Is the atheistic view/belief/reality that there is free-will? - Thx.

[RegularJoe]

I figured agnostic is a view, and why I asked.

Yup, my perspective
(& am certainly willing to learn & modify :- )....
is that agnosticism is by definition (?) a defined 'perspective' that says more or less ~
no view of life can be 100% proven valid,
nor view of life + faith can be 100% proven valid;
& thus, agnosticism does not see itself as a view of life.
my understanding of agnosticism is that it holds that an accurate view of life is not actually knowable.

How am i doing / am i tracking within range of your thinking? Thx.

 

[WaltL1]

Numerically related replies:


1. my earlier comment which reads ....

" And, .... as well, 'the one who decides who "he" is' not :- ) even works for the atheism. ,"

& intended by me light heartedly, failed to communicate that which i would guess you & i would both concur (???) ....

that the atheist looks about and concludes that it all is what it is with no need &/or no thoughts that it 'got here' via some diety.

Is my above in sync, or close to being in sync, with your view? Thx.


2. For easy reference, my comment to which you replied was

" thus all views of life require faith "

My observation here is that no view of life can be 100% proven valid.
i am not commenting that one view of life is true and another is not, even though i'd anticipate that there is only one truth.

First, in the interest of full disclosure...
If I have to give myself a "label" it would be Agnostic. Or maybe Agnostic Atheist (if there is such a thing) would be the most accurate.
So any response I give to your questions are my understanding of Atheism. Having said that -

My observation here is that no view of life can be 100% proven valid.

I would agree.

that the atheist looks about and concludes that it all is what it is with no need &/or no thoughts that it 'got here' via some diety.

I would also agree with that.

even though i'd anticipate that there is only one truth.

That too.
It may be real interesting, if man is ever able to determine what "the truth" actually is, if the truth is even something we ever could have imagined.

" thus all views of life require faith "

I'm still stuck on this one.
I'm interpreting it to mean that even an Atheist view would require faith that a god/God doesn't exist.
I don't see where it would require faith that something doesn't exist if that something cant be proven to exist.

 

[ambush80]

If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution. So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.

What does that say about folks who do not love their kids? And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?

You mean like the animals that abandon their young and other animals who will nurse and raise the young of others that were killed or died?

Maybe the texas couple who adopted 13 kids and had them chained up for years is an example of a god?

Depending on the nature of the God you are talking about, you might tend to find a mixture of good parents and bad parents; the random mutation thing. That there exist such extremes of goodness and evil seems to me like what would happen if no god was involved at all.

I've missed out on this thread. I hope to catch up. There's some good discussion here. Good to see you back, JB.

 

[atlashunter]

First, in the interest of full disclosure...
If I have to give myself a "label" it would be Agnostic. Or maybe Agnostic Atheist (if there is such a thing) would be the most accurate.
So any response I give to your questions are my understanding of Atheism. Having said that -

I would agree.

I would also agree with that.

That too.
It may be real interesting, if man is ever able to determine what "the truth" actually is, if the truth is even something we ever could have imagined.

I'm still stuck on this one.
I'm interpreting it to mean that even an Atheist view would require faith that a god/God doesn't exist.
I don't see where it would require faith that something doesn't exist if that something cant be proven to exist.

If you're not a theist then by definition you're an atheist. We are all agnostics. Some just lack the honesty to admit it.

 

[ambush80]

I am listening to Sam Harris's lecture on Free Will as I type this, and I'm sure you have already done so.

I think we can tweak our justice system from its current form to something better, certainly. If we determine that a criminal acts a certain way because of a brain tumor, then remove it and see if the patterns change. I think there is a path to rehabilitation in cases such as this. If we decide that there is no free will, that everything we do is determined by something in our past, we still have to govern. We can't let every thief walk free just because we understand they had a bad childhood and therefore they cant help being a thief.

That's right. Even if someone is just "bad", the result of genes and environment (things completely out of their control), it still might be best to lock them away or kill them. We should still try to rehabilitate them. Being able to tell if they've been rehabilitated seems tricky, though. I'm for capital punishment so long as the ratio of wrongly executed to guilty is 1:800,000.

 

[ambush80]

I struggle seeing benefits of parents killing their kids.

Historically, infanticide has been committed in times of scarcity.

 

[WaltL1]

If you're not a theist then by definition you're an atheist. We are all agnostics. Some just lack the honesty to admit it.

