really have just two choices: we either choose to live life as a closed system subject to cause and effect, or choose to open up to the One. The aim is not to achieve union with God as a drop of water finds unity with the ocean, but rather allow the ocean to enter into us.

[s2a]

Originally Posted by SPLogan

Do Atheists believe in free-will?
Why or why not?

Cogito ergo sum.

No "belief" required.

[Aasimar]

Originally Posted by SPLogan

Do Atheists believe in free-will?
Why or why not?

I've always seen this as a completely immaterial question. I seem to have free will but whether I do or not really has no bearing on anything. If I do have free will then I'm gonna do what I want anyway. If I don't, then I don't and no amount of thought would change it. It's kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of question.