Do you Think we have Free Will

[shunyadragon]

I do believe that the debate over free will has its origins in the theological debate over whether an omniscient, omnipotent deity is justified in blaming its creations for disobedience to its moral commands. That is an ancient debate that is very much alive for those in our current era who still take the old creation myths seriously. I do not. Nevertheless, that does make theological debates over free will relevant to the secular debate that more modern philosophers have taken up over determinism and free will.

At present science explains moral responsibility based on the natural evolution of humanity and the necessity of a cooperative social structure independent of the necessity of moral responsibility, It still remains that the development of Compatibilism is based on the philosophical/theological necessity to justify some sort of freedom of choice based on moral responsibility. Also the dominant reason for the believe in Libertarian Free Will is a theological justification.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

Yes some atheists and non-believers justify some form of Compatibilism for the need of moral responsibility the need to justify moral responsibility is based in older philosophical/theological requirement of moral responsibility.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..It still remains that the development of Compatibilism is based on the philosophical/theological necessity to justify some sort of freedom of choice based on moral responsibility..

Nonsense. It is not just a philosophical position/opinion, but one based on logic and reason.
It is NOT about justifying anything .. either the compatibilists view is correct, or it is not.

..and I have bent over backwards to show you why it is correct .. but fallen on deaf ears, it seems.

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism..

Yes .. we are able to make choices freely, whilst the future can be determined by many other factors
alongside.

The usual understanding of "the determinist", is that a determined future (fixed by some material factors), means that our choices cannot be free .. but they can't tell us why .. they just state it as the obvious .. which it is for them
..but it is only a perception, and not fact. ( no replies including before & after, please )

 

[URAVIP2ME]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random
I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the ability to make choices ?

Since the number of people at Revelation 7:9 is still an un-known number at this time, then to me that is showing free-will choices are ours to make without any interference from God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. It is not just a philosophical position/opinion, but one based on logic and reason.

Logic and reason are philosophical tools.

It is NOT about justifying anything .. either the compatibilists view is correct, or it is not.

Definition provided does base the justification of moral responsibility as the justification for Compatibilism as opposed to hard determinism.

..and I have bent over backwards to show you why it is correct .. but fallen on deaf ears, it seems.

You have bent over backwards as long as I seen you posts here to justify your ancient tribal agenda including your rejection of the sciences of evolution and contemporary physics and cosmology. Nothing new,

Yes .. we are able to make choices freely, whilst the future can be determined by many other factors
alongside.

Nonetheless or freedom of choices is limited by deterministic factors. It is only the degree of limitation that is the question. I believe based on the evidence our freedom of choice independent of determinism is extremely limited.

The usual understanding of "the determinist", is that a determined future (fixed by some material factors), means that our choices cannot be free .. but they can't tell us why .. they just state it as the obvious .. which it is for them

Why is a philosophical/theological question.
I do not believe in nor try to justify hard determinism, but the evidence is clear our freedom of choice is limited by deterministic factors.

I do not state anything in terms of being obvious, but natural determinism is based on the objective verifiable evidence, including limitations on our freedom of choices.

..but it is only a perception, and not fact. ( no replies including before & after, please )

Does not address my statement, but nonetheless the belief in freedom of choice remains a subjective personal perspective.

 

[Copernicus]

What is it about reality, that you do not understand?
I mean, G-d or no god, it remains the same.

There are a great many things that I do not understand about reality, but I see no good reason to believe that any gods exist in ours.

That means, that you will have to find another thing "to blame" for your misfortunes.

I have no trouble finding things to blame my misfortunes on. I just don't need to blame them on deities.

 

[Copernicus]

At present science explains moral responsibility based on the natural evolution of humanity and the necessity of a cooperative social structure independent of the necessity of moral responsibility, It still remains that the development of Compatibilism is based on the philosophical/theological necessity to justify some sort of freedom of choice based on moral responsibility. Also the dominant reason for the believe in Libertarian Free Will is a theological justification.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

First of all, I reject the notion that science explains moral responsibility. I believe that it is a philosophical issue that exists independently of theology. It's just that the secular debate has a historical connection to the theological one. So I consider it a genetic fallacy to argue that compatibilism is based on a theological necessity.

Yes some atheists and non-believers justify some form of Compatibilism for the need of moral responsibility the need to justify moral responsibility is based in older philosophical/theological requirement of moral responsibility.

Genetic fallacy. Morality need not entail any theological concepts at all. Regardless of how the debate got started, it is well past that point now. Compatibilism makes no reference to deities of any kind, although it is possible that a theologist could be a compatibilist. Most that I am familiar with are not theists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have bent over backwards as long as I seen you posts here to justify your ancient tribal agenda..

