Do Atheists believe in free-will?

[Rolling_Stone]

How so?

Simple logic: if unconscious matter-energy is the bottom line, consciousness, judgment, will, etc. are either the inevitable result of mathematical probabilities and whatnot (i.e., mechanistic) and therefore not free or, being an effect of something absent in its cause, quite literally equivalent to something having come from nothing.

 

[eudaimonia]

Simple logic: if unconscious matter-energy is the bottom line

You've said it right there... "if"

What if it's not quite that simple? Naturalists are not limited to reductive materialism. There are non-reductive views; e.g. that the human being as a whole involves emergent properties that the parts do not have by themselves or, to put it another way, that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts; that may mean that "unconscious matter-energy" really isn't the "bottom line". IOW, naturalists may take the radical view that people may actually be persons.

Your "simple logic" doesn't eliminate all possible naturalistic philosophical paradigms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You've said it right there... "if"

What if it's not quite that simple? Naturalists are not limited to reductive materialism. There are non-reductive views; e.g. that the human being as a whole involves emergent properties that the parts do not have by themselves or, to put it another way, that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts; that may mean that "unconscious matter-energy" really isn't the "bottom line". IOW, naturalists may take the radical view that people may actually be persons.

Your "simple logic" doesn't eliminate all possible naturalistic philosophical paradigms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You're suggesting pantheism, and it is not logical unless consciousness is assumed to be part of the very fabric of reality, in which it is no longer pantheism but some kind of theism, though not necessarily along the lines of traditional theistic thought. Alan Watts explaind it this way:

Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. Nobody has ever been able to suggest a reasonable alternative....
To argue that Reality is not a blind energy but a “living principle [more than the sum of its parts], an “impersonal super-consciousness,” or an “impersonal Mind” is merely to play with words and indulge in terminological contradictions. A “living principle” means about as much as a black whiteness, and to speak of an “impersonal mind” is like talking about a circular square.

Here's the problem that you're not addressing:

Understanding consciousness from a strictly materialistic point of view precludes the possibility of the active participation of consciousness in the world: everything we decide and believe is determined by unconscious forces and we have no say in the matter. If this is the case, there is nothing to be said. Science is not driven by a desire to know and understand the world, but by necessity. A scientist doesn’t do what he or she does because they want to, but because they have to. If they happen to like what they’re doing, it’s just a fortuitous outcome of random events and mathematical probabilities.

To simply say, on the other hand, that consciousness is an emergent property greater than its cause tells us nothing. It does not tell what it is. It does not tell us how matter becomes that what it is not. It does not tell us whether consciousness is an illusion created by brain-states or something that can chose to act on matter the way it does and make the kinds of observations and conclusions it does.

If we understand consciousness as an emergent property that is greater than its cause, able to acts upon the cause by the conscious decision to clip a toenail, then that decision to act compels us to say that consciousness is woven into the very fabric of reality and primary, while matter, which is also woven into the fabric if reality, is secondary.

This last way of understanding the world is especially uncomfortable for atheists because it suggests not just the possibility of some kind of God, but a high probability. It puts them in the same position that religionists have been in for the past few centuries. They feel threatened and are becoming more vocal about it, but if they are to be heard or taken seriously, the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins will have to adjust to dealing with concepts of God far more sophisticated than Poseidon.

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Those supposedely more refined concepts are just more obfuscation and guesses about the mystery of God,surrounded by more mysteries that all in all mean nothing!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Those supposedely more refined concepts are just more obfuscation and guesses about the mystery of God,surrounded by more mysteries that all in all mean nothing!

Really? Consider this:

We do not know why there is something rather than nothing, neither do we know the deep why of any event. We can describe what happens, but not why it happens in the way that it does. Empirical “knowledge” is not knowledge at all, but the custom of our expectations and the discernment of patterns. Since we don’t why order comes about in the universe or why energy behaves the way it does, and since we can only describe the processes, we can just as easily say design comes from within the nature of the world as from without. The universe could come about as the result of reality’s intrinsic nature the same way a plant grows from a seed.

But for the presence of consciousness in the world and the results of scientific inquiry, we could say this wins out over religion’s cosmological teleological arguments. However, Bell’s theorem, the Aspect experiments and various forms of the double-slit experiment all point to a holistic universe. If, as countless experiments suggest, the universe is holistic rather than composed of relatively isolated and interacting bits and pieces, the logical consequences are upsetting to atheists, agnostics, and classical theists alike.