That's what I hate about "labels".
I'm not prepared to say that 100% there is no god (any of them).
I am prepared to say I don't believe any god(s) exist based on the fact that there is no preponderance (or even anywhere close) of evidence that one does.
So whatever that makes me, that's what I am

 

[oldfella1962]

Historically, infanticide has been committed in times of scarcity.

or when God commands his people to "just because he can." Whenever Old Testament God slaughters or gives instructions to slaughter (he gets too busy to do it himself I guess) it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" category if we question his character.

BTW google up "craziest Bible stories" and be prepared to have your mind blown when you see the full display of working in mysterious ways!

 

[ambush80]

Yo Bullet -

You prompt 2 thoughts to emerge as i have carefully read all of your above posts to this point ....

1. The 'God' of 'The Bible' reports in The Bible that per that god's original plan, only 'the elect'ed to be 'convinced' are ever to be of his view.
The 'Biblical' version of God never reports that his plan had included in it to convince anyone.
It is more on the order of ~ folks are free to take it or leave it, & no problem.
i fully recognize & fully respect that your related view is that 'a deity,' if he/she/it were a deity :- ), would be inclined toward wanting to convince you.
[Btw.... If one wishes to do a Bible text search on the 'elect,' it can be expected be found to be in hundreds of places.]

2. My understanding of the 'Biblical' God is that he has no intent in forcing or even 'convincing' anyone to buy into him.
Moreover, should one wish to look around at one's reality & conclude the 'Biblical' version of 'God' had nothing to do with it....
the Biblical God does not say he is going to spend time trying to convince that person otherwise.
His sort of related Bible stated view is
(i am not suggesting that you should or should not subscribe to this view :- )
that he has provided enough tangible evidence of his existence already.

Your understanding of the Biblical God is incorrect as far as I can tell. The Bible says that God is sovereign or omnipotent in this way:

1.
possessing supreme or ultimate power.
synonyms: supreme, absolute, unlimited, unrestricted, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full; More

It also says He's omniscient which means He is all knowing. Nothing happens that God is not in control of or doesn't know about. If that's true, where is the freewill? The only way for there to be freewill under those conditions is to allow that God can "turn off" His omniscience or sovereignty occasionally. In that case you need to use qualifiers like "limited omniscience" or "limited sovereignty". When you start doing stuff like that, you're basically writing your own version of the Bible, which as it turns out is what every believer does.

 

[ambush80]

The non physical part of a person. The Soul.

How do you know you have a soul? How do you confirm it's existence?

 

[ambush80]

or when God commands his people to "just because he can." Whenever Old Testament God slaughters or gives instructions to slaughter (he gets too busy to do it himself I guess) it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" category if we question his character.

BTW google up "craziest Bible stories" and be prepared to have your mind blown when you see the full display of working in mysterious ways!

I can come up with some very carnal reasons to kill the children of your enemies. I can't seem to com up with any reasons why a "loving God" would want to kill children. It really is mysterious.

 

[ky55]

I can come up with some very carnal reasons to kill the children of your enemies. I can't seem to com up with any reasons why a "loving God" would want to kill children. It really is mysterious.

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
(Psalm 137:9)

Whenever Old Testament God slaughters or gives instructions to slaughter (he gets too busy to do it himself I guess) it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" category if we question his character.

“Mysterious” is an understatement.

_

 

[ambush80]

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
(Psalm 137:9)

“Mysterious” is an understatement.

_

What's weirder to me that these "mysteries" are held in such heartfelt regard by believers.

 

[atlashunter]

That's what I hate about "labels".
I'm not prepared to say that 100% there is no god (any of them).
I am prepared to say I don't believe any god(s) exist based on the fact that there is no preponderance (or even anywhere close) of evidence that one does.
So whatever that makes me, that's what I am

That makes you an agnostic and an atheist.

I get the aversion to labels but words mean things.

 

[RegularJoe]

1. Your understanding of the Biblical God is incorrect as far as I can tell.
2. The Bible says that God is sovereign or omnipotent in this way:
..... It also says He's omniscient which means He is all knowing.
Nothing happens that God is not in control of or doesn't know about.
If that's true, where is the freewill*?
3. ..... When you start doing stuff like that, you're basically writing your own version of the Bible, which as it turns out is what every believer does.