Einstein's theories aren't that ancient.

It is only the degree of limitation that is the question..

I suppose some people are more "limited" than others.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have no trouble finding things to blame my misfortunes on. I just don't need to blame them on deities.

No, perhaps not .. but you have pointed out that many people "blame G-d" for the warnings about the suffering that might be in store for us.

 

[shunyadragon]

Einstein's theories aren't that ancient.

Never said it was.

I suppose some people are more "limited" than others.

That is possible, but I do not make the judgment as to who's freedom of choices is more limited than others.. It is common that many people claim the illusion that all their choices are freely made without constraints..

 

[shunyadragon]

First of all, I reject the notion that science explains moral responsibility.

At present I agree that science has a complete explanation of the human nature of will nor moral responsibility. I never mde that claim, but nonetheless science does have a reasonable explanation of the nature and evolution of moral responsibility as needed for the survival of the human species without any consideration of whether we have freedom of choice or not.

I believe that it is a philosophical issue that exists independently of theology. It's just that the secular debate has a historical connection to the theological one. So I consider it a genetic fallacy to argue that compatibilism is based on a theological necessity.

I believe in the history of the consideration of human will in philosophy and theology we cannot make a distinction. The dominant belief in Western culture is Abrahamic Theism, and it influences everything including philosophy.

I did not say it was entirely based on Theological necessity. but the Theological necessity of Moral Responsibility is at the foundation of the questions of human will and Moral Responsibility and remains an issue today.

Genetic fallacy. Morality need not entail any theological concepts at all. Regardless of how the debate got started, it is well past that point now. Compatibilism makes no reference to deities of any kind, although it is possible that a theologist could be a compatibilist. Most that I am familiar with are not theists.

Yes it need not and I agree, but the matter of fact it is a significant part of the issue for over 2000 years.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is common that many people claim the illusion that all their choices are freely made without constraints..

The illusion? What illusion?
I think you misunderstand what "many people" refer to, when you talk about constraints.

Either that, or you prefer to have your own definition of the meaning of "free-will".
For example, do you really believe that you had little choice in writing your last post?

 

[shunyadragon]

The illusion? What illusion?

That we freely make all or most of our decisions without the constraints of deterministic factors.

I think you misunderstand what "many people" refer to, when you talk about constraints.

No confusion. Many if not most people believe they are not subject to deterministic constraints on their freedom of choice.

Either that, or you prefer to have your own definition of the meaning of "free-will".

No confusion, though I prefer to us the question of the degree humans have concerning the freedom of choice.

For example, do you really believe that you had little choice in writing your last post?

I believe the chain of may choices and cause and effect events throughout my life, including my education, the information available and the influence of the choices of others to post like you lead me to make the choice and content of replying to your post.

 

[Copernicus]

No, perhaps not .. but you have pointed out that many people "blame G-d" for the warnings about the suffering that might be in store for us.

I have? You may be confusing me with someone else. I don't blame nonexistent deities for anything. I think that the narrative about this particular one requires a lot of mental contortions to get past the cognitive dissonance. I just lack the mental flexibility to put up with it.

 

[Copernicus]

At present I agree that science has a complete explanation of the human nature of will nor moral responsibility. I never mde that claim, but nonetheless science does have a reasonable explanation of the nature and evolution of moral responsibility as needed for the survival of the human species without any consideration of whether we have freedom of choice or not.

If all you are saying is that we are a product of evolution, I have no disagreement. My view of morality is that it is an emergent set of strictures on behavior that function to make human interactions safe and comfortable within the group that adheres to them.

I believe in the history of the consideration of human will in philosophy and theology we cannot make a distinction. The dominant belief in Western culture is Abrahamic Theism, and it influences everything including philosophy.

Fair enough, but I disagree. Religion influences a lot of things, but it isn't the only influence. I think that Socrates would disagree with the idea that philosophers are essentially the same thing as theologians, and I would agree with him on that.

I did not say it was entirely based on Theological necessity. but the Theological necessity of Moral Responsibility is at the foundation of the questions of human will and Moral Responsibility and remains an issue today.

Yes it need not and I agree, but the matter of fact it is a significant part of the issue for over 2000 years.

OK, but it is not a significant part of that when it comes to the philosophical debate surrounding free will and determinism. That debate can be defined in completely secular terms.

 

[shunyadragon]

If all you are saying is that we are a product of evolution, I have no disagreement. My view of morality is that it is an emergent set of strictures on behavior that function to make human interactions safe and comfortable within the group that adheres to them.

