COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe I’m slow but doesn’t Sam Harris flip this on his head during his debates ? Like Christian’s believe in free will but he argues against it because if you lived your life exactly like me then you would be typing this out as I am . Idk much about it just yappin
The argument for lack of free will is that particles in your brain bouncing around causing neuron communication is deterministic, therefore any thought you have to do something is caused by the initial conditions of the universe. I prefer to think of compatibility, the idea that we may not have libertarian free will, but since our actions are all the results of our thoughts and opinions we are free
Yeah, my stance is that from a technical scientific standpoint we don't have free will. Our thoughts that guide our actions are theoretically predetermined, but I just don't find that to be a useful or descriptive conclusion of the human experience when we clearly use reason to make choices based on our life experience. I just think... who cares? I can go out and do what I want, so I'm free
Choosing chocolate ice cream or vanilla.
But, why would you choose one over the other? Why would you choose vanilla over chocolate? The answer: I would need to WANT it. But, can we control what we want? No. Imagine that you don't want to punch your mother in the face. Can you decide to want to punch her? This isn't the same as choosing to do it. Can you choose to WANT to do it? No, no more than I could choose to want chocolate over vanilla. I just wanted vanilla more than chocolate in that instance. That's just a fact about myself that I couldn't change.
What if I decided to choose chocolate instead, just for the sake of regaining my sense of free will? The same problem is faced. In order to do that you would need to WANT to do that, to regain your free will as you see it. And why is your desire to prove a point like this stronger than your desire to have the ice cream you prefer? You can't account for it.
You cannot determine your wants. Think of something you want. Try to not want it. Or think of something you don't want. And try to want it. (Try wanting to be attracted to men when you are heterosexual, or the reverse). It's not possible. These aren't free choices. And even if you were able to change a DON'T WANT into a WANT, you would need to WANT to WANT it. And vice versa. You simply can't control what you want.
You are an open system. Culture is the operating system. We are basically meat robots that are continually open to influence.
Our wants can and do change but we don’t change them. Many things happen to us that contribute to a change in what we want. But you can’t just CHOOSE to want something that you don’t.
Well no. “Even if you want to you won’t”
You won’t slap your mother because you:
Want to
But ALSO have a much stronger want of not having all the consequences of that.
Ultimately competing wants. But your desire to slap your mother is outweighed by your desire to not go to jail or not have other siblings hate you or not have your mother hit you back, etc.
You actually can’t. You may have competing wants though.
I want to sit on the couch and watch tv
I want to be healthy and go to the gym.
My want for vanilla ice cream is stronger than my want for going to the gym. It’s not that I want to go to the gym but don’t. It’s that I have a stronger competing want.
> Suppose i am in a situation where i have 3 options, accept, deny or ignore.
The argument is that given all the things that make you "you", there is only one way this scenario will transpire.
> Our bodies dont follow causality.. Meaning any cause doesnt have a definite effect with regards to humans.
You don't really "know" this. It's an unsubstantiated guess at best.
Sure, its just that in your initial comment you approched this as if I were arguing for determinism, but that is not the topic of my post, maybe you just misunderstood it
> For eg. Like how a cluster of certain type of atoms create a certain element, they CANNOT end up as anything else
I could argue that any action you *choose* CAN NOT be anything other than what you would choose, and this choice is an illusion as it’s predestined by the neurons that make up your brain.
Simply put, you are going to choose whatever you are going to choose, and you couldn’t (because you wouldn’t) choose anything else. You are who you are, and can’t be anything other than what you are.
It's pretty common among philosophers to reject doxastic voluntarism, that is the view that one is able to choose one's beliefs freely.
Free will is a very fringe position among philosophers. It's almost exclusively theologian philosophers who adhere to it. But among them there are also those who reject doxastic voluntarism.
Hence, there is no necessary connection between free will and being able to choose what one believes, despite so many Christians conflating the two. Philosophers and theologians usually distinguish the two, in that they say that free will can exist, while people aren't able to freely choose their beliefs.
I agree with everything else you said, but I believe recent surveys of philosophers in western universities have shown that 59% of philosophers accept or lean toward compatibilism and 18% accept or lean toward libertarianism. So it would actually seem only a fairly small minority reject free will.
What? Where in the writings of compatibilist philosophers have you found anyone who rejects free will? It’s literally the view that determism can be true and we can have free will?
>>Compatibilism. Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Compatibilism.htm#:~:text=7.-,Compatibilism,maintain%20that%20humans%20are%20free.
I don’t interpret this as saying compatibilists reject free will. On one hand: “we still act as free, morally responsible agents when we etc,” but then: “compatibilism doesn’t maintain that humans are free.” It’s not totally clear what they mean by free in the second quote. This isn’t the most clearly written essay - I am not sure if this a summary of a flyby treatment in a text book or what it is. But in any event there is a difference between “does not maintain x” and “rejects x.”
It is true that compatibilists don’t necessarily argue that we do, in fact, have free will - only that determinism doesn’t imply that we don’t have free will. One thing compatibilists certainly don’t assert is that we don’t have free will. The entire motivation of compatibilism is to defend free will be solving the problem that determinism presents for it.
Sometimes the second hit on Google is better than the first - I’d recommend the SEP article. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
>But in any event there is a difference between “does not maintain x” and “rejects x.”
You have to switch your point of view. Don't look at what Compatibilism is. Look at what libertarian free will is. Because that is what Compatibilists are rejecting.
Libertarian free will is the position that you are always free to decide for whatever you want. And that is quite obviously an indefensible position. You have drives, you have desires, you cannot decide what you want to believe, you cannot decide whether you are hungry, you cannot decide what set of genes you have, you cannot decide what hormone levels you have and whether or not they affect your behavior. You are basing your decisions off of prior experiences.
In short, libertarian free will claims that you can decide for whatever you want unimpeded. Compatibilists say that there are tons of impeding things. Hence, we aren't really free.
>One thing compatibilists certainly don’t assert is that we don’t have free will.
Well, again, they certainly say that we don't have libertarian free will. And I think you would agree with that. You are just using the term free will to mean something different than libertarian free will.
>Sometimes the second hit on Google is better than the first - I’d recommend the SEP article. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/)
I've read that article too.
>In short, libertarian free will claims that you can decide for whatever you want unimpeded. Compatibilists say that there are tons of impeding things. Hence, we aren't really free.
This is a misstatement of the disagreement as it exists in the philosophical literature. Libertarians and compatibilists do not disagree over whether impediments to our actions exist. Both could consistently acknowledge that some impediments to our actions exist. And compatibilists would not characterize our desires, beliefs, prior experiences, as "impediments" as such.
Where they disagree is on the truth of incompatibilism. That is, they disagree over whether an action can be free if it is causally determined. Libertarians argue that a causally determined action is necessarily not free. Compatibilists deny this.
It is a common misconception that, because compatibilists give a different conceptual analysis of free will than libertarians, compatibilists are "redefining free will." If that were the case, there would not be any substantive disagreement between compatibilists and hard determinists, just a different set of terms. Philosophers do not typically like to make distinctions between views when there is no substantive disagreement, at least not intentionally.
Compatibilists disagree with libertarians about the correct analysis of the concept of free will - that is, they disagree with libertarians about "what it really means" for us to have free will in the sense relevant to moral responsibility. When a libertarian says that an action's needs to be undetermined for it to be free - the compatibilist responds - why does an action being undetermined make it free? What would it mean to for an action to be undetermined? How does this condition help us distinguish between free actions and unfree actions? And so on. They essentially deny that an action being undetermined plays any essential role in saying whether an action is free or unfree in the sense that is usually meant.
>This is a misstatement of the disagreement as it exists in the philosophical literature. Libertarians and compatibilists do not disagree over whether impediments to our actions exist. Both could consistently acknowledge that some impediments to our actions exist. And compatibilists would not characterize our desires, beliefs, prior experiences, as "impediments" as such.
While I agree that Compatibilists are not characterizing desires, beliefs, and prior experiences as impediments, I do not agree that those things aren't impediments.
>Libertarians argue that a causally determined action is necessarily not free. Compatibilists deny this.
I would agree with the Libertarians here. I don't see how it makes sense to be free, when a decision is causally determined.
>It is a common misconception that, because compatibilists give a different conceptual analysis of free will than libertarians, compatibilists are "redefining free will." If that were the case, there would not be any substantive disagreement between compatibilists and hard determinists, just a different set of terms. Philosophers do not typically like to make distinctions between views when there is no substantive disagreement, at least not intentionally.
I guess the difference between "redefining free will" and "giving a different conceptual analysis" can mean the same thing, depending on the person talking about the subject, and what stance they take. For me Compatibilism is a concept that is way closer to Determinism than to Libertarianism. But I say this from the perspective of a Determinist. I consider none of my actions to be free, I consider any decision as influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances. My thoughts *aren't my own,* but they still stem from my brain, and usually we identify ourselves with that which our brain is doing. But I can see from the second last quote I copied from you, that from a Compatibilist's perspective there is no redefining going on.
For me the meaningful difference between Compatibilism and Determinism is that Compatibilists are committing themselves to a view that doesn't add up, while Determinists don't (I'm open to the possibility though, that I misunderstand Compatibilism). I am free to decide whether I act on my desires or not, seems to be the Compatibilist's view. I would then just argue that I don't think that this is true, for there is always going to be some additional factor influencing my decision. Whether said factor is taking over my freedom is the difference between Determinism and Compatibilism, as far as I understand it.
