Atheism and Free Will

[Sy Borg]

Is an atheistic reality compatible with free will? If it is possible to make a free choice between two alternatives, it must be the case that reality can change and that future states of reality are not necessarily predictable even with perfect knowledge of the present and past.

If reality does change, there must be some ultimate source(s) of change. There must be some part of reality that is capable of causing change without any prior cause, otherwise no causal sequence could even begin. In an atheistic reality, the ultimate source of change cannot be a will, I think, because that would be a god; so it must be something else. The only alternative I can think of is randomness—spontaneous change without any cause. Is there another?

If all change is not ultimately caused by a will, how could it be that my own will is capable of interacting with other parts of reality? For example, when I walk, I can choose whether to begin with my left foot or my right, but how does that decision go from choice to actual change?

I too, often wondered about this. I find that typically an a-theist wants to feel empowered by '*deterministic thinking'.

You are overthinking this, hence the confusion.

Atheism is very simple. You hear tales of a big spirit man in the sky who hates gays and created the universe in six days, who sent his son (who is also him) to Earth because his blood sacrifice was the only way absolve humanity of their sins. A man and his family built a huge boat on which they loaded breeding pairs of every animal in the world (how did they get the kangaroos, wombats and koalas?). The son of God, who is also God, magicked up some fish (prepared for immediate eating) and bread for a hungry crowd. It could just about be Harry Potter.

Atheists hear all this and consider it to be old superstitions. There is no doubt wisdom to be found in metaphorical interpretations of Biblical tales, but it's never presented as such. It's always literal.

Atheism is simply not believing that a big magic man created the universe. Do you??

As for atheists and determinism. It only makes sense that that which came before provides limits on that which is to come. Further, a great deal of what humans do is unconscious. So soft determinism is nothing more than as logical assessment of the situation, and generally atheists don't care about the question of free will. If it feels free, that will do.

If you interpret these views as being display behaviour or just internal bolstering, you are misunderstanding what's going on. Put simply, most atheists are apatheists - they care no more about the claims Christianity than Christians don't care about Norse, Greek and Roman mythology, aside from historical interest or entertainment.

SB!

...I'm not sure if your post was specifically directed to me...I couldn't tell. But since you tagged my handle, I'll briefly respond to your 'argument'.

Listen SB, I love you brother, but did you realize you just defended the so-called 'dysfunction' associated with a-fundamentalism? In my foregoing response, I suggested that a-theism appears to be more akin to a-fundamentalism. And as such, your reply was exactly consistent with that rationale. Right? In other words, in Christianity, you're applying the literal interpretation's as the antecedent to your judgement/believe system. In this case, your 'disbelief' system. A-theism=A-fundamentalism.

It's actually simpler than you think, No?

Praise be, sister!

Since the vast majority of theists are Biblical literalists, it's only logical that atheism addresses that. Science has nothing to say about metaphorical interpretations of religious texts that make no scientific claims, that deal with the subjective. Science is, and I am, concerned with modern people believing common superstitions, such as creationism, virgin births and resurrections.

So yes, atheism rejects fundamentalism. In the past, secular thinkers have given sophisticated theists a pass, but these days most seem more like cowardly apologists, too afraid to call out the dominant fundamentalists in their ranks. They are increasingly complicit in the misdeeds of their fundamentalist brethren, enablers of bad behaviour.

[3017Metaphysician]

I too, often wondered about this. I find that typically an a-theist wants to feel empowered by '*deterministic thinking'.

You are overthinking this, hence the confusion.

Atheism is very simple. You hear tales of a big spirit man in the sky who hates gays and created the universe in six days, who sent his son (who is also him) to Earth because his blood sacrifice was the only way absolve humanity of their sins. A man and his family built a huge boat on which they loaded breeding pairs of every animal in the world (how did they get the kangaroos, wombats and koalas?). The son of God, who is also God, magicked up some fish (prepared for immediate eating) and bread for a hungry crowd. It could just about be Harry Potter.

Atheists hear all this and consider it to be old superstitions. There is no doubt wisdom to be found in metaphorical interpretations of Biblical tales, but it's never presented as such. It's always literal.

Atheism is simply not believing that a big magic man created the universe. Do you??

As for atheists and determinism. It only makes sense that that which came before provides limits on that which is to come. Further, a great deal of what humans do is unconscious. So soft determinism is nothing more than as logical assessment of the situation, and generally atheists don't care about the question of free will. If it feels free, that will do.

If you interpret these views as being display behaviour or just internal bolstering, you are misunderstanding what's going on. Put simply, most atheists are apatheists - they care no more about the claims Christianity than Christians don't care about Norse, Greek and Roman mythology, aside from historical interest or entertainment.

SB!