A holistic universe coupled to the human ability to make a conscious decision to use the body to clip the body’s toenail, for example, compels us to understand the universe infused with units of free will so that all of them, together, make the universe what it is by acting upon it holistically and non-locally. In order to preserve the notion that matter-energy rather than consciousness is the dominant feature of the universe, atheists choose to ignore the science and assert that consciousness is an emergent property of matter acting locally rather than something that is intrinsic to the nature of reality. They have no choice. For if they were to admit to consciousness as intrinsic to reality, it would justify belief in a non-contingent and spacetime-transcending consciousness— God— and religious values would be justified. Agnosticism doesn’t like the idea any more than atheism because it is left without an excuse. And classical theism doesn’t like it because it sees it as undermining God’s authority in the universe and therefore its own, for it encourages people to find their own salvation and their own place in the universe; to go with what works for them rather than relying on the authority of some kind of preacher or scripture.

 

[Bronze]

I am an Atheist who does not believe in free will. this belief (I regard it as the truth rather than belief) is called determinism. its basicaly cause and effect (the laws of physics) determines an absolute future with one outcome and one outcome only.

 

[Willamena]

I am an Atheist who does not believe in free will. this belief (I regard it as the truth rather than belief) is called determinism. its basicaly cause and effect (the laws of physics) determines an absolute future with one outcome and one outcome only.

Wherein does responsibility arise then?

 

[doppelganger]

Wherein does responsibility arise then?

In thought?

 

[Willamena]

In thought?

..but in terms of causation.

 

[doppelganger]

..but in terms of causation.

Same place. Effects precede causes in inner phenomenology.

 

[Willamena]

Same place. Effects precede causes in inner phenomenology.

But you've taken it out of context, and that's no fun.

 

[doppelganger]

But you've taken it out of context, and that's no fun.

Things can't be taken out of context. I've just put it in a new context. And that's a lot of fun!:balloons:

 

[Willamena]

Things can't be taken out of context. I've just put it in a new context. And that's a lot of fun!

A 'new' context is 'another' context, one that is admittedly more useful but that perhaps isn't going to help me understand what Bronze's Deterministic reasoning is.

...wherein I get my fun.

 

[eudaimonia]

You're suggesting pantheism, and it is not logical unless consciousness is assumed to be part of the very fabric of reality

No, I'm sorry, but I am not suggesting anything like this. Consciousness need only be an emergent phenomenon in reality, not part of its "fabric". Just because something does not behave the way one expects its parts to behave, that doesn't make that something part of the "fabric of reality", whatever that is supposed to mean.

(Does reality really have a fabric, and does it come in pastels? )

Understanding consciousness from a strictly materialistic point of view

I think you mean a reductively materialistic point of view, and I reject the notion that reductive materialism is the only "strict" materialism. I'm outside of the reductive materialist paradigm.

Reductive materialists imagine that if a part is mindless, then the whole must be mindless as well. If a part is not a person, then the whole is not a person either. If a part is described neatly by mathematics, then this mathematics of parts suddenly acquires a curiously prescriptive role where the logic of the part is imposed on the whole, as if by some kind of god of mathematics setting "laws" of nature. Stop telling nature what is possible!

To simply say, on the other hand, that consciousness is an emergent property greater than its cause tells us nothing. It does not tell what it is.

I agree! If only I knew precisely what consciousness is and how it worked, I'd publish my finding and make my fortune.

However, just because I don't know precisely what consciousness is, that doesn't mean that it must be limited in the way that you are saying it must be limited. I may be engaging more in philosophy than brain science, but I see a philosophical possibility for free will to exist in a thoroughly natural universe (and not a "pantheistic" one!)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[doppelganger]

A 'new' context is 'another' context, one that is admittedly more useful but that perhaps isn't going to help me understand what Bronze's Deterministic reasoning is.

...wherein I get my fun.

Oh, sorry. Play on then . . .

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I am an Atheist who does not believe in free will. this belief (I regard it as the truth rather than belief) is called determinism. its basicaly cause and effect (the laws of physics) determines an absolute future with one outcome and one outcome only.

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

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Consciousness need only be an emergent phenomenon in reality

What you are saying, then, is that sufficient cause isn't an issue. You believe something can come from nothing.

 

[Bronze]

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

that may be true, but so be it. i do not base my thought on reality on whether or not the result of that thought would be desirable. know what i mean?

 

[gnomon]

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

My judgmenents are far more meaningful than...sigh...a rock:sarcastic.

 

[Yerda]

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

Of course, if he/she's right it has precisely the same implication for your own. Is that what bothers you?