I believe sort of the same, but I do not think the result is necessarily comfortable within group, or tribe that adheres to them.

Fair enough, but I disagree. Religion influences a lot of things, but it isn't the only influence. I think that Socrates would disagree with the idea that philosophers are essentially the same thing as theologians, and I would agree with him on that.

I did not say philosophers are the same as Theologians. I will say in the history of Western Civilization there is not a clear separation. We live in a overwhelmingly dominant role in everything including philosophy. The only thing that managed separate from Theology and that is science and that is a very rocky hard relationship.

OK, but it is not a significant part of that when it comes to the philosophical debate surrounding free will and determinism.

My foundation is the science of the evolution of human will and not philosophy. I believe it is a significant issue in the debate. Libertarian Free Will is overwhelming a Theological perspective, There is also the religious perspective of Divine Determinism.

That debate can be defined in completely secular terms.

I believe it can, but that is not the reality of Western culture.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe the chain of may choices and cause and effect events throughout my life, including my education, the information available and the influence of the choices of others to post like you lead me to make the choice and content of replying to your post.

..so in other words, you don't believe that you are in control of your actions.
Well, all I can say, is I hope that you do not drive, as you must not be safe on the road.

 

[shunyadragon]

If all you are saying is that we are a product of evolution, I have no disagreement. My view of morality is that it is an emergent set of strictures on behavior that function to make human interactions safe and comfortable within the group that adheres to them.

I believe sort of the same, but I do not think the result is necessarily comfortable within group, or tribe that adheres to them.

Fair enough, but I disagree. Religion influences a lot of things, but it isn't the only influence. I think that Socrates would disagree with the idea that philosophers are essentially the same thing as theologians, and I would agree with him on that.

I did not say philosophers are the same as Theologians. I will say in the history of Western Civilization there is not a clear separation. We live in a overwhelmingly dominant role Abrahamic Theology in everything including philosophy. The only thing that managed separate from Theology and that is science and that is a very rocky hard relationship.

OK, but it is not a significant part of that when it comes to the philosophical debate surrounding free will and determinism.

I believe it is a significant issue in the debate. Libertarian Free Will is overwhelming a Theological perspective, There is also the religious perspective of Divine Determinism.

That debate can be defined in completely secular terms.

I believe it can, but that is not the reality of Western culture.

 

[shunyadragon]

..so in other words, you don't believe that you are in control of your actions.

Nis Duck, Bob and Weasel! This unfortunately does not address the issues of my posts or the thread, Unfortunately it is overwhelmingly apparent you do not have the freedom of choice to accept the sciences of evolution, physics and cosmology, based on clinging blindly to an ancient tribal world view despite the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence that supports science including all the major universities and academic institutions of the world.

Again I do not believe in Hard Determinism.

Well, all I can say, is I hope that you do not drive, as you must not be safe on the road.

I have a very good driving record for over fifty years.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, perhaps not .. but you have pointed out that many people "blame G-d" for the warnings about the suffering that might be in store for us.

I do not, of course, blame God, but based on th emythology of the Bible; Biblically according to the Adam and Eve account of Creation, God is responsible for the Original Sin and the Fall based on absolute fore knowledge, and God determined how Adam and Eve were Created and they were "Set up" for the Fall.

 

[Copernicus]

...I did not say philosophers are the same as Theologians. I will say in the history of Western Civilization there is not a clear separation. We live in a overwhelmingly dominant role Abrahamic Theology in everything including philosophy. The only thing that managed separate from Theology and that is science and that is a very rocky hard relationship.

I think that you can make that argument from a historical perspective, but the dividing line between all of the academic disciplines including science has been mixed up with religion in that sense. In modern times, especially the twentieth century, there is a clear distinction between theology and philosophy, although philosophers have a lot to say about religion and religious beliefs.

I believe it is a significant issue in the debate. Libertarian Free Will is overwhelming a Theological perspective, There is also the religious perspective of Divine Determinism.

Theists tend not to believe in determinism, since miracles are not natural phenomena. Libertarian free will is an incompatibilist interpretation of free will, but it can be defined in secular terms. I just see religion as occupying a corner of the debate that doesn't concern most philosophers except insofar as it usually supports a type of incompatibilism.

...That debate can be defined in completely secular terms.

I believe it can, but that is not the reality of Western culture.

Nevertheless, most Western philosophers define it that way. I don't think the Eastern culture is all that different, TBH. The differences between Western and Eastern cultures strike me as more stereotypical rather than substantive.