Free will, Determinism, God, & aTheism

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I was reading recently how the Indian traditions associate free will with theism
whereas materialism suggests a deterministic paradigm.

Do you think there is validity to this pairing?

There are, after all many thinkers who see theism as deterministic
and aTheism requiring free will.

I find the link between these ideas intriguing.
Does anyone have any strong reasons either way?

Agnostic philosophers are encouraged to contribute.

 

[Laika]

Voted "there is no free will and no god" as a materialist and a determinist: If consciousness is a physical process (as in materialism) it obeys physical laws of cause and effect (as in determinism).

I'm not sure its true of all materialists btw. There is more than one way to be a materialist.

 

[JerryL]

I'm not sure "free will" isn't an oxymoron.

When you decide A vs B, that decision comes from some combination of two things:
1) reasons.
2) random.

Reasons, even reasons inside your head, are deterministic (so no freedom).
Random isn't will.

The actual mechanisms of the reasons (biochemistry, soul, fates) is irrelevant. Even a hypothetical god would not be immune.

A god that knows the future could even see his lack of free will. He can't change the future without being wrong about it.

 

[Kemosloby]

Jesus likens himself to a shepherd. Sheep in a flock don't have free will to go and do anything they might want to do, but they have free will to an extent.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Voted "there is no free will and no god" as a materialist and a determinist: If consciousness is a physical process (as in materialism) it obeys physical laws of cause and effect (as in determinism).

I'm not sure its true of all materialists btw. There is more than one way to be a materialist.

Well this is what I am trying to 'map'.
What are the reasons people have for one or the other.
Also, what are the reasons one observes in others for their beliefs.
So if one could be convinced of free will, would this logically obligate one to becoming some sort of Theist?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I'm not sure "free will" isn't an oxymoron.

When you decide A vs B, that decision comes from some combination of two things:
1) reasons.
2) random.

Reasons, even reasons inside your head, are deterministic (so no freedom).
Random isn't will.

The actual mechanisms of the reasons (biochemistry, soul, fates) is irrelevant. Even a hypothetical god would not be immune.

A god that knows the future could even see his lack of free will. He can't change the future without being wrong about it.

Well I differentiate two types of (1) reasoning, being:
1a) Determined / logical / causal
and
1b) Creative / spontaneous / free

1a is fairly obvious, whereas 1b would require one to experience an amount of time spent
in a creative pursuit, like, music, art or sculpture, pottery, even sport.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Jesus likens himself to a shepherd. Sheep in a flock don't have free will to go and do anything they might want to do, but they have free will to an extent.

Well I don't think anyone suggests that we are 100% entirely free, like in a lucid dream or like a movie producer.
But the sheep can still wander off, choose to eat clover or grass; and the actors in the movie still can
interpret their part in quite a variety of ways even if they are unable to change the central plot.
But if you ever saw 'Blade-runner' you can see how a very small twist to the plot changes the story-line entirely.

 

[Kemosloby]

Well I don't think anyone suggests that we are 100% entirely free, like in a lucid dream or like a movie producer.
But the sheep can still wander off, choose to eat clover or grass; and the actors in the movie still can
interpret their part in quite a variety of ways even if they are unable to change the central plot.
But if you ever saw 'Blade-runner' you can see how a very small twist to the plot changes the story-line entirely.

God doesn't have much left to fulfill, other than destroying the earth after he gathers enough sheep over an unspecified amount of time. The only other thing is the lawless one, the man of sin, being revealed. So people can do mostly whatever they want and it doesn't change Gods plan at all. God can keep us blind to the details of his plan that might cause problems, such as who the lawless one is or what the mark of the beast is. We just don't know.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I voted "god gave us free will". While I do believe in causality, I also believe that we are free to choose our destiny and that our fate is not predetermined, though the outcome of that choice is.

Does that make sense to anyone but me?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

God doesn't have much left to fulfill, other than destroying the earth after he gathers enough sheep over an unspecified amount of time. The only other thing is the lawless one, the man of sin, being revealed. So people can do mostly whatever they want and it doesn't change Gods plan at all. God can keep us blind to the details of his plan that might cause problems, such as who the lawless one is or what the mark of the beast is. We just don't know.

Well, God's Plan being an excellent one is very flexible and able to accommodate all our free choices.
But we still choose whether we are on the good side or the bad side of the Plan.
If we did not have such freedom, then it would be a mediocre Plan.

 

[Laika]

Well this is what I am trying to 'map'.
What are the reasons people have for one or the other.
Also, what are the reasons one observes in others for their beliefs.
So if one could be convinced of free will, would this logically obligate one to becoming some sort of Theist?