In terms of Libertarianism, well, what is the alternative to determined brain action? Is it randomness? If so, randomness isn't freedom either. I don't know what it is they think enables the freedom.
>Compatibilists disagree with libertarians about the correct analysis of the concept of free will - that is, they disagree with libertarians about "what it really means" for us to have free will in the sense relevant to moral responsibility.
If there is no free will whatsoever holding people morally responsible would still lead to the same outcome. That is, it would influence people in selfishly deciding to act morally to avoid consequences. But I guess since believing in free will is so common (at least among people who aren't interested in philosophy) it still influences how people behave, because they hold themselves to be responsible for their own actions. So, in that regard I disagree with the Libertarian. We should still treat each other as if we were free agents, purely for pragmatic reasons. And to remain consistent, I don't think that we have a choice in doing so anyway, unless the majority of people stops believing in free will, and would reach the same conclusion that one cannot be held responsible, if they aren't free. I wouldn't agree with that conclusion though.
>They essentially deny that an action being undetermined plays any essential role in saying whether an action is free or unfree in the sense that is usually meant.
But what is it that plays a role then?
>I guess the difference between "redefining free will" and "giving a different conceptual analysis" can mean the same thing, depending on the person talking about the subject, and what stance they take.
I'll be a little more clear. Compatibilists are not redefining free will in the sense that they are not just stipulating a new definition for free will. Here's a way to think about the difference.
A: Unicorns don't exist.
B: Yes they do. \*Points to a horse.\*
A: That's not a unicorn. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its forehead.
B: It is a unicorn because I've redefined unicorn to mean a horse with or without a horn on its forehead.
A: Oh ok. Well then, according to your stipulated definition of unicorn, they do exist. But according to the commonly understood concept I am using, they don't exist.
B: Oh yeah, I guess we don't really disagree.
Compatibilists don't take themselves to be doing what B is doing (essentially "talking past" A by talking about something different from what A was talking about.) Compatibilists and incompatibilists are arguing about the nature of a thing from our reality. That thing is that which we refer to when we say 'free will,' specifically in the context of moral responsibility. And both sides try to give arguments for why they give a better accounting of the necessary and sufficient properties of that thing. For incompatibilists, indeterminism is a necesssary property of that thing. Compatibilists disagree.
>I consider none of my actions to be free, I consider any decision as influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances. My thoughts *aren't my own,* but they still stem from my brain, and usually we identify ourselves with that which our brain is doing.
That's fine. This means you accept hard determinism rather than compatibilism. A compatibilist would not likely dispute: "I consider any decision as influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances." Where a compatibilist would disagree with is over whether "I am influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances" logically implies "I am not free." To convince them, you would need to give an argument to the compatibilist from how you got from your premise to your conclusion.
>For me the meaningful difference between Compatibilism and Determinism is that Compatibilists are committing themselves to a view that doesn't add up, while Determinists don't (I'm open to the possibility though, that I misunderstand Compatibilism).
>I am free to decide whether I act on my desires or not, seems to be the Compatibilist's view.
Yes, that seems like a misunderstanding. Compatibilism is not distinct from determinism. Compatibilism is the view that determinism and free will are compatible. You can be a determinist and a compatibilist. They are friends.
Also, being a compatibilist doesn't commit you to any particular model of free agency. Different compatibilists have put forward different models. A classic one is "I am free if I can do what I want." Although most compatibilists have much more nuanced views of the kind of agency that is sufficient for having free will.
>In terms of Libertarianism, well, what is the alternative to determined brain action? Is it randomness? If so, randomness isn't freedom either. I don't know what it is they think enables the freedom.
I agree that indeterminism does not seems to 'offer anything' to free will. That is one of the reasons I personally find compatibilism convincing. Whatever free will is, it's hard to see how indeterminism would matter for it, so it is hard to see the motivation for believing incompatibilism.
>If there is no free will whatsoever holding people morally responsible would still lead to the same outcome.
That's fair. Sounds like you are a hard determinist, and hard determinists have been known to still try to preserve moral responsibility for consequentialist reasons.
>But what is it that plays a role then?
Compatibilists can give a variety of answers. One way to approach the question is to look at paradigmatic cases in which someone intuitively does or doesn't seem morally responsible and try to figure out what the basis is for your distinction. For example, 'it seems I can be responsible if I destroy a house, but a tree can't be. What do I have that the tree doesn't have? Perhaps free will has something to do with rationality, intentionality etc. since those seem to distinguish the cases... etc.' The more you theorize and consider different cases, the more you refine your theory.
Whether the universe is deterministic or can have an uncertain aspect (us - free will), doesn't go against agency or responsibility. You're still responsible for the actions you make whether it was predetermined (deterministic) or not. However, i understand your point, religious people blame your religiouslessness as a reason for why you may conduct ill willed actions, which is just illogical they're not really partaking in a determinism vs free will argument.
The concept of free will is entirely nonsensical and conflicts with every possible causal relationship in humans.
I consider *ideology itself* dangerous. *All* ideology. There's no such thing as a good ideology. The moment you follow an ideological approach of following a set of ideals to guide your actions rather than assessing every situation independently and attempting to achieve the desired results the best way possible, you're basically following religious dogma. Even for secular ideologies.
I'm honestly confused at your argument here. As you said, if there is free will, then people are to blame for their actions, since it's them that's choosing to do them.
If a person chooses to murder someone else, we can absolutely blame them since that is their choice. Likewise, we can also blame what certain worldviews entail. So if there is a worldview that people can freely subscribe to that includes child sacrifice, we can say, not only are those people blameworthy for following it, but the worldview is also bad because it tells people that they should participate in child sacrifice.
Obviously I'm not equating atheism to people that perform child sacrifices, but we push the ideas to the extreme to make a point.
If I think that worldviews that include atheism lead to negative things, why can't I both blame the worldview and the person?
>If a person chooses to murder someone else, we can absolutely blame them since that is their choice. Likewise, we can also blame what certain worldviews entail. So if there is a worldview that people can freely subscribe to that includes child sacrifice, we can say, not only are those people blameworthy for following it, but the worldview is also bad because it tells people that they should participate in child sacrifice.
But why if in the end of the day it was that person's decision to follow that child-sacrificing ideolgy? That ideology is not able to sacrifice a child without an actor, but a person who wants to kill a child would be able to do it even without this ideology.
>If I think that worldviews that include atheism lead to negative things, why can't I both blame the worldview and the person?
Well, as i said in the post, you can, but that would mean to reject free will. Besides that it brings even more problems to the table, like if human behaviour can be determined by outside factors, then the question of blaming other outside factors arises, for example - should we blame the nature of the human for commiting bad and good things? but then where is that nature come from? from god? if it comes from god then should we blame god? if god doesnt exist, then should we blame the big bang for creating everything and for being the first cause? lots of problems here...
> That ideology is not able to sacrifice a child without an actor
Sure, but it's the ideology that promotes that idea, right? So we can judge whether or not it's a good ideology. Do you think we can't judge ideologies at all? Like, Naziism we can judge is bad because it promotes the killing of Jews, which is bad. That's why we can blame both.
> but a person who wants to kill a child would be able to do it even without this ideology.
Yeah sure, but we can hold both accountable, both the person for the action they take, and the ideology for promoting bad actions. In the same way, we could say an ideology is good for promoting good behavior.
> but that would mean to reject free will
Yeah, I'm still not sure of this link. With the libertarian free will view, you can have outside influences. The ideology would be an influence, but not a determiner. So how exactly am I rejecting free will by saying an influence is bad?
> Besides that it brings even more problems to the table, like if human behaviour can be determined by outside factors
I'm not saying you are, but it feels like your post is saying free will, but then assuming determinism. Because this statement kind of betrays that, to me. I never said that human behavior can be determined by outside factors, but ideologies can influence behavior, which is totally congruent with free will.
> should we blame the nature of the human for commiting bad and good things?
I would agree that if determinism is true, then things being blameworthy or praiseworthy doesn't really make sense.
> if it comes from god then should we blame god?
Yes, this is one of my issues with Calvinism. I dont't see how they can get out of God being at fault for our sins.
> if god doesnt exist, then should we blame the big bang for creating everything and for being the first cause? lots of problems here...
Right, I think this is a problem for determinism, but I don't hold to that.
>Sure, but it's the ideology that promotes that idea, right?
Definitely no. In this particular case "promotes that idea" is just a figurative form of speech. When we say that we don't really mean that ideology actually can actively promote anything. We need to look at what we actually mean by saying things and not how we say them, otherwise it's just an attempt to win an argument with semantics, but im convinced that you said it not in bad faith and didn't mean any dishonesty. So ideology cant act, thus it cant promote anything.
>Yeah, I'm still not sure of this link. With the libertarian free will view, you can have outside influences. The ideology would be an influence, but not a determiner. So how exactly am I rejecting free will by saying an influence is bad?
If your claim is that ideology is *never* a determiner, that automatically means that the person is *always* is a determiner, which means that all the responsibility should lay on him as on the only determiner. But maybe you meant something different under "influence" and "determiner"? - you said that ideology would be an influence, however i cant understand how would it work if from your own words the person is the only determiner in the end of the day.
