Do we have free will?

Post Reply New Topic

Well.... the issue is that this is found across cultures Odin, blaming Christianity does not seem correct, unless both India and Hong Kong are very Christian, which neither of them are. Really though, Christianity does not unequivocally support free will, some atheists argue that the New Testament goes out of its way to show that there is no free will, and some Calvinistic theologians such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon have denied that free will is a concept, and Peter Abelard argued that God could only pick one option and thus promoted a compatibilist view of free will, which Liebniz also adopted. Actually, I think free will really seemed to rise to prominence in the Enlightenment as noted with Erasmus, an enlightenment liberal theologian who wrote on the supremacy of the human free will, a notion that was attacked by Martin Luther, which we all know as the prominant figure in Protestantism, in his book "The Bondage of the Will". Heck, if you look at Calvinism, a dominant theological view in Christianity, and the one upheld by the Puritans, you will note that there is really very little room for a libertarian free will.

I think the issue that you really dislike is dualism, which can be blamed on Christianity more unequivocally, and not necessarily free will.

No, it really isn't at all. It has nothing to do with human perspective AT ALL as the argument is about the future. If you'll note, the argument stated nothing about psychology AT ALL, it was very much a metaphysical argument. The human will ISN'T a topic for psychology either! Heck, that too is a topic for metaphysics as noted by the philosophy in metaphysics called "libertarianism" which talks about the libertarian free will that we are discussing.

Well, the big issue is that dismissing it as a fallacy is to give it too little respect. A philosophical argument may contain a fallacy, however, better minds than you or I have discussed the idea backwards and forwards. Really though, I doubt it is a fallacy though, and of course I would not take kindly to a person attacking an idea I am promoting as merely a fallacy.

It was Augustine in the fifth century AD who first clearly described what is known as free-will.

And yes, teachings/attitudes ( ref: free will, the function of the individual etc) have changed dramatically in the East in the last 100 years.

I am not surprised that he did that. He is a well-noted thinker.

Well, they would have had to change very dramatically for something as undiscussed as free will to be so strongly believed over there. I mean, the theory that the west came over and changed everything is believable, but without dramatic and fundamental cultural change it is hard to consider it plausible as few people are really taught free will outside of religion.

This entire discussion has to do with human perspective!
It has to do with whether we think we have free will,
or whether all the letters I'm now typing to form this sentence
were randomly determined by some unknown force outside of my
own determinations. Do you think that's likely?
And if you think I don't have free will, then you shouldn't become emotional
and use all those exclamation points in frustration with me, because doing
so is wasted energy and foolishness if I'm a mere computer program,
and if nothing I'm going to type will change regardless of your objections.

Hence, you yourself validate free will.

All legal systems throughout history and the present day are based on free will,
as they offer punishments for willing against the law.

It's pretty obvious that we have free will,
and what would be the point of us not having it?
To mindlessly fulfill the future?



I'm offering the opinion that you're dealing with Psychology, in that
you are contrasting a difference in two merely human perspectives:
that of the present, and that of a theoretical future,
and in that you are concluding that that contrast proves something.
It does not, other than that human perspective is both flawed and limited.



Yes, it is:


You can't study human behavior without looking into the role that human will plays in that behavior,
nor can you help someone change their destructive behavior by having sessions in which the
psychologist tells you how to motivate yourself in the right direction.
Psychologists (and anyone else who wants to help you) will often tell you that you have a choice
to make in order to make your future brighter.
If you quit school, that is your choice.

I understand that you're trying to remove the responsibility for all our actions,
but it's not that easy.



The two aren't mutually exclusive. No one field has "the rights to" the study of human will.
Hence, why I said you're talking about "Psychology more than Philosophy and Science".
It's a relative thing.

In conclusion, the evidence for free will is overwhelming.

Last edited by Ragtime on 23 May 2008, 1:19 pm, edited 8 times in total.

That is interesting distinction because I think that belief in god does not necessarily declare the existence of god, only belief in god.

The choices in the poll seem to mean that belief in the absolute non-existence of free will is on a similar plane to belief in god. Now I have understood the question/options I discover that I really can't vote "correctly". Which I didn't anticipate.

I cannot put my belief in god in the same framework as my firm belief that free will empirically does not exist. That's it, that's the difficulty for me with the poll options; it's the mixing of empirical and non-e.

I have to admit to being a soft determinist through and through. Specifically, I suspect the two are compatible - though I don't have an inkling how I'd go about supporting that suspicion.

My impression of choice is that if you KNOW all the variables - every neuron, every stimulus - or you're looking back in retrospect - then the decision is Known, like opening up Schrödinger's box. The cat is either dead or not, and the result can be traced back to its causes.

But if you're in the mix, being the agent of the decision, not knowing the variables, free will applies. The box is closed, and the cat may be alive or dead and for whatever reason. This type of free will may be an illusion, but it is a pretty darn convincing illusion! Perhaps we were destined to discuss this matter from the start, which makes me wonder whether I am really responsible for my reply.