1. Heard.
2. The real or the perceived or the thought to be view
that *'free-will'
probably does not or (theo-)logically can not exist,
in my humble view, ought to be thought provoking for every Bible based believer (i am not saying faith provoking),
as well as for any '100%' atheists ( < reason for my Original Post ... i was endeavoring to learn more on this very matter.).
Anyways :- ), it always has been thought provoking for me.
And i suspect will continue to be.
The reason i say 'for me it will probably continue to be,' is cause i have 'done the whole internet' on this a couple of times over the last decade, & i remain 'thought provoked.' However, the fellow posters on this Topic have helped me move further along in my understanding.

 

[ambush80]

That makes you an agnostic and an atheist.

I get the aversion to labels but words mean things.

The reluctance to deny the existence of god might show how strong the indoctrination of the idea has been. No one would have a problem saying they're an A-astrologist or an A-Unicornist. For some reason god is a particularly touchy subject.

 

[ambush80]

1. Heard.
2. The real or the perceived or the thought to be view
that *'free-will'
probably does not or (theo-)logically can not exist,
in my humble view, ought to be thought provoking for every Bible based believer (i am not saying faith provoking),
as well as for any '100%' atheists ( < reason for my Original Post ... i was endeavoring to learn more on this very matter.).
Anyways :- ), it always has been thought provoking for me.
And i suspect will continue to be.
The reason i say 'for me it will probably continue to be,' is cause i have 'done the whole internet' on this a couple of times over the last decade, & i remain 'thought provoked.' However, the fellow posters on this Topic have helped me move further along in my understanding.

Have you seen Sam Harris' thoughts on determinism?

 

[ambush80]

I am listening to Sam Harris's lecture on Free Will as I type this, and I'm sure you have already done so.

I think we can tweak our justice system from its current form to something better, certainly. If we determine that a criminal acts a certain way because of a brain tumor, then remove it and see if the patterns change. I think there is a path to rehabilitation in cases such as this. If we decide that there is no free will, that everything we do is determined by something in our past, we still have to govern. We can't let every thief walk free just because we understand they had a bad childhood and therefore they cant help being a thief.

After more thinking about Harris' position I think I've discovered a flaw. He tries to find the "self" in decision making. He claims that since thoughts arise from a place that we don't know about, and before we even know that we had them, that they must be predetermined.

I see that as a huge assumption. Maybe I'm not getting his argument entirely correct.

Until we fully understand our "wet ware" (the goo inside our skulls where thoughts seem to emerge from) I think it's premature to discount volition. I'm trying to think of what happens the moment a decision arises.

If I were riding my bike towards a phone pole and I have to decide to either go around it to the right, left, or run into it, it's true that I can't fully comprehend where the decision I've made originated. It's true that there's 13 billion years of previous activity and experience that has put me in this place heading towards the phone pole. Until we can map all the biochemical reactions in my head in such a way that we know exactly why I made one decision or another I think it's premature to say that a spontaneous response in my physical being (including my wet ware) didn't have anything to do with what happened.

This becomes clearer to me when I imagine the thought process that might go "left, right, left, right, LEFT!, RIGHT!" CRASH!!!!! Who didn't decide to turn?

 

[RegularJoe]

1. It may be real interesting, if man is ever able to determine what "the truth" actually is, if the truth is even something we ever could have imagined*.

I'm still stuck on this one.
I'm interpreting it to mean that even an Atheist view would require faith that a god/God doesn't exist.
I don't see where it would require faith that something doesn't exist if that something cant be proven to exist.

1. Am right there as well.
Plus, what 'gets' me, personally anyways, is that i have to accept that e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g i *imagine/think or see or feel or what in the heck ever :- ) is brought to me via my senses.
So don't i need to ask myself,
"Self, how good are YOUR senses really?"
Moreover, i go thru my silly little everyday life thinking i sorta really know what is kinda going on;
however, all that stuff that i know is going on i need to understanding is not actual REALity... it is sensory based/filtered/perceived reality.
E.g., is your and my green actually the same green??????
2. Wow.
Kewl thought.
Lemme take a whirl at building an addition onto your thought...
My knee jerk/1st pass thought on this would be that an atheist should be able to conclude that that 'view of life'
(IF you will permit me to call atheism a 'view of life' - i am supposing some might be able to state a fine case that it is not ... & they have probably thought it thru much more than i have ... not sure/dunno)
is analyse-able without any consideration of the existence of a deity.
Seems to me that it needs to be a stand all alone evaluation.
If one concludes atheism is valid.... no further thought needed at that time.
If one concludes atheism is invalid .... i think that leaves one as agnostic if/until some believed in view of life is subscribe to??????

 

[RegularJoe]

Have you seen Sam Harris' thoughts on determinism?

Have not.