Justhuman wrote:Kurieuo wrote:
I wonder Justhuman, do you believe our decisions and actions are determined, or do you believe in some sense of free will?
Hmm... simple question, not an easy answer.
Recently I read an article about time. That time does not exist as a 'displacement through the 4th dimension', but is a state (condition, hope you know what I mean). That time as we perceive it as we do now is an illusion. There is only one everlasting moment and the only thing that changes is the arangement of matter in the universe, governed by all the laws of nature. We, as humans, perceive the tiny displacements of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.. in our brains as a 'displacement in time',whereas it is a 'displacement in a state'. Not 'one moment' is the same because not 'one state' is the same.
It took me a while to grasp that concept, but then it actually made sense, seems even logical.
It takes a free will to do that.
I think that if you are bound to a specific belief/religion, which is and can be only true (like Abelcainsbrother does), your mind will block such other thoughts. You cannot freely think and ponder over an alternative like atheism.
Maybe it's not exactly what you meant, but I do believe our decisions and actions are free to our will. They are not determined by anything (but the forces of nature).
If it was not, f.e. because God determined a path for us, what's the point in going where we are going? Why would God send us on a path of which He already knows the outcome? Just to please Him? But then he already knows who will please Him, and who not. That doesn't make any sense for an omnipotent being. What possible use can human devotion mean to an omnipotent God?
I, as an atheist, am free to think/ponder about the possible existence of God, because the 'worst' that can happen is that it turns out God is there and I become a believer.
So, yes, I believe in free will.
These are the types of questions I'm interested in any worldview explaining. Such explanations may not be entirely correct, but I think certain criteria can be fulfilled such as plausibility, whether a view of the world (which Atheism is, it's a view of the world without God) is coherent within itself to many things we just naturally assume and believe to be true, for example, that we a conscious beings, aware and are ultimately responsible for our own actions.
At least we can both agree on "free will" existing, and you'll be the first Atheist here perhaps that's even attempted to try provide an explanation for how it's going to be. Which, I think, is to be commended. Re: free will, I certainly accept that while we might be influenced by nature and nurture, "we" still remain, such that though it might at times be difficult and require a lot of self-control and strong will, "we" can rise above nature or nurture to make a decision on various matters, "we" really do believe certain things, heck "we" exist as an influencing force in our own lives.
On the other hand, the best Physicalism (the belief that everything is reduced to, to use your own words, "molecules, atoms, quarks, etc" and "the forces of nature") has to offer though, is epiphenominalism. That is, our bodies with all the molecules, atoms and physical stuff "vapours" off a consciousness. The parallel often given, is that our physical bodies are like fire, and consciousness (required foundation for any self will) the smoke. Our physical bodies (burning fire) gives off the smoke (consciousness), but then the smoke doesn't control the fire rather the fire gives off the smoke. The smoke (consciousness) is controlled by the fire (physical body), but not the other way around.
So then, logically, what determines whether we do 'A' or 'B' is based upon physical compositions of the way particles, chemicals and the like play out. In a certain arrangement, a strange effect is given off by this physical "fire" which causes consciousness smoke to be given off.
Now this is no different, I hope you can see, from what you've just described. I seriously ask you, is this "free will"? You appear to admit it's not the kind I'm after, and you're right, because there is no room left in what you describe for a "will". You might possibly get to "consciousness" however, although I don't see any physical explanation truly accounting for consciousness because it is clear to me that such is very much qualitatively different from the physical world (i.e., it has no shape, size, weight, taste or even colour -- although the last actually requires a mind to perceive such since colour is nowhere to be found in the physical world).
If "we" believe that we are in the drivers seat, possessing a will of our own that is to some degree "free", yet we're determined by particular arrangements whether such formed randomly and via necessity of how physical laws play out and interact, then such "free will" is simply a mirage built upon the arrangement of physical matter and energy.
Ergo, "free will" as we intuit we have, and along with it "responsibility", indeed even "the self" we believe exists and is largely driving our life, are all illusory. Illusion defined in the sense that there is a deceptive appearance or impression, or a false belief.
And this is why many Atheistic philosophers who have thought long and hard, have covered many thoughts and positions out there, indeed many embrace the position that we are "determined" and don't actually have free will. Others, like Thomas Nagel, reason that the natural world itself is actually inherently composed of "consciousness" and "physical" stuff. And, like we have physical laws which describe how the physical world work, there might some similar laws to be found around consciousness.
Now here I strongly think that any worldview which necessitates considering "myself" an illusion, denying the one axiom that seems most obvious to me: "
I think, therefore I am.", that such deserves no attention of mine. It's too high a price to pay, to hang onto the belief that physicalism is true. This doesn't mean Atheism is not true, but it does mean there is more to the world than the mere physical one we experience. And, it could actually be, that the physical world bubbles out of consciousness rather than the other way around. Especially when at the quantum, we appear to see observation influencing matter rather than the other way around (e.g.,
double-slit experiment). Physicalism it seems is much too simple.
)