...I'm not sure if your post was specifically directed to me...I couldn't tell. But since you tagged my handle, I'll briefly respond to your 'argument'.

Listen SB, I love you brother, but did you realize you just defended the so-called 'dysfunction' associated with a-fundamentalism? In my foregoing response, I suggested that a-theism appears to be more akin to a-fundamentalism. And as such, your reply was exactly consistent with that rationale. Right? In other words, in Christianity, you're applying the literal interpretation's as the antecedent to your judgement/believe system. In this case, your 'disbelief' system. A-theism=A-fundamentalism.

It's actually simpler than you think, No?

Praise be, sister!

Since the vast majority of theists are Biblical literalists, it's only logical that atheism addresses that. Science has nothing to say about metaphorical interpretations of religious texts that make no scientific claims, that deal with the subjective. Science is, and I am, concerned with modern people believing common superstitions, such as creationism, virgin births and resurrections.

So yes, atheism rejects fundamentalism. In the past, secular thinkers have given sophisticated theists a pass, but these days most seem more like cowardly apologists, too afraid to call out the dominant fundamentalists in their ranks. They are increasingly complicit in the misdeeds of their fundamentalist brethren, enablers of bad behaviour.

SB!

Gotcha! Aside from the frustrations of fundamentalism, which I can certainly understand, you seem to be saying that your decision to be an a-theist is a type of a-fundamentalism, right?

[Sy Borg]

You are overthinking this, hence the confusion.

Atheism is very simple. You hear tales of a big spirit man in the sky who hates gays and created the universe in six days, who sent his son (who is also him) to Earth because his blood sacrifice was the only way absolve humanity of their sins. A man and his family built a huge boat on which they loaded breeding pairs of every animal in the world (how did they get the kangaroos, wombats and koalas?). The son of God, who is also God, magicked up some fish (prepared for immediate eating) and bread for a hungry crowd. It could just about be Harry Potter.

Atheists hear all this and consider it to be old superstitions. There is no doubt wisdom to be found in metaphorical interpretations of Biblical tales, but it's never presented as such. It's always literal.

Atheism is simply not believing that a big magic man created the universe. Do you??

As for atheists and determinism. It only makes sense that that which came before provides limits on that which is to come. Further, a great deal of what humans do is unconscious. So soft determinism is nothing more than as logical assessment of the situation, and generally atheists don't care about the question of free will. If it feels free, that will do.

If you interpret these views as being display behaviour or just internal bolstering, you are misunderstanding what's going on. Put simply, most atheists are apatheists - they care no more about the claims Christianity than Christians don't care about Norse, Greek and Roman mythology, aside from historical interest or entertainment.

SB!

...I'm not sure if your post was specifically directed to me...I couldn't tell. But since you tagged my handle, I'll briefly respond to your 'argument'.

Listen SB, I love you brother, but did you realize you just defended the so-called 'dysfunction' associated with a-fundamentalism? In my foregoing response, I suggested that a-theism appears to be more akin to a-fundamentalism. And as such, your reply was exactly consistent with that rationale. Right? In other words, in Christianity, you're applying the literal interpretation's as the antecedent to your judgement/believe system. In this case, your 'disbelief' system. A-theism=A-fundamentalism.

It's actually simpler than you think, No?

Praise be, sister!

Since the vast majority of theists are Biblical literalists, it's only logical that atheism addresses that. Science has nothing to say about metaphorical interpretations of religious texts that make no scientific claims, that deal with the subjective. Science is, and I am, concerned with modern people believing common superstitions, such as creationism, virgin births and resurrections.

So yes, atheism rejects fundamentalism. In the past, secular thinkers have given sophisticated theists a pass, but these days most seem more like cowardly apologists, too afraid to call out the dominant fundamentalists in their ranks. They are increasingly complicit in the misdeeds of their fundamentalist brethren, enablers of bad behaviour.

SB!

Gotcha! Aside from the frustrations of fundamentalism, which I can certainly understand, you seem to be saying that your decision to be an a-theist is a type of a-fundamentalism, right?

Sure, rational people don't believe in fantastical myths but analyse those myths to better understand the principles that the writers were trying to impart (and often none too successfully, alas).

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

Sure, rational people don't believe in fantastical myths but analyse those myths to better understand the principles that the writers were trying to impart (and often none too successfully, alas).