(And yes, I know that Schrödinger's cat is usually referred to when discussing quantum dynamics. I'm afraid I didn't have a more appropriate example in mind!)

No, it has to do with metaphysics. There is no knowledge to base free will or it's lack upon, so there is no data for perspective, only metaphysical ideas. If you are so general with "human perspective" then yes, everything is human perspective, but that is just nonsensical in it's broadness. Um.... Ragtime, if you are caused by external things, and *I* am an external thing, then if I act upon you, then I can expect change. The idea that you are determined by external events, and therefore external events cannot determine you, is just fallacious, it is a blatant contradiction within your argument. The fact of the matter is that I am treating you as a something that is causal, if you were acausal and thus had free will, then my efforts would be in vain.


Umm.... and what of utilitarian and economic arguments in the legal system? The offering of punishment can be expressed in the idea of causality or of harming those with natures that are disliked. Ragtime, arguing on the basis of human meaning is not an argument. It is sort of like disputing nuclear physics on ethical grounds, saying that particles cannot be so dangerous because goodness would not allow it.


Yeah, and your opinion is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... etaphysics)
The issue of free will or no free will is beyond the scope of psychology as it is a philosophical question. There is overlap, but a neurobiologist is not going to test for this concept. Not only that, but the entire issue of the future IS metaphysics. Psychology only deals with mental states, not ideas or anything like that. Well, Ragtime, if differences between time t and t+n are false, then why not consider all of time false? After all, if we substitute t-1 for t and thus go into the past, then we say that the past is the same as the future. The past is concrete, so if the past and the future are the same, then the future is also concrete. You really aren't making a very good argument though, as you are refusing to address the metaphysics involved with this question and instead assuming it away as psychology rather than a different metaphysical view that must be refuted.


Well.... except you didn't present any evidence in defense of your idea. The only way any of your arguments could constitute evidence is if one took a very very naive view of the opposition.

Hmm... either you are inconsistent, or you have not focused much on defining free will. In discussions on free will there is libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. The latter is what most soft determinists believe in, and most determinists are soft determinists.

Well, I've written enough for those readers here who wish to think open-mindedly about free will.

You yourself, AG, are obviously biased against me and hard-headed to the clear logic
I've laid out, so I needn't spend any more time in this thread. I've laid out my arguments,
and that's all I needed to do. The poll results show what most people have so far decided.

well, how exactly a person is open-minded about free will?


To my view, is that you probably offer views that are not much the result of a deep or in-depth thought and view about any subject, but mostly, just a superficial though of it, based on some things learned, and I admit, I do that as well. AG, looks to me to be one of the few that tries to use completely unbiased arguments related to any topic.

I've voted for the "No, and personal forces" because it is the closest approximation to declaring that there is no empirical free will, ( only illusion of it) , at the same time as believing in god.

I think it is very interesting that Christianity does not necessarily require belief in free will. I can see that about the New Testament stories, that actually noone has any choice. They are all just acting their pre-ordained roles, just like in Greek Myth.

Whenever I really get it/grasp the knowledge, hold onto it for a moment, that we are pieces/parts of a huge process developing, with no independent free will at all, ( only the illusion of it) I feel very definitely amazed by the universe; it is in my opinion an unavoidably spiritual perspective.

Right.... ok.

Um..... yeah. I am obviously so intellectually dishonest and of course, this is all based upon my personal hatred of you, which, as we all know, knows no bounds.

I suppose I could be categorized under compatibilists. Or rather, my suspicions about free will might best be placed under compatibilism. My hope is that the two theories can be reconciled, since I haven't been able to convince myself that either theory is false; so any attempt at certainty leads me to being inconsistant. It is an uncomfortable position, but both theories seem to hold some truth.

I've studied my fair share of Science. And as a scientist, the argument that thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of equasions that were set in motion long before our birth, seems evidently true. I do not see any new causes that cannot be explained in terms of the effects of pre-existing causes. It seems the act of cause and effect preclude free choice.

Yet my intuition tells me that when I make a choice between left and right, that choice is to some extent my own making. It is apparent to me that I am an agent of my own actions. Even asking these questions convinces me some element of choice must be at work. It may be that this "free will" is an illusion created by the brain's wiring. But who is the illusion acting upon? If it is an illusion, even a determinist must agree that it is an impressive one! I would also like to believe in free will, because if "I" am predetermined to act in such a way, who should take responsiblity for my own actions, and who do I mean when I say "I"? But wanting something to be, is not proof that it actually is.

So you'll see I am eager for a more convenient definition, or a compromise between the two theories. And if there is an argument that solves the matter conclusively, I'd love to see it. So for now, please just list me as an interested reader with far more questions than answers.

Ragtime, while we desperately need someone to argue the pro free will stance, your arguments are hand-wavy at best.


At worst...