Free Will implies a sort of philosophical dualism. In order to have free will the mind and the brain are not identical. Consequently the mind is "free" of physical laws of cause and effect in determinism.

This belief in free will can and cannot exist without a belief in god, but I think it is dualistic. They aren't directly related but they share a set of philosophical assumptions. Materialism however is monistic in that "matter" is the only substance, so consciousness is a property of matter and is not seperate from it.

There may be anti-materialist forms of monism opposed to free will that imply all substance is consciousness (of god or of man) if that helps.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I voted "god gave us free will". While I do believe in causality, I also believe that we are free to choose our destiny and that our fate is not predetermined, though the outcome of that choice is.

Does that make sense to anyone but me?

Makes perfect sense.
Its like a game of cricket.
The laws of the game are predetermined; so is the weather and the opposition,
but we can still bowl a googly or a bouncer. That is our choice.
Or are you batting on another wicket entirely?

 

[Kemosloby]

Well, God's Plan being an excellent one is very flexible and able to accommodate all our free choices.
But we still choose whether we are on the good side or the bad side of the Plan.
If we did not have such freedom, then it would be a mediocre Plan.

A person can choose to do good, but God chooses who are on his good side. But if a person chooses to be on the good side for reasons pleasing to the Lord, why would God reject them? So yeah, more or less

 

[Jumi]

There should a choice to vote other. We have free will because of the complexity of our minds. As to whether there's gods role is in that complexity, I guess that's a matter of faith.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Free Will implies a sort of philosophical dualism. In order to have free will the mind and the brain are not identical. Consequently the mind is "free" of physical laws of cause and effect in determinism.

This belief in free will can and cannot exist without a belief in god, but I think it is dualistic. They aren't directly related but they share a set of philosophical assumptions. Materialism however is monistic in that "matter" is the only substance, so consciousness is a property of matter and is not seperate from it.

There may be anti-materialist forms of monism opposed to free will that imply all substance is consciousness (of god or of man) if that helps.

So if a Theist wanted to convert someone to Theism they would have to first convince them of free will?
whereas
If an aTheist wanted to do a similar 'conversion' then they would need to convince them of determinism?

Surely a legal system which punishes a person for doing wrong is implying that they had
the freedom to choose to act differently?
Because otherwise all criminals are not responsible for their own actions,
they could just argue that they were fated to commit their crimes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Makes perfect sense.
Its like a game of cricket.
The laws of the game are predetermined; so is the weather and the opposition,
but we can still bowl a googly or a bouncer. That is our choice.
Or are you batting on another wicket entirely?

Though I've never played cricket, the analogy perfectly portrays my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

There should a choice to vote other. We have free will because of the complexity of our minds. As to whether there's gods role is in that complexity, I guess that's a matter of faith.

Well there are lots of permutations. Agnostic with/without free will, etc.
So you don't think that the free will / determinism debate has any impact on the Theist/aTheist debate.

 

[Jumi]

So you don't think that the free will / determinism debate has any impact on the Theist/aTheist debate.

For me, it's inconsequential. I don't believe in determinism either way. I believe the more complex and thus unrestricted our minds, the more free will we is possible to us. A non-human animal is much restricted by not having language like ours on the choices they can take.

 

[George-ananda]

Tricky question for me as it is kind of assuming a dualist (God and creation are two) worldview but I went with the minority viewpoint (just me so far): God determines everything, there is no free will

But where it gets tricky is in the fact that we are that God that alone has free will. By incarnating limiting forms/bodies these bodies experience the temporary illusion of free will (which is our experience now and isn't it an interesting one).

Maybe I should have voted the last option: I'm confused

 

[Laika]

So if a Theist wanted to convert someone to Theism they would have to first convince them of free will?
whereas
If an aTheist wanted to do a similar 'conversion' then they would need to convince them of determinism?

Surely a legal system which punishes a person for doing wrong is implying that they had
the freedom to choose to act differently?
Because otherwise all criminals are not responsible for their own actions,
they could just argue that they were fated to commit their crimes.

Thats a complicated question.

I'd say an theist has to convince someone of free will to become a theist (because god is a non physical consciousness that is independent of physical laws).

The term atheist is extremely problematic because there is no one "atheism". But if someone is a materialist, determinism and a form of atheism will probably follow.

Determinism does not mean that people lack "agency" and are exclusively passive. They are driven by necessity and have to act on it. The fact they act on it involves conscious design and therefore responsibility. One consequence of such a deterministic legal philosophy though is the belief you can "predict crime". So thats why in the Soviet Union they would punish people for being of the wrong social class or having the wrong ideas because they was a indicator of a propensity for future criminal or counter-revolutionary activity. Thats pretty evil honestly.