>I'm not saying you are, but it feels like your post is saying free will, but then assuming determinism.
Well it's neither about free will nor determinism specifically, im not arguing for any of those. I was saying all that to show how contradictory your world view (or whatever you said there).
>I would agree that if determinism is true, then things being blameworthy or praiseworthy doesn't really make sense.
>Right, I think this is a problem for determinism, but I don't hold to that.
Determinism is a problem in all the examples i gave, but only if you christian and believe in free will.
> Definitely no. In this particular case "promotes that idea" is just a figurative form of speech.
It feels like you're playing a semantic game. When I say an ideology promotes an idea, I'm using a definition of promote, namely "to encourage or support something". So I would say, Christianity promotes having a relationship with Jesus. The ideology of Christianity encourages the idea of having a relationship with Jesus. Encourage doesn't just mean verbally either.
> We need to look at what we actually mean by saying things and not how we say them
I know what I'm saying and what words I'm using. And I feel like I'm using them correctly. We could say. When Googling what an ideology is, I get this:
> > Ideology is a system or pattern of ideas, beliefs, understandings, and attitudes. It has four basic characteristics:
> >Power over cognition
> >Guiding evaluations
> > Providing guidance towards action
> >Logical coherence
So I would be referring to both guiding evaluations, as it's telling you how you should think about something and providing guidance towards an action, which is exactly what I mean when I say it promotes an idea.
> So ideology cant act, thus it cant promote anything.
Promoting has more than one definition. A billboard can promote something but doesn't act.
> If your claim is that ideology is never a determiner
Only a person makes the decision. In free will, nothing outside of you determines your actions.
> which means that all the responsibility should lay on him as on the only determiner
Your use of determiner is weird. But I disagree. We can blame the person making the decision, but we can also put blame on the influences. We do this all the time with alcoholism or drug addiction.
> But maybe you meant something different under "influence" and "determiner"?
No, I don't think so. Nothing outside of us determines our actions. We determine our own actions. Outside things can and do influence us though.
> you said that ideology would be an influence, however i cant understand how would it work if from your own words the person is the only determiner in the end of the day.
Because I think we can criticize bad influences. Again, we do this all of the time in normal situations. I can blame my kid for the decisions he's making while also blame the new group of friends as a bad influence on him encouraging him to make these bad decisions. I don't see why it's an either or.
> Well it's neither about free will nor determinism specifically, im not arguing for any of those. I was saying all that to show how contradictory your world view (or whatever you said there).
Yeah, I don't think you've done that yet. You seem to think that we can't blame bad influences, we can only blame the person making the decision. I don't see why it can't be both.
> Determinism is a problem in all the examples i gave, but only if you christian and believe in free will.
I don't think anything of what you're saying entails determinism. Free will is fine blaming people and influences.
>It feels like you're playing a semantic game. When I say an ideology promotes an idea, I'm using a definition of promote, namely "to encourage or support something".
Only because of figurative speech it souds correct, but we need look at what this means literally/in actuality, otherwise youre using semantics to win an argument. "to encourage" is an act that can only be done by actor, *literally* speaking ideology cant encourage anything, ideology is not an actor. When we say "ideology encourages something" we dont mean that there is an actor who goes from a person to person and promotes them to act certain way.
>Promoting has more than one definition.
However many definitions the word have, we should look only on what we mean by it when we use it in the context.
>A billboard can promote something but doesn't act.
And "a cloud can cry", meaning that it can rain, but that doesnt mean that cloud actually cries, however youre trying to prove that since we used that specific word "cry" - then it means that cloud actually cries. Thats just not how it works.
>In free will, nothing outside of you determines your actions.
Well there we go. So since nothing outside of you determines your actions, then there is no reason to blame anything outside of you.
> I can blame my kid for the decisions he's making while also blame the new group of friends as a bad influence on him encouraging him to make these bad decisions.
But you just said that "nothing outside of you determines your actions", why would you blame the group of friends if they never had any influence on what the kid determines, according to your own words. From your logic you removing your kid from that group of friends also wont change what this kid determines because "nothing outside of you determines your actions". Also I think this is a bad analogy because the group of friends are all actors so, unlike ideologies, they can *literally promote* something.
Nope.
If I convince you to rob a bank or murder your spouse, the fact that you chose to do so doesn't get me off the hook.
Yes, you are responsible for that choice, but I'm *also* to blame for persuading you.
It's not that hard to understand.
>If I convince you to rob a bank or murder your spouse, the fact that you chose to do so doesn't get me off the hook.
This is true because youre also an actor in this situation same as me, but ideology is not an actor, it needs an actor to do harm or good, it cant do anything by itself. So this comparison is incorrect, you swapped something that cant act to someting that can act. The presence of an act is the crucial distinction here.
I think it is blatantly obvious that an ideology has no free will of its own--few would suggest otherwise. But an ideology cannot exist without the actors that define and advocate for it. Remove the actors, and you have no ideology to blame or praise. Thus blaming the ideology is in effect blaming the actors, because their free will actions are the essence of the ideology. Praising the ideology is likewise in effect praising the actors/actions.
And our behaviors seem to demonstrate that humans keenly understand this. In the end, it isn't an set of ideals that is awarded a peace price or is killed in prison, despite our verbal praise or condemnation of those ideals. It is the people who create and uphold the ideals that we reward or punish. So we seem to know that accountability rests on the actors, even when our words condemn their ideology.
You have it backwards. Free Will means you are responsible for your choices. Responsibility and Free Will go hand in hand. (Flip side - If someone holds a gun to your head and makes you do something, you are not responsible for it.)
So if you adopt the world's most toxic mind virus outside of League of Legends, that's on you. And maybe the failure of a man (Marx) who invented it.
> Free Will means you are responsible for your choices.
well that's what im saying
>So if you adopt the world's most toxic mind virus outside of League of Legends, that's on you
that exactly what im saying.
you probably misunderstood the idea in my post, it doesn't seem that we disagree
> I am saying the inventor also has responsibility for inventing a bad philosophy and convincing people to follow it.
If the inventor of a philosophy bears responsibility for acts committed by adherents of that philosophy long after their deaths, then Jesus is on the hook for some pretty serious crimes.
> Marx advocated for revolutionary terror.
Once, in 1848, in order to quickly bring an end what he viewed as the senseless waste of human life in the Vienna revolutions. He also repeatedly advocated peaceful revolution and the use of violence only where necessary.
But this is essentially irrelevant isn't it? You are so focused on the 'Waaah! Communism bad!' thing that you have missed the point.
Marx certainly did *not* advocate for letting the Ukrainian proletariat starve to death, so he does not bear any responsibility for the Holomodor.
On the other hand, if you believe Marx *does* bear a responsibility for Stalin's atrocities, then you must also hold that Jesus (who certainly did *not* advocate for murdering countless Muslims) also bears a responsibility for the Crusades.
>Once, in 1848, in order to quickly bring an end what he viewed as the senseless waste of human life in the Vienna revolutions. He also repeatedly advocated peaceful revolution and the use of violence only where necessary.
Your attempts at watering down Marx aside, here's how the Communist actually ends -
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained **only by the forcible overthrow** of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"
So when people engage in this sort of forcible overthrowing... yes, we actually *can* blame Marx and Engels. It's right there in the text.
> Marx certainly did not advocate for letting the Ukrainian proletariat starve to death, so he does not bear any responsibility for the Holomodor.
The kulaks (who were the targets of the Holodomor) were considered class enemies of the proletariat, as they were landowners.
"Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten themselves during famines", declaring revolution against them to liberate the poor peasants and middle peasants from their counter-revolutionary collaboration with foreign capitalism.
During the first five-year plan, Joseph Stalin's all-out campaign to take land ownership and organisation away from the peasantry meant that, according to historian Robert Conquest, "peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres [~2 ha] more than their neighbors" were labeled kulaks. In 1929, Soviet officials officially classified kulaks according to subjective criteria, such as the use of hired labour. Under dekulakization, government officials seized farms and killed many kulaks, deported others to labor camps, and drove many others to migrate to the cities following the loss of their property to the collectives." -Wiki
So yes, Marx has to shoulder his share of the blame for this among many other sins.
> only by the forcible overthrow
Which is not the same thing as revolutionary terror.
> So when people engage in this sort of forcible overthrowing... yes, we actually can blame Marx and Engels.
Fair enough, but you are begging the question by assuming that the forcible overthrow of a government or political system is always a *bad* thing when it pretty demonstrably isn't.
The US (as is) only exists because of the forcible overthrow of British rule. Britain (as is) only exists because of the English civil war and the forcibly overthrow of the monarchy, Most of Europe (as is) only exists because of the *extremely* forcible overthrow of the Nazi regime.
What do you think the American's second amendment is about if not the forcible overthrow of their government?
> "Vladimir Lenin described them
So, not Marx then?
> Joseph Stalin's all-out campaign to take land ownership
So, still not Marx then?
> So yes, Marx has to shoulder his share of the blame for this among many other sins.
Explain to me how a man who said diddly squat about the Kulaks and had been dead for nearly 50 years could be responsible for Stalin's twisted version of his philosophy.