The myth of Christ has been super-successful due to political propaganda of the Roman church and subsequent churches after the Reformation. The myth of Christ has been used by churches and sects to narrate a code of social control by the powerful. The myth of Christ has also been used to narrate rights for poor dispossessed people in need of help from successful people. In myths there is a hero who risks his or her own safety or comfort for others or for a popular moral or scientific principle .
'King Arthur' of Britain, Davy Crockett, and Princess Diana have all been mythologised. The other side of the mythology coin is demonology. The historical King Macbeth of Scotland was demonised by Shakespeare ,perhaps unwittingly, for political reasons. Similarly some women were demonised as actual witches for political reasons of male power. Bits of the Old Testament demonise the gods of tribes hostile to the Israelites.
Some so-called myths are mostly actual history for instance the myths of Grace Darling and Florence Nightingale are narratives that contain properly authenticated history. Political power and popular opinion favoured the efforts of Grace Darling and Florence Nightingale so there was never any need to add supernatural powers to their stories.

All heroic and demonic narratives contain traces of historical truth. The best way to interpret myths is via anthropology, historiography, and associated disciplines such as archaeology, physical geography, strategies for killing in battles, the science of weather and climate, and toponomy.

Mythical heroes and mythical demons influence ideas. Some ideas are bad and some are good . As ever it's not God's responsibility but ours to decide which ideas are good and which bad. Our ability to make decisions is not due to 'Free Will' but to reason the more the better.

[Sy Borg]

Interesting post. Have to admit that I simply interpret by trying to put myself in the writer's position. That's why I think the creation myth was that long before scientific language appeared some fellow had a brain storm and sensed that reality evolved over time and became more sophisticated. In context, the insight is inspirational, brilliant. He used poetic language to describe the sequential way that events transpired. It's tragic that such a smart perception should be twisted by literalism into an absurdity that the writer clearly did not intend.

From another perspective, the human ability to make decisions stems from their ability to remember the past and project the future with more control and breadth than other species. We might have ordinary eyesight, weak hearing, a feeble sense of smell and no echolocation, but we are great at sensing the passing of time.

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

...I'm not sure if your post was specifically directed to me...I couldn't tell. But since you tagged my handle, I'll briefly respond to your 'argument'.

Listen SB, I love you brother, but did you realize you just defended the so-called 'dysfunction' associated with a-fundamentalism? In my foregoing response, I suggested that a-theism appears to be more akin to a-fundamentalism. And as such, your reply was exactly consistent with that rationale. Right? In other words, in Christianity, you're applying the literal interpretation's as the antecedent to your judgement/believe system. In this case, your 'disbelief' system. A-theism=A-fundamentalism.

It's actually simpler than you think, No?

Praise be, sister!

Since the vast majority of theists are Biblical literalists, it's only logical that atheism addresses that. Science has nothing to say about metaphorical interpretations of religious texts that make no scientific claims, that deal with the subjective. Science is, and I am, concerned with modern people believing common superstitions, such as creationism, virgin births and resurrections.

So yes, atheism rejects fundamentalism. In the past, secular thinkers have given sophisticated theists a pass, but these days most seem more like cowardly apologists, too afraid to call out the dominant fundamentalists in their ranks. They are increasingly complicit in the misdeeds of their fundamentalist brethren, enablers of bad behaviour.

SB!

Gotcha! Aside from the frustrations of fundamentalism, which I can certainly understand, you seem to be saying that your decision to be an a-theist is a type of a-fundamentalism, right?

Sure, rational people don't believe in fantastical myths but analyse those myths to better understand the principles that the writers were trying to impart (and often none too successfully, alas).

SB!

Oh my brother, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just a few questions to consider:

1. Are we all considered to be "rational people"?

2. Do seemingly 'reasonable' people do irrational things?

3. Existentially, what does it really mean to be "rational"?

4, At times, could doing 'irrational things' be a virtue?

5. How can we become non-rational, and would we want to be ?

6. Is consciousness itself, a rational process?

Ok, I better stop there....

[Greatest I am]

I agree.

That topic is a waste of time.

Religions are to promote moral thinking and free will is assumed in moral questions.

Regards
DL

[Pattern-chaser]

Since the vast majority of theists are Biblical literalists, it's only logical that atheism addresses that. Science has nothing to say about metaphorical interpretations of religious texts that make no scientific claims, that deal with the subjective. Science is, and I am, concerned with modern people believing common superstitions, such as creationism, virgin births and resurrections.

So yes, atheism rejects fundamentalism. In the past, secular thinkers have given sophisticated theists a pass, but these days most seem more like cowardly apologists, too afraid to call out the dominant fundamentalists in their ranks. They are increasingly complicit in the misdeeds of their fundamentalist brethren, enablers of bad behaviour.

I agree, or don't disagree, with most of what you wrote. But I think you are confused about scriptural literalism. As far as I know, this strange obsession is limited to American fundamentalist Christians. And even then, only 24% of them are literalists:

Gallup poll: Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

Elsewhere in the world, I think literalism is confined to fundamentalists, some of them Moslems and some Jews, as well as a few Christians. Most are not literalists, as far as I can see.

