Atheism and Free Will
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Atheism and Free Will
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?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
I think determinism is incoherent anyway, because at some point, change has to happen without a prior cause. So I'm wondering, do atheists have any explanation for that, other than randomness, and how does that work with free will?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
The fact that you are asking for explanations is quite telling. You are alluding to the fact (whether intentionally or by accident) that theses "causes" you refer to are human constructs or models to help with conceptualizing our shared experience, not actual trains of events.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑July 31st, 2021, 10:06 pmI think determinism is incoherent anyway, because at some point, change has to happen without a prior cause. So I'm wondering, do atheists have any explanation for that, other than randomness, and how does that work with free will?
For example the physics equations humans developed to track the orbits of planets don't actually cause anything. They just happen to predict the behavior of planet positions with 100% accuracy. Similarly, in the realm of human decision making, there are various models (often called "causes" in these discussions) that Determinists claim "cause" human behavior. Of course we all know that these models don't predict human behavior anywhere near 100% of the time. But that is unimportant if one misses the fact that human created models are just that, models to assist in thinking about reality, but they themselves don't actually exist. They are a construct.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Anton Zeilinger claims to have shown that "randomness is the bedrock of reality" to a level of confidence of 3-sigma or more. I forgot where I read about this, for it was many years ago. It makes sense philosophically, for if there is a lowest level bedrock then it can't have any input as cause to it.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑July 31st, 2021, 7:55 pm There must be some part of reality that is capable of causing change without any prior cause, otherwise no causal sequence could even begin.
Any further randomness higher up, say in the brain, doesn't help the will at all but could only harm it.
One is never free of the will; the will ever comes up with what it has to, baring randomness or electrochemical mistakes, based on what one's brain repertoire has amounted to up to the moment of the will's usage.
The consistency of a fixed will is beneficial to survival. A free will wouldn't use the will and as 'free' it would act like some mini first cause with no input and thus have to be random. This could make one jump off of a bridge for no reason. So, now, all of a suffer, we all the more appreciate a fixed will over our initial feeling that a 'free will' somehow seems like a good thing to have.
The use of 'free' to mean 'not coerced' is but a trivial meaning (compatibilism), plus it could well be the the coercion was determined just like everything else that the compatibilist claims is determined.
note: By the time consciousness get the news of results/decisions, the subconscious brain analysis and figuring is all done and finished, it having taken 300-500 milliseconds to produce what then gets into consciousness as the product.
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
I get that models are not reality, and I don't think I implied otherwise. I'm confused trying to understand your point. What exactly is the fact that I asked for explanations telling of? If change occurs, it must be caused. I can only imagine two kinds of cause: will, and randomness. Will as the cause of all change would explain how we can make free choices. Randomness is confusing, so I'm not sure if it can explain anything or not. It seems unlikely to be true given the apparent coherence of reality.LuckyR wrote: ↑August 1st, 2021, 2:27 am The fact that you are asking for explanations is quite telling. You are alluding to the fact (whether intentionally or by accident) that theses "causes" you refer to are human constructs or models to help with conceptualizing our shared experience, not actual trains of events.
For example the physics equations humans developed to track the orbits of planets don't actually cause anything. They just happen to predict the behavior of planet positions with 100% accuracy. Similarly, in the realm of human decision making, there are various models (often called "causes" in these discussions) that Determinists claim "cause" human behavior. Of course we all know that these models don't predict human behavior anywhere near 100% of the time. But that is unimportant if one misses the fact that human created models are just that, models to assist in thinking about reality, but they themselves don't actually exist. They are a construct.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm trying to think carefully about this. Do all consistent atheists reject free will as an illusion? Do they all think reality is random? Is there some other option they can take?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Atheism and Free Will
I don't understand how we can meaningfully conflate atheism with change and cause-and-effect. And I see no reason why "there must be some ultimate source(s) of change". Why must there be such a source?ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑July 31st, 2021, 7:55 pm 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?
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
I think, in common with many religious types of thinking, the poster is asserting a series of fantastic natural forces. Most common ideas promoting by the religiously minded are things such as "good" and "evil", as if they are primal forces. Here we see much the same thing, but in this case the fundemental forces are "change" and "will". None of these things are actual, and have no empirical basis.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 1st, 2021, 9:13 amI don't understand how we can meaningfully conflate atheism with change and cause-and-effect. And I see no reason why "there must be some ultimate source(s) of change". Why must there be such a source?ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑July 31st, 2021, 7:55 pm 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?
Change is not a force but the result of the ordinarily determined interactions of energy and matter, and whilst the poster thinks it is, he will maintain the ideas you find incoherent.
The only valuable reflections I can see in this topic is the logical incomensurability with some definitions of god and the notion of "free will".
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
No it just puts pay to several and many models of physics that are not sufficiently clever to accomodate evidence.
For example
At the heart of this "problem" is the notion of wave/particle duality. Both theories are used to perfect effect; both operate on strict deterministic principles, but they do not apply well to ALL situations. Physics has to make a choice which fts best.
It's all according to which is the best fit; but the models are NOT the same as reality and so there will always be a gap.