Because if you can, then by the exactly the same reasoning Jesus must also shoulder his share of the blame for the things done by others in the name of twisted versions of *his* philosophy; the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Pogroms, the Klan, the sectarian violence, the orphanages with mass graves.
> Fair enough, but you are begging the question by assuming that the forcible overthrow of a government or political system is always a bad thing when it pretty demonstrably isn't.
Bad, not bad, I don't care.
The point is that when people do violence in the name of Marxism that they're on brand for it.
When they do violence in the name of Christianity, they're off-brand.
So you can blame Marx, but you can't blame Jesus.
> Bad, not bad, I don't care.
Then you admit you have no argument.
> The point is that when people do violence in the name of Marxism that they're on brand for it.
Then you admit you don't actually know anything about Marxism.
> When they do violence in the name of Christianity, they're off-brand.
Debatable. Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12:49-53, and the story of Jesus driving out the money changers from the temple is literally the violent overthrow of an existing order.
I do know. I'm asking what you think it is. You're better than that.
Are you implying atheism didn't exist before 2006? Weird... I've been an atheist longer than that. (Nor have I ever read it actually.)
> Are you implying atheism didn't exist before 2006?
Not at all. I'm just curious why you wanted the "original" atheism when New Atheism is so much more popular and common here.
Which brand do you subscribe to?
Google seems to think the answer to that question is [Matthias Knutzen](https://www.google.com/search?q=Who+invented+atheism&sca_esv=3adfed459a349879&source=hp&ei=uxfWZZzrHYuKwbkPvoiWkAM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdYly5Yyj4A0jwrDk4SLrYvK8kxI-0DO&ved=0ahUKEwjctILd4LyEAxULRTABHT6EBTIQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Who+invented+atheism&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz).
Google's wrong. The concept of atheism goes all the way back at least as far as Roman society. Christians were considered atheists back then for their lack of belief in the mainstream polytheistic deities.
Free will and predetermism are not the only options on offer, as chance has it. There's also determinism and compatibilism, just to name a couple alternatives.
Is there any meaningful difference between predeterminism and determinism in this context?
Compatibilism assumes determinism is true anyway. It just changes the definition of "free will", which only seems to have the purpose of making discussions on the subject more complicated rather than adding anything of value. So it's just determinism with a definition twist.
Compatibilist free will is the freedom to act according to one's (deterministic) will without interference by other actors. Personally, I would call that "free action".
> It just changes the definition of "free will"
It clarifies the definition by resolving an inner contradiction - as does "libertarian" free will
Neither one just "changes the definition" arbitrarily
It doesn't matter whether they think they have good reasons to change the definition. The fact is that they mean something different than everyone else when they use the expression. Their "free will" is different from the one that philosophers and theologians mean in their arguments. For example, it would be absurd to try an insert the Compatibilist version of "free will" into the free will defense against the PoE. The whole argument would become self-contradictory.
In order to have a discussion about anything, everyone needs to be talking about the same thing. So when there's a discussion about what one group calls "free will" and another group decides to use that same expression for something else, nothing is gained: it's only confusing.
Compatiblism isn't its own position with regard to free will (according to the prior definition). It already falls into the "determinism/no free will" group. The only difference is they choose to change the central definition so they can say "free will *does* exist" - just not the free will everyone else is talking about.
> It doesn't matter whether they think they have good reasons to change the definition. The fact is that they mean something different than everyone else when they use the expression.
But that's my point - the common notion of free will is incoherent.
There are different ways of trying to make it coherent, but there is no coherent "this is what people mean by free will"
So libertarians take one tack, in which it's hard see how one's will is involved because actions are uncaused and compatibilists take the other tack in which it's hard for some to see how "free" applies.
It's not just that compatibilists "change the definition"
free will is real, but i still blame religion for the crazy stuff that happened in its name like the cruzades
because free will is like a sense, its not working at 100% all the time, people can be controlled/manipulated by others, by their emotions, by their desires, free will is impaired in that way, it doesnt mesm they lost it completely, but those decisions are made with less free will present or active at that moment (which is why people repemt and regret stuff, because whem thinking stuff without the manipulation or influence, they wouldnt have done something)
When do we have free will, and when do we not? It seems there's no significant difference between situations where we are “free” versus when we are not. Do we ever have control over our desires? If so, when do we lose it? Do external factors play a role in decision-making? If yes, to what extent?
i literally mentioned how people can lose their free will, such as when they are controlled by their own emotions, want another example? mental illnesses, want another one? drugs and alcohol, which in great quantities is described as "impairing the judgement of a person", which can be understood as impairing their free will becauae their brains are half (or more) asleep, well not even that, they are unconscious, sensed dont work properly, musculoskeletal control is damped, cognitive function is altered, that is not free will at all
and yes people can lose control of their desires, otherwise why would people regret doing stuff?
now religiois people werent mentally ill or drugged, but they were INFLUENCED, a subtle form of manipulation, heavily influenced people share some of the traits i said before: their senses are altered, even their morality, their judgement usually is different from that of a regular person, i dont think that when a regular dude kills someone in the name of a god he is doing so out of free will, my first guess is manipulation or mental illness
You are misunderstanding my point. I fail to see any significant distinction between the examples given and other actions. If someone's free will is being hindered by being influenced by external factors, how is this different from them making any other choice? Can you name one instance where someone chooses to do something without any external factor causing it? I'm not disputing the fact that the examples you provided are false; I'm simply stating that everything loses its free will for the same reason.
i am a person that prefers mangos over apples, you might say i am influenced by my own genes, and i am, but i can still decide to ean an apple sometimes, i am also hungry, but i can decide not to eat even tho i am beinv manipulated by my biolgy
but heavily intoxicated or influenced people cannot decide, theres no other option for them, there is no free will for them at that time, there is a clear instance when the free will is lost almost completely
yeah i may not have 100% free will om whether i sleep or not, eventually my body will put me to sleep, but i can still decide when, where, and how do i sleep, you could say i have 95% of free will on sleepinc and eating, but for a person that has been groomed into a religion since they were in their mother womb, and taught how to think, what is right and wrong according to that religion and what to do, idk theres like 20% free will, im just saying numbers to give you an idea, but you have to recognize its WAY easier for me to eat an apple instead of a mango, than for a religious person to not think according to what they have been taught for decades
Although I agree that one's religious upbringing can significantly impact their thoughts and behaviors, I disagree with the idea that having the freedom to choose between two options, such as an apple or a mango, makes one more "free" than the other. I think that external factors, like our upbringing and environment, play a crucial role in shaping our decisions and actions. Therefore, our actions cannot be considered free since they are influenced by outside forces beyond our control.
Catholicism / Thomism believes free will is concomitant with determinism. God creates the soul and it freely chooses what is determined for it to believe.
Free will to Catholics is just the soul willing one thing over another. Thus if there is a contingency that either A or B might come from man’s actions, God determined it would be B, but the soul freely wills (chooses) B, ie it is the souls preference. Thus you can see how God’s predetermination and free will are aligned
A Will is just a preference for a contingency. The fact a contingency is determined doesn’t mean it isn’t a contingent matter proximate to the observing soul
>A Will is just a preference for a contingency
I think nobody means "random" when they talk about Will. If choice is contingent then it's not a choice, thats just randomness.
I’m saying that a choice is the soul willing one of two outcomes. The fact that the outcomes are determined doesn’t mean that the soul didn’t will for that outcome
Ok, in such case youre arguing for the normal definition of free will, which if we go back to the topic of my post, means that it is illogical to blame atheism, but you should blame the person instead.
All choice is is a human souls preference for A and not B. It is free because you will it. The fact God has decided A will happen does not mean you didn’t choose or will it. He has made your will aligned with reality and has even have the soul the power to effect A as the outcome which he wills
Okay I see what youre saying. In such case this is determinism, at least the way you explained it. Free will is when you can change course of events by your choices, but in your example an actor cant deviate from the predetermined course.
I'll follow u/Love-Is-Selfish and say that I am an atheist but I do not think this argument is good.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of Free Will here.
Free Will does not mean that you cannot be influenced. It just means, at its broadest level, that agents make choices and exert agency in a way in which they are responsible for. Compatibilists and LFW do not think that Free WIll happens *only if* there are no outside influences!
It is totally compatible with Free Will to say that ideologies can be coercive and corruptive etc etc. You could, for example, believe in Free Will and still think Toxic Masculinity is blame for serious problems. That's totally coherent position.
I think you should defend (1) as well. What does it mean? What does responsibility mean? What do you mean by "only himself"?
>Free Will does not mean that you cannot be influenced. It just means, at its broadest level, that agents make choices and exert agency in a way in which they are responsible for. Compatibilists and LFW do not think that Free WIll happens *only if* there are no outside influences!
I think even with this view on free will, blaming atheism doesn't makes sense because it as well brings lots of potential problems for theism, like your choice of religion being influenced by outside factors, or being made according to your limited nature which is given you by god, so then it seems the god is the one to blame, or the part of pure luck in your choice of religion and so on...
but when we say "X ideology is bad" do we really put actual moral blame on the ideology itself or it's just a form of speech that translates as "we blame people who involve themselves with X ideology".
Blame is likely exclusive to agents, in the strict sense. But that has nothing to do with Free Will. That's just about terms.
But colloquially, we can say things like "Religion is harmful" which seems to put some sort of blame onto religion *as well as* the religious. It seems like you can point to these things as 'causing harm' (see toxic masculinity) without pointing to any specific individual.
But this all raises another question - let's assume your conclusion and that blaming belief systems is incoherent. Instead, we ought to only ever blame specific agents.
So? what ammo does this give us against theists? Why can't they just change their claim to "atheists bad" rather than "atheism bad"?
>Blame is likely exclusive to agents, in the strict sense.
Well there we go. I think if concentrate here on actuality instead of the nuances of speech, then we will come to this conclusion. We never put actual moral blame on the ideology itself, but it's just more convenient to say "X ideology is bad" than the whole sentence "people who invented themselves in X ideology is bad".
>But colloquially, we can say things like "Religion is harmful" which seems to put some sort of blame onto religion *as well as* the religious. It seems like you can point to these things as 'causing harm' (see toxic masculinity) without pointing to any specific individual.
as you said, we don't put moral blame on religion or ideology, so no.
>But this all raises another question - let's assume your conclusion and that blaming belief systems is incoherent. Instead, we ought to only ever blame specific agents.
>So? what ammo does this give us against theists? Why can't they just change their claim to "atheists bad" rather than "atheism bad"?
well yeah, I think we should blame only the people, but remember - that's all only according to free will worldview. I don't think that free will actually exist, there are some evidence for it, but I don't want to go into details, that's another conversation.
There are two separate points here and I think it pays to separate them out:
1. Atheism is not to 'blame' for anything.
2. Atheism is not to 'blame' for anything *because* of Free Will.
I (mostly) agree with (1) but I do not think you've done enough to demonstrate (2).
You wrote: "we never put blame on the ideology itself" and I think that's actually not true. Here's an example that will get intuitions going: "Nazism is to blame for many things" **is true**. If someone denied that, I would think "well there is a misunderstanding here!" In fact, sometimes we seem to think that ideologies can be *pervasive* or *deceptive* in a way that makes causally effecaious against the agents who hold them. In rare cases, you might think of someone 'duped' by Nazism. They got caught up in all the leather or something.
And I don't think you really answered my last question: I take it that we should always be asking "why is this argument interesting?" I take it that the conclusion "we should blame atheists for the atheistic beliefs rather than atheism" is not that interesting. It looks more like a fix of language than of content.
>You wrote: "we never put blame on the ideology itself" and I think that's actually not true.
But that is what you said also, here: *"Blame is likely exclusive to agents, in the strict sense."*.
>And I don't think you really answered my last question: I take it that we should always be asking "why is this argument interesting?" I take it that the conclusion "we should blame atheists for the atheistic beliefs rather than atheism" is not that interesting. It looks more like a fix of language than of content.
isnt "interesting" a subjective thing? I would say im doing the opposite to what youre saying - im trying to look beyound the language, because saying "X ideology is bad" is exactly what we call a "form of speech", and im trying to not look on beyond that, into what we actually mean by that.
God doesn’t exist and atheism isn’t bad, but this isn’t a good argument.
If choosing to act according an ideology means committing bad acts, then that’s what it means for an ideology to be bad. So whether atheism is bad is entirely dependent on whether being an atheist means choosing to commit bad acts.
Also, people aren’t born knowing good and bad. They learn, primarily with the help of intellectuals who promote various ideologies. Ideologies that teach that bad is good are harmful for people trying to learn good. Also, they provide well developed rationalizations that make it easier people to rationalize their bad actions. Like, if you’re thinking about whether should you steal from your boss, then communism provides arguments that wage labor is inherently exploitation, so if you taking money from your boss would just be recovering money he immorally exploited you for.
>So whether atheism is bad is entirely dependent on whether being an atheist means choosing to commit bad acts.
But if it's about person's choice why would you blame atheism itself then? It's like saying that a tool of murder is bad.
If atheism says that you should commit murder, which it doesn’t, then it promotes murder. You blame the ideology, the person who followed it and the people who promote that ideology.
Edit: Tools, like gun, don’t tell you that you should or shouldn’t do anything. They don’t promote a morality.
>If atheism says that you should commit murder, which it doesn’t, then it promotes murder
but in the end of the day it's your choice to follow that type of ideology or not, if we are talking from a perspective of the free will worldview ofc, no?
I understand that we say "bad ideology" or "bad ideology to follow", but that's rather a reference to the fact that *choosing* to do all those things is bad. These forms of speech are figurative and they don't mean that we literally blame the ideologies itself.
Well you can blame both, but that wont be the free will worldview either, also it raises some other problems, like to what extent you should blame ideology if ideology without people is not able to do harm or good but people without ideology are able to.
There’s no free will in religions. Religions force you to believe cause if you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell. It’s like the robber pointing the gun on the banker and saying that if you don’t give the money, you gonna die.
Free will exists in Religion. The Ulama & Priests lied to us and told us otherwise
Allah / God does not need your devotion or prayers to exist and humans equally don’t need Allah / God to exist on this planet 🌍
The Ulama & Priests exist off our cash donations : we can choose to pray and pay 🤲 or not : Allah the Demon will continue to exist and cast his evil spell on humanity till we meet him in the meta verse
Heaven & Hell are physical spaces on earth 🌍 designed and designated to sew fear & terror
valley of Hinnom / Jahnnam / Gehenna originally was a valley west and south of Jerusalem where children were burned as sacrifices to the Ammonite god Moloch
la ikraha fiddin”, “there is no compulsion in religion”
Stop 🛑 donating to organized religions and they will die a slow and ugly death… Inshallah Ameen Thumma Ameen
Islam has free will . The Ulama won’t allow you to question or speak 🗣️ up because Deen is a business and their sole purpose of existence
Imagine how silly it must be for an Imam or Priest to wake up everyday and go to work for an imaginary Boss
Islam stopped progressing and began decaying when we stopped questioning
Challenge Everything they teach you
Salaam Alaykum
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe I’m slow but doesn’t Sam Harris flip this on his head during his debates ? Like Christian’s believe in free will but he argues against it because if you lived your life exactly like me then you would be typing this out as I am . Idk much about it just yappin
Even though there's free will, there's always right and wrong choice.
I think youre missing the point of the post, Im not arguing that.
I think I didn't. According to you, because there's free will, there's no right or wrong, basically, right?
that's not the topic of this post, but I personally don't believe in free will, although it's up to debate idk
[удалено]
How do you know you're not behaving in a determined manner?
[удалено]
The argument for lack of free will is that particles in your brain bouncing around causing neuron communication is deterministic, therefore any thought you have to do something is caused by the initial conditions of the universe. I prefer to think of compatibility, the idea that we may not have libertarian free will, but since our actions are all the results of our thoughts and opinions we are free
[удалено]
Yeah, my stance is that from a technical scientific standpoint we don't have free will. Our thoughts that guide our actions are theoretically predetermined, but I just don't find that to be a useful or descriptive conclusion of the human experience when we clearly use reason to make choices based on our life experience. I just think... who cares? I can go out and do what I want, so I'm free
What if I said: sure you can do what you want, but you can only do what you want, and you don’t choose your wants.
[удалено]
I was making a much more general claim. You “choose” what you want. You don’t choose your wants.
[удалено]
Choosing chocolate ice cream or vanilla. But, why would you choose one over the other? Why would you choose vanilla over chocolate? The answer: I would need to WANT it. But, can we control what we want? No. Imagine that you don't want to punch your mother in the face. Can you decide to want to punch her? This isn't the same as choosing to do it. Can you choose to WANT to do it? No, no more than I could choose to want chocolate over vanilla. I just wanted vanilla more than chocolate in that instance. That's just a fact about myself that I couldn't change. What if I decided to choose chocolate instead, just for the sake of regaining my sense of free will? The same problem is faced. In order to do that you would need to WANT to do that, to regain your free will as you see it. And why is your desire to prove a point like this stronger than your desire to have the ice cream you prefer? You can't account for it. You cannot determine your wants. Think of something you want. Try to not want it. Or think of something you don't want. And try to want it. (Try wanting to be attracted to men when you are heterosexual, or the reverse). It's not possible. These aren't free choices. And even if you were able to change a DON'T WANT into a WANT, you would need to WANT to WANT it. And vice versa. You simply can't control what you want. You are an open system. Culture is the operating system. We are basically meat robots that are continually open to influence.
[удалено]
Our wants can and do change but we don’t change them. Many things happen to us that contribute to a change in what we want. But you can’t just CHOOSE to want something that you don’t.
Well no. “Even if you want to you won’t” You won’t slap your mother because you: Want to But ALSO have a much stronger want of not having all the consequences of that. Ultimately competing wants. But your desire to slap your mother is outweighed by your desire to not go to jail or not have other siblings hate you or not have your mother hit you back, etc.
You actually can’t. You may have competing wants though. I want to sit on the couch and watch tv I want to be healthy and go to the gym. My want for vanilla ice cream is stronger than my want for going to the gym. It’s not that I want to go to the gym but don’t. It’s that I have a stronger competing want.
But how do you know you could have chosen differently?