[Belindi]

Interesting post. Have to admit that I simply interpret by trying to put myself in the writer's position. That's why I think the creation myth was that long before scientific language appeared some fellow had a brain storm and sensed that reality evolved over time and became more sophisticated. In context, the insight is inspirational, brilliant. He used poetic language to describe the sequential way that events transpired. It's tragic that such a smart perception should be twisted by literalism into an absurdity that the writer clearly did not intend.

From another perspective, the human ability to make decisions stems from their ability to remember the past and project the future with more control and breadth than other species. We might have ordinary eyesight, weak hearing, a feeble sense of smell and no echolocation, but we are great at sensing the passing of time.

God is the hero of the Genesis creation myth . He is the protagonist and chaos is the antagonist. I cannot think of any myth that lacks a hero or protagonist. Stories that aren't mythologised have main characters , protagonists, who are heroes or anti- heroes

[Sy Borg]

Since the vast majority of theists are Biblical literalists, it's only logical that atheism addresses that. Science has nothing to say about metaphorical interpretations of religious texts that make no scientific claims, that deal with the subjective. Science is, and I am, concerned with modern people believing common superstitions, such as creationism, virgin births and resurrections.

So yes, atheism rejects fundamentalism. In the past, secular thinkers have given sophisticated theists a pass, but these days most seem more like cowardly apologists, too afraid to call out the dominant fundamentalists in their ranks. They are increasingly complicit in the misdeeds of their fundamentalist brethren, enablers of bad behaviour.

I agree, or don't disagree, with most of what you wrote. 👍 But I think you are confused about scriptural literalism. As far as I know, this strange obsession is limited to American fundamentalist Christians. And even then, only 24% of them are literalists:

Gallup poll: Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

Elsewhere in the world, I think literalism is confined to fundamentalists, some of them Moslems and some Jews, as well as a few Christians. Most are not literalists, as far as I can see.

I think the framing of the poll impacted the results. How can only 24% be literalists when 73% believe in the virgin birth aka human parthenogenesis, fertilised by a deity, resulting in the birth of a divine being : https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... gin-birth/

Polls aren't perfect but that points to a serious societal disconnect from the nature of reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Polls aren't perfect but that points to a serious societal disconnect from the nature of reality.

...which clearly demonstrates the reliable and factual outcome of polling, yes?

[Greatest I am]

Gallup poll: Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

All while, what is it, 70% of us believe in Satan.

The stupidity of supernatural belief shows how really stupid humans can be.

Regards
DL

[Sy Borg]

Gallup poll: Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

All while, what is it, 70% of us believe in Satan.

The stupidity of supernatural belief shows how really stupid humans can be.

Regards
DL

It seems that many interviewees did not understand what Biblical literalism means.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) believe that Jesus Christ’s physical resurrection as described in the Bible is “completely accurate,” as Lifeway Research’s 2020 State of Theology study explains.

20% of U.S. adults don’t believe in the resurrection while 14% are unsure of their belief on this matter.

The study also found that 29% of people “who do not attend religious services at least monthly” do not believe in the resurrection, while only 8% of people who do attend religious services express the same lack of belief.

https://www.gcrr.org/post/more-american ... an-britons

[Belindi]

Gallup poll: Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

All while, what is it, 70% of us believe in Satan.

The stupidity of supernatural belief shows how really stupid humans can be.

Regards
DL

It seems that many interviewees did not understand what Biblical literalism means.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) believe that Jesus Christ’s physical resurrection as described in the Bible is “completely accurate,” as Lifeway Research’s 2020 State of Theology study explains.

20% of U.S. adults don’t believe in the resurrection while 14% are unsure of their belief on this matter.

The study also found that 29% of people “who do not attend religious services at least monthly” do not believe in the resurrection, while only 8% of people who do attend religious services express the same lack of belief.

https://www.gcrr.org/post/more-american ... an-britons

It would be interesting to include demographic information in a poll of this sort, and turn it into a proper statistical investigation. I'd include education level, age, social class, and ethnic background. I'd also like a longitudinal investigation so that the same interviewees are paid a small sum of money to respond to slightly different questions each month over a course of five years.

It's common sense that the person who believes God directly intervenes in history (e.g.the Resurrection event, miracles generally) and in nature (floods or pestilences)will more probably not be educated to senior secondary or graduate level, is elderly, and is in a lower income group.

[Greatest I am]

The evidence is clear.

The more modernized the peoples, the less the need or disposition towards imaginary God and heroes.

IMO, all ideologies should be based on reality and facts and not lies and fictions.

When Divine Councils stopped being created, is when the foolishness of supernatural belief takes over.

The supernatural liars won the God wars.

Regards
DL
Regards
DL