That gap does not deny determinism, but a failure of perception.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Can you explain this in principle for those of us who do not have advanced degrees in science? My (simple) understanding is that things happen at the smallest levels of reality (of which we are aware) that seem to defy determinism. "Entanglement" seems to show that events are linked to each other without a chain of causation, and there is some idea that effects can somehow bring about their own causes. These ideas, of course, do not mesh with my human scale understanding of reality. But, if true, do they necessarily say that determinism is false? Couldn't it just say that there is a scale, either too high or too low, at which our ability to see and explain what is happening is exceeded? In other words, couldn't it just be that the things that seem unexplained are in fact explained by forces we don't yet understand?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
I have no degrees. Sorry if I gave a false impression. Thanks to bullies, I did not finish high school and, as a result, was lost in drugs, depression and factory work at a time when my peers moved into higher education. A long time ago, thankfully.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 1st, 2021, 3:17 pmCan you explain this in principle for those of us who do not have advanced degrees in science? My (simple) understanding is that things happen at the smallest levels of reality (of which we are aware) that seem to defy determinism.
This is a long way of saying that my understanding is similar to yours, with quantum uncertainty being the issue in that we cannot know both the position and acceleration of a particle at the same time.
Still, based on Sculptor's post, he seems more up on QM than me so I might just defer to him on this and recant my earlier response.
It may be that there are underlying dynamics behind quantum uncertainty that we don't know, but at present, quantum events can only be predicted to a degree of certainty.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 1st, 2021, 3:17 pmIn other words, couldn't it just be that the things that seem unexplained are in fact explained by forces we don't yet understand?
So determinism may still be true. However, the complexity is so forbidding that, for all practical means and purposes, we might as well assume that we have free will.
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Because if there weren't something capable of causing change, there could be no change.
I know change is not a force. You seem to be saying that energy and matter cause change. How do they do that? Randomly? Intentionally?
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Does the weather also strike you as an example where determinism might be blown apart, or is our lack of full understanding different in that case? I might argue that if we believe that we would be able to perfectly predict the movements of the weather if only we had full information, then we could say the same about the movement of tiny particles. (If there is some important difference in the nature of the two cases, maybe someone can explain it)
Yeah, it seems that even the determinists are 'condemned to be free'. There is no percentage in pretending you have no free will, even if you are convinced you do not. But, I simply proceed as if I am free because it is self-evident on a subjective level. I see, further, that a conscious being is fundamentally different than inert matter, and therefore need not be judged to be bound by the same rules (especially when they clearly aren't!).
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Yes, chaos is another factor.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 1st, 2021, 7:32 pmDoes the weather also strike you as an example where determinism might be blown apart, or is our lack of full understanding different in that case? I might argue that if we believe that we would be able to perfectly predict the movements of the weather if only we had full information, then we could say the same about the movement of tiny particles. (If there is some important difference in the nature of the two cases, maybe someone can explain it)
The above appears to me to be a problem of computation rather than ontology.Wiki wrote:Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to errors in measurements or due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This can happen even though these systems are deterministic [my emphasis], meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, including fluid flow, heartbeat irregularities, weather and climate. It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as the stock market and road traffic.
Agreed, though I am not convinced that there is much difference between, say, ostensibly conscious beings and rocks. Rocks, like life, is a rare commodity in a universe dominated by dark energy, dark matter, plasma, radiation and gravity wells. Rocks and life are close kin in the greater scheme of things.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 1st, 2021, 7:32 pmYeah, it seems that even the determinists are 'condemned to be free'. There is no percentage in pretending you have no free will, even if you are convinced you do not. But, I simply proceed as if I am free because it is self-evident on a subjective level. I see, further, that a conscious being is fundamentally different than inert matter, and therefore need not be judged to be bound by the same rules (especially when they clearly aren't!).
Like you, I don't care whether reality is ultimately deterministic or not. The point is largely moot because, with 8 billion people jostling for position, most are forced into compliance in many areas of life by the threat of reprisals, or forced into compromise through pragmatism and morality.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Atheism and Free Will
What is exactly an "atheistic reality"? Since all it takes to be an atheist is not to believe in the supernatural, one might say that an "atheistic reality" is just plain naturalistic reality. And yes, that will be compatible with free will.
Why there must be? I mean an "ultimate source" in a linear deterministic pattern, instead of stochasticity and randomness combined with deterministic processes?ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑July 31st, 2021, 7:55 pm If reality does change, there must be some ultimate source(s) of change.
Your argument starts with the following condition: "If all change is not ultimately caused by a will", but that's not a condition necessarily proposed by atheists or whoever promotes a naturalistic view of the world. "All change" is understood as "every change". Many changes are indeed caused by a will, by a conscious agent, just not all of them. It seems that you're looking for an overarching cause of each and every change, but you'll never going to find it. There are many "local" changes in different times and places, with multiple events and possibilities, which have a combined effect on reality as a whole, exactly the opposite of what you expect: a general principle being the cause of all particular instances of change.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑July 31st, 2021, 7:55 pm 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?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023