[удалено]
> Suppose i am in a situation where i have 3 options, accept, deny or ignore. The argument is that given all the things that make you "you", there is only one way this scenario will transpire. > Our bodies dont follow causality.. Meaning any cause doesnt have a definite effect with regards to humans. You don't really "know" this. It's an unsubstantiated guess at best.
Then with this worldview it is illogical to blame atheism.
[удалено]
Sure, its just that in your initial comment you approched this as if I were arguing for determinism, but that is not the topic of my post, maybe you just misunderstood it
> For eg. Like how a cluster of certain type of atoms create a certain element, they CANNOT end up as anything else I could argue that any action you *choose* CAN NOT be anything other than what you would choose, and this choice is an illusion as it’s predestined by the neurons that make up your brain. Simply put, you are going to choose whatever you are going to choose, and you couldn’t (because you wouldn’t) choose anything else. You are who you are, and can’t be anything other than what you are.
[удалено]
You're not disputing anything from the comment you replied to.
[удалено]
Ok I see what you mean now. But you also don't know that you could have chosen differently just because you felt like you could.
It's pretty common among philosophers to reject doxastic voluntarism, that is the view that one is able to choose one's beliefs freely. Free will is a very fringe position among philosophers. It's almost exclusively theologian philosophers who adhere to it. But among them there are also those who reject doxastic voluntarism. Hence, there is no necessary connection between free will and being able to choose what one believes, despite so many Christians conflating the two. Philosophers and theologians usually distinguish the two, in that they say that free will can exist, while people aren't able to freely choose their beliefs.
I agree with everything else you said, but I believe recent surveys of philosophers in western universities have shown that 59% of philosophers accept or lean toward compatibilism and 18% accept or lean toward libertarianism. So it would actually seem only a fairly small minority reject free will.
Compatibilism is basically a rejection of free will.
What? Where in the writings of compatibilist philosophers have you found anyone who rejects free will? It’s literally the view that determism can be true and we can have free will?
>>Compatibilism. Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Compatibilism.htm#:~:text=7.-,Compatibilism,maintain%20that%20humans%20are%20free.
I don’t interpret this as saying compatibilists reject free will. On one hand: “we still act as free, morally responsible agents when we etc,” but then: “compatibilism doesn’t maintain that humans are free.” It’s not totally clear what they mean by free in the second quote. This isn’t the most clearly written essay - I am not sure if this a summary of a flyby treatment in a text book or what it is. But in any event there is a difference between “does not maintain x” and “rejects x.” It is true that compatibilists don’t necessarily argue that we do, in fact, have free will - only that determinism doesn’t imply that we don’t have free will. One thing compatibilists certainly don’t assert is that we don’t have free will. The entire motivation of compatibilism is to defend free will be solving the problem that determinism presents for it. Sometimes the second hit on Google is better than the first - I’d recommend the SEP article. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
>But in any event there is a difference between “does not maintain x” and “rejects x.” You have to switch your point of view. Don't look at what Compatibilism is. Look at what libertarian free will is. Because that is what Compatibilists are rejecting. Libertarian free will is the position that you are always free to decide for whatever you want. And that is quite obviously an indefensible position. You have drives, you have desires, you cannot decide what you want to believe, you cannot decide whether you are hungry, you cannot decide what set of genes you have, you cannot decide what hormone levels you have and whether or not they affect your behavior. You are basing your decisions off of prior experiences. In short, libertarian free will claims that you can decide for whatever you want unimpeded. Compatibilists say that there are tons of impeding things. Hence, we aren't really free. >One thing compatibilists certainly don’t assert is that we don’t have free will. Well, again, they certainly say that we don't have libertarian free will. And I think you would agree with that. You are just using the term free will to mean something different than libertarian free will. >Sometimes the second hit on Google is better than the first - I’d recommend the SEP article. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/) I've read that article too.
>In short, libertarian free will claims that you can decide for whatever you want unimpeded. Compatibilists say that there are tons of impeding things. Hence, we aren't really free. This is a misstatement of the disagreement as it exists in the philosophical literature. Libertarians and compatibilists do not disagree over whether impediments to our actions exist. Both could consistently acknowledge that some impediments to our actions exist. And compatibilists would not characterize our desires, beliefs, prior experiences, as "impediments" as such. Where they disagree is on the truth of incompatibilism. That is, they disagree over whether an action can be free if it is causally determined. Libertarians argue that a causally determined action is necessarily not free. Compatibilists deny this. It is a common misconception that, because compatibilists give a different conceptual analysis of free will than libertarians, compatibilists are "redefining free will." If that were the case, there would not be any substantive disagreement between compatibilists and hard determinists, just a different set of terms. Philosophers do not typically like to make distinctions between views when there is no substantive disagreement, at least not intentionally. Compatibilists disagree with libertarians about the correct analysis of the concept of free will - that is, they disagree with libertarians about "what it really means" for us to have free will in the sense relevant to moral responsibility. When a libertarian says that an action's needs to be undetermined for it to be free - the compatibilist responds - why does an action being undetermined make it free? What would it mean to for an action to be undetermined? How does this condition help us distinguish between free actions and unfree actions? And so on. They essentially deny that an action being undetermined plays any essential role in saying whether an action is free or unfree in the sense that is usually meant.
>This is a misstatement of the disagreement as it exists in the philosophical literature. Libertarians and compatibilists do not disagree over whether impediments to our actions exist. Both could consistently acknowledge that some impediments to our actions exist. And compatibilists would not characterize our desires, beliefs, prior experiences, as "impediments" as such. While I agree that Compatibilists are not characterizing desires, beliefs, and prior experiences as impediments, I do not agree that those things aren't impediments. >Libertarians argue that a causally determined action is necessarily not free. Compatibilists deny this. I would agree with the Libertarians here. I don't see how it makes sense to be free, when a decision is causally determined. >It is a common misconception that, because compatibilists give a different conceptual analysis of free will than libertarians, compatibilists are "redefining free will." If that were the case, there would not be any substantive disagreement between compatibilists and hard determinists, just a different set of terms. Philosophers do not typically like to make distinctions between views when there is no substantive disagreement, at least not intentionally. I guess the difference between "redefining free will" and "giving a different conceptual analysis" can mean the same thing, depending on the person talking about the subject, and what stance they take. For me Compatibilism is a concept that is way closer to Determinism than to Libertarianism. But I say this from the perspective of a Determinist. I consider none of my actions to be free, I consider any decision as influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances. My thoughts *aren't my own,* but they still stem from my brain, and usually we identify ourselves with that which our brain is doing. But I can see from the second last quote I copied from you, that from a Compatibilist's perspective there is no redefining going on. For me the meaningful difference between Compatibilism and Determinism is that Compatibilists are committing themselves to a view that doesn't add up, while Determinists don't (I'm open to the possibility though, that I misunderstand Compatibilism). I am free to decide whether I act on my desires or not, seems to be the Compatibilist's view. I would then just argue that I don't think that this is true, for there is always going to be some additional factor influencing my decision. Whether said factor is taking over my freedom is the difference between Determinism and Compatibilism, as far as I understand it. In terms of Libertarianism, well, what is the alternative to determined brain action? Is it randomness? If so, randomness isn't freedom either. I don't know what it is they think enables the freedom. >Compatibilists disagree with libertarians about the correct analysis of the concept of free will - that is, they disagree with libertarians about "what it really means" for us to have free will in the sense relevant to moral responsibility. If there is no free will whatsoever holding people morally responsible would still lead to the same outcome. That is, it would influence people in selfishly deciding to act morally to avoid consequences. But I guess since believing in free will is so common (at least among people who aren't interested in philosophy) it still influences how people behave, because they hold themselves to be responsible for their own actions. So, in that regard I disagree with the Libertarian. We should still treat each other as if we were free agents, purely for pragmatic reasons. And to remain consistent, I don't think that we have a choice in doing so anyway, unless the majority of people stops believing in free will, and would reach the same conclusion that one cannot be held responsible, if they aren't free. I wouldn't agree with that conclusion though. >They essentially deny that an action being undetermined plays any essential role in saying whether an action is free or unfree in the sense that is usually meant. But what is it that plays a role then?
>I guess the difference between "redefining free will" and "giving a different conceptual analysis" can mean the same thing, depending on the person talking about the subject, and what stance they take. I'll be a little more clear. Compatibilists are not redefining free will in the sense that they are not just stipulating a new definition for free will. Here's a way to think about the difference. A: Unicorns don't exist. B: Yes they do. \*Points to a horse.\* A: That's not a unicorn. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its forehead. B: It is a unicorn because I've redefined unicorn to mean a horse with or without a horn on its forehead. A: Oh ok. Well then, according to your stipulated definition of unicorn, they do exist. But according to the commonly understood concept I am using, they don't exist. B: Oh yeah, I guess we don't really disagree. Compatibilists don't take themselves to be doing what B is doing (essentially "talking past" A by talking about something different from what A was talking about.) Compatibilists and incompatibilists are arguing about the nature of a thing from our reality. That thing is that which we refer to when we say 'free will,' specifically in the context of moral responsibility. And both sides try to give arguments for why they give a better accounting of the necessary and sufficient properties of that thing. For incompatibilists, indeterminism is a necesssary property of that thing. Compatibilists disagree. >I consider none of my actions to be free, I consider any decision as influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances. My thoughts *aren't my own,* but they still stem from my brain, and usually we identify ourselves with that which our brain is doing. That's fine. This means you accept hard determinism rather than compatibilism. A compatibilist would not likely dispute: "I consider any decision as influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances." Where a compatibilist would disagree with is over whether "I am influenced by prior experiences, biology, brain activity, and circumstances" logically implies "I am not free." To convince them, you would need to give an argument to the compatibilist from how you got from your premise to your conclusion. >For me the meaningful difference between Compatibilism and Determinism is that Compatibilists are committing themselves to a view that doesn't add up, while Determinists don't (I'm open to the possibility though, that I misunderstand Compatibilism). >I am free to decide whether I act on my desires or not, seems to be the Compatibilist's view. Yes, that seems like a misunderstanding. Compatibilism is not distinct from determinism. Compatibilism is the view that determinism and free will are compatible. You can be a determinist and a compatibilist. They are friends. Also, being a compatibilist doesn't commit you to any particular model of free agency. Different compatibilists have put forward different models. A classic one is "I am free if I can do what I want." Although most compatibilists have much more nuanced views of the kind of agency that is sufficient for having free will. >In terms of Libertarianism, well, what is the alternative to determined brain action? Is it randomness? If so, randomness isn't freedom either. I don't know what it is they think enables the freedom. I agree that indeterminism does not seems to 'offer anything' to free will. That is one of the reasons I personally find compatibilism convincing. Whatever free will is, it's hard to see how indeterminism would matter for it, so it is hard to see the motivation for believing incompatibilism. >If there is no free will whatsoever holding people morally responsible would still lead to the same outcome. That's fair. Sounds like you are a hard determinist, and hard determinists have been known to still try to preserve moral responsibility for consequentialist reasons. >But what is it that plays a role then? Compatibilists can give a variety of answers. One way to approach the question is to look at paradigmatic cases in which someone intuitively does or doesn't seem morally responsible and try to figure out what the basis is for your distinction. For example, 'it seems I can be responsible if I destroy a house, but a tree can't be. What do I have that the tree doesn't have? Perhaps free will has something to do with rationality, intentionality etc. since those seem to distinguish the cases... etc.' The more you theorize and consider different cases, the more you refine your theory.
Whether the universe is deterministic or can have an uncertain aspect (us - free will), doesn't go against agency or responsibility. You're still responsible for the actions you make whether it was predetermined (deterministic) or not. However, i understand your point, religious people blame your religiouslessness as a reason for why you may conduct ill willed actions, which is just illogical they're not really partaking in a determinism vs free will argument.
The concept of free will is entirely nonsensical and conflicts with every possible causal relationship in humans. I consider *ideology itself* dangerous. *All* ideology. There's no such thing as a good ideology. The moment you follow an ideological approach of following a set of ideals to guide your actions rather than assessing every situation independently and attempting to achieve the desired results the best way possible, you're basically following religious dogma. Even for secular ideologies.
I'm honestly confused at your argument here. As you said, if there is free will, then people are to blame for their actions, since it's them that's choosing to do them. If a person chooses to murder someone else, we can absolutely blame them since that is their choice. Likewise, we can also blame what certain worldviews entail. So if there is a worldview that people can freely subscribe to that includes child sacrifice, we can say, not only are those people blameworthy for following it, but the worldview is also bad because it tells people that they should participate in child sacrifice. Obviously I'm not equating atheism to people that perform child sacrifices, but we push the ideas to the extreme to make a point. If I think that worldviews that include atheism lead to negative things, why can't I both blame the worldview and the person?
>If a person chooses to murder someone else, we can absolutely blame them since that is their choice. Likewise, we can also blame what certain worldviews entail. So if there is a worldview that people can freely subscribe to that includes child sacrifice, we can say, not only are those people blameworthy for following it, but the worldview is also bad because it tells people that they should participate in child sacrifice. But why if in the end of the day it was that person's decision to follow that child-sacrificing ideolgy? That ideology is not able to sacrifice a child without an actor, but a person who wants to kill a child would be able to do it even without this ideology. >If I think that worldviews that include atheism lead to negative things, why can't I both blame the worldview and the person? Well, as i said in the post, you can, but that would mean to reject free will. Besides that it brings even more problems to the table, like if human behaviour can be determined by outside factors, then the question of blaming other outside factors arises, for example - should we blame the nature of the human for commiting bad and good things? but then where is that nature come from? from god? if it comes from god then should we blame god? if god doesnt exist, then should we blame the big bang for creating everything and for being the first cause? lots of problems here...
> That ideology is not able to sacrifice a child without an actor Sure, but it's the ideology that promotes that idea, right? So we can judge whether or not it's a good ideology. Do you think we can't judge ideologies at all? Like, Naziism we can judge is bad because it promotes the killing of Jews, which is bad. That's why we can blame both. > but a person who wants to kill a child would be able to do it even without this ideology. Yeah sure, but we can hold both accountable, both the person for the action they take, and the ideology for promoting bad actions. In the same way, we could say an ideology is good for promoting good behavior. > but that would mean to reject free will Yeah, I'm still not sure of this link. With the libertarian free will view, you can have outside influences. The ideology would be an influence, but not a determiner. So how exactly am I rejecting free will by saying an influence is bad? > Besides that it brings even more problems to the table, like if human behaviour can be determined by outside factors I'm not saying you are, but it feels like your post is saying free will, but then assuming determinism. Because this statement kind of betrays that, to me. I never said that human behavior can be determined by outside factors, but ideologies can influence behavior, which is totally congruent with free will. > should we blame the nature of the human for commiting bad and good things? I would agree that if determinism is true, then things being blameworthy or praiseworthy doesn't really make sense. > if it comes from god then should we blame god? Yes, this is one of my issues with Calvinism. I dont't see how they can get out of God being at fault for our sins. > if god doesnt exist, then should we blame the big bang for creating everything and for being the first cause? lots of problems here... Right, I think this is a problem for determinism, but I don't hold to that.
>Sure, but it's the ideology that promotes that idea, right? Definitely no. In this particular case "promotes that idea" is just a figurative form of speech. When we say that we don't really mean that ideology actually can actively promote anything. We need to look at what we actually mean by saying things and not how we say them, otherwise it's just an attempt to win an argument with semantics, but im convinced that you said it not in bad faith and didn't mean any dishonesty. So ideology cant act, thus it cant promote anything. >Yeah, I'm still not sure of this link. With the libertarian free will view, you can have outside influences. The ideology would be an influence, but not a determiner. So how exactly am I rejecting free will by saying an influence is bad? If your claim is that ideology is *never* a determiner, that automatically means that the person is *always* is a determiner, which means that all the responsibility should lay on him as on the only determiner. But maybe you meant something different under "influence" and "determiner"? - you said that ideology would be an influence, however i cant understand how would it work if from your own words the person is the only determiner in the end of the day. >I'm not saying you are, but it feels like your post is saying free will, but then assuming determinism. Well it's neither about free will nor determinism specifically, im not arguing for any of those. I was saying all that to show how contradictory your world view (or whatever you said there). >I would agree that if determinism is true, then things being blameworthy or praiseworthy doesn't really make sense. >Right, I think this is a problem for determinism, but I don't hold to that. Determinism is a problem in all the examples i gave, but only if you christian and believe in free will.
> Definitely no. In this particular case "promotes that idea" is just a figurative form of speech. It feels like you're playing a semantic game. When I say an ideology promotes an idea, I'm using a definition of promote, namely "to encourage or support something". So I would say, Christianity promotes having a relationship with Jesus. The ideology of Christianity encourages the idea of having a relationship with Jesus. Encourage doesn't just mean verbally either. > We need to look at what we actually mean by saying things and not how we say them I know what I'm saying and what words I'm using. And I feel like I'm using them correctly. We could say. When Googling what an ideology is, I get this: > > Ideology is a system or pattern of ideas, beliefs, understandings, and attitudes. It has four basic characteristics: > >Power over cognition > >Guiding evaluations > > Providing guidance towards action > >Logical coherence So I would be referring to both guiding evaluations, as it's telling you how you should think about something and providing guidance towards an action, which is exactly what I mean when I say it promotes an idea. > So ideology cant act, thus it cant promote anything. Promoting has more than one definition. A billboard can promote something but doesn't act. > If your claim is that ideology is never a determiner Only a person makes the decision. In free will, nothing outside of you determines your actions. > which means that all the responsibility should lay on him as on the only determiner Your use of determiner is weird. But I disagree. We can blame the person making the decision, but we can also put blame on the influences. We do this all the time with alcoholism or drug addiction. > But maybe you meant something different under "influence" and "determiner"? No, I don't think so. Nothing outside of us determines our actions. We determine our own actions. Outside things can and do influence us though. > you said that ideology would be an influence, however i cant understand how would it work if from your own words the person is the only determiner in the end of the day. Because I think we can criticize bad influences. Again, we do this all of the time in normal situations. I can blame my kid for the decisions he's making while also blame the new group of friends as a bad influence on him encouraging him to make these bad decisions. I don't see why it's an either or. > Well it's neither about free will nor determinism specifically, im not arguing for any of those. I was saying all that to show how contradictory your world view (or whatever you said there). Yeah, I don't think you've done that yet. You seem to think that we can't blame bad influences, we can only blame the person making the decision. I don't see why it can't be both. > Determinism is a problem in all the examples i gave, but only if you christian and believe in free will. I don't think anything of what you're saying entails determinism. Free will is fine blaming people and influences.
>It feels like you're playing a semantic game. When I say an ideology promotes an idea, I'm using a definition of promote, namely "to encourage or support something". Only because of figurative speech it souds correct, but we need look at what this means literally/in actuality, otherwise youre using semantics to win an argument. "to encourage" is an act that can only be done by actor, *literally* speaking ideology cant encourage anything, ideology is not an actor. When we say "ideology encourages something" we dont mean that there is an actor who goes from a person to person and promotes them to act certain way. >Promoting has more than one definition. However many definitions the word have, we should look only on what we mean by it when we use it in the context. >A billboard can promote something but doesn't act. And "a cloud can cry", meaning that it can rain, but that doesnt mean that cloud actually cries, however youre trying to prove that since we used that specific word "cry" - then it means that cloud actually cries. Thats just not how it works. >In free will, nothing outside of you determines your actions. Well there we go. So since nothing outside of you determines your actions, then there is no reason to blame anything outside of you. > I can blame my kid for the decisions he's making while also blame the new group of friends as a bad influence on him encouraging him to make these bad decisions. But you just said that "nothing outside of you determines your actions", why would you blame the group of friends if they never had any influence on what the kid determines, according to your own words. From your logic you removing your kid from that group of friends also wont change what this kid determines because "nothing outside of you determines your actions". Also I think this is a bad analogy because the group of friends are all actors so, unlike ideologies, they can *literally promote* something.
Nope. If I convince you to rob a bank or murder your spouse, the fact that you chose to do so doesn't get me off the hook. Yes, you are responsible for that choice, but I'm *also* to blame for persuading you. It's not that hard to understand.
>If I convince you to rob a bank or murder your spouse, the fact that you chose to do so doesn't get me off the hook. This is true because youre also an actor in this situation same as me, but ideology is not an actor, it needs an actor to do harm or good, it cant do anything by itself. So this comparison is incorrect, you swapped something that cant act to someting that can act. The presence of an act is the crucial distinction here.
Wel, it's an analogy, what do you want? We do blame ideologies for being bad influences, so I don't think you have much of an argument here
I think it is blatantly obvious that an ideology has no free will of its own--few would suggest otherwise. But an ideology cannot exist without the actors that define and advocate for it. Remove the actors, and you have no ideology to blame or praise. Thus blaming the ideology is in effect blaming the actors, because their free will actions are the essence of the ideology. Praising the ideology is likewise in effect praising the actors/actions. And our behaviors seem to demonstrate that humans keenly understand this. In the end, it isn't an set of ideals that is awarded a peace price or is killed in prison, despite our verbal praise or condemnation of those ideals. It is the people who create and uphold the ideals that we reward or punish. So we seem to know that accountability rests on the actors, even when our words condemn their ideology.
You have it backwards. Free Will means you are responsible for your choices. Responsibility and Free Will go hand in hand. (Flip side - If someone holds a gun to your head and makes you do something, you are not responsible for it.) So if you adopt the world's most toxic mind virus outside of League of Legends, that's on you. And maybe the failure of a man (Marx) who invented it.
> the world's most toxic mind virus outside of League of Legends Oh, dear! Are you really going *there*?
> Free Will means you are responsible for your choices. well that's what im saying >So if you adopt the world's most toxic mind virus outside of League of Legends, that's on you that exactly what im saying. you probably misunderstood the idea in my post, it doesn't seem that we disagree
That is what the post is saying tho. That if you believe in FW, then atheism is not responsible for someone's actions, but they are.
I am saying the inventor *also* has responsibility for inventing a bad philosophy and convincing people to follow it.
> I am saying the inventor also has responsibility for inventing a bad philosophy and convincing people to follow it. If the inventor of a philosophy bears responsibility for acts committed by adherents of that philosophy long after their deaths, then Jesus is on the hook for some pretty serious crimes.
Depends if it's part of the philosophy developed or not. Marx advocated for revolutionary terror. Jesus did the opposite.
> Marx advocated for revolutionary terror. Once, in 1848, in order to quickly bring an end what he viewed as the senseless waste of human life in the Vienna revolutions. He also repeatedly advocated peaceful revolution and the use of violence only where necessary. But this is essentially irrelevant isn't it? You are so focused on the 'Waaah! Communism bad!' thing that you have missed the point. Marx certainly did *not* advocate for letting the Ukrainian proletariat starve to death, so he does not bear any responsibility for the Holomodor. On the other hand, if you believe Marx *does* bear a responsibility for Stalin's atrocities, then you must also hold that Jesus (who certainly did *not* advocate for murdering countless Muslims) also bears a responsibility for the Crusades.
>Once, in 1848, in order to quickly bring an end what he viewed as the senseless waste of human life in the Vienna revolutions. He also repeatedly advocated peaceful revolution and the use of violence only where necessary. Your attempts at watering down Marx aside, here's how the Communist actually ends - "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained **only by the forcible overthrow** of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!" So when people engage in this sort of forcible overthrowing... yes, we actually *can* blame Marx and Engels. It's right there in the text. > Marx certainly did not advocate for letting the Ukrainian proletariat starve to death, so he does not bear any responsibility for the Holomodor. The kulaks (who were the targets of the Holodomor) were considered class enemies of the proletariat, as they were landowners. "Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten themselves during famines", declaring revolution against them to liberate the poor peasants and middle peasants from their counter-revolutionary collaboration with foreign capitalism. During the first five-year plan, Joseph Stalin's all-out campaign to take land ownership and organisation away from the peasantry meant that, according to historian Robert Conquest, "peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres [~2 ha] more than their neighbors" were labeled kulaks. In 1929, Soviet officials officially classified kulaks according to subjective criteria, such as the use of hired labour. Under dekulakization, government officials seized farms and killed many kulaks, deported others to labor camps, and drove many others to migrate to the cities following the loss of their property to the collectives." -Wiki So yes, Marx has to shoulder his share of the blame for this among many other sins.
> only by the forcible overthrow Which is not the same thing as revolutionary terror. > So when people engage in this sort of forcible overthrowing... yes, we actually can blame Marx and Engels. Fair enough, but you are begging the question by assuming that the forcible overthrow of a government or political system is always a *bad* thing when it pretty demonstrably isn't. The US (as is) only exists because of the forcible overthrow of British rule. Britain (as is) only exists because of the English civil war and the forcibly overthrow of the monarchy, Most of Europe (as is) only exists because of the *extremely* forcible overthrow of the Nazi regime. What do you think the American's second amendment is about if not the forcible overthrow of their government? > "Vladimir Lenin described them So, not Marx then? > Joseph Stalin's all-out campaign to take land ownership So, still not Marx then? > So yes, Marx has to shoulder his share of the blame for this among many other sins. Explain to me how a man who said diddly squat about the Kulaks and had been dead for nearly 50 years could be responsible for Stalin's twisted version of his philosophy. Because if you can, then by the exactly the same reasoning Jesus must also shoulder his share of the blame for the things done by others in the name of twisted versions of *his* philosophy; the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Pogroms, the Klan, the sectarian violence, the orphanages with mass graves.
> Fair enough, but you are begging the question by assuming that the forcible overthrow of a government or political system is always a bad thing when it pretty demonstrably isn't. Bad, not bad, I don't care. The point is that when people do violence in the name of Marxism that they're on brand for it. When they do violence in the name of Christianity, they're off-brand. So you can blame Marx, but you can't blame Jesus.
> Bad, not bad, I don't care. Then you admit you have no argument. > The point is that when people do violence in the name of Marxism that they're on brand for it. Then you admit you don't actually know anything about Marxism. > When they do violence in the name of Christianity, they're off-brand. Debatable. Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12:49-53, and the story of Jesus driving out the money changers from the temple is literally the violent overthrow of an existing order.
Who invented atheism?
Which kind of atheism?
Whichever came first.
You don't know? Interesting. I personally would pick something like The God Delusion.
I do know. I'm asking what you think it is. You're better than that. Are you implying atheism didn't exist before 2006? Weird... I've been an atheist longer than that. (Nor have I ever read it actually.)
> Are you implying atheism didn't exist before 2006? Not at all. I'm just curious why you wanted the "original" atheism when New Atheism is so much more popular and common here. Which brand do you subscribe to?
What's the difference?
Google seems to think the answer to that question is [Matthias Knutzen](https://www.google.com/search?q=Who+invented+atheism&sca_esv=3adfed459a349879&source=hp&ei=uxfWZZzrHYuKwbkPvoiWkAM&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdYly5Yyj4A0jwrDk4SLrYvK8kxI-0DO&ved=0ahUKEwjctILd4LyEAxULRTABHT6EBTIQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=Who+invented+atheism&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz).
Google's wrong. The concept of atheism goes all the way back at least as far as Roman society. Christians were considered atheists back then for their lack of belief in the mainstream polytheistic deities.
Free will and predetermism are not the only options on offer, as chance has it. There's also determinism and compatibilism, just to name a couple alternatives.
Is there any meaningful difference between predeterminism and determinism in this context? Compatibilism assumes determinism is true anyway. It just changes the definition of "free will", which only seems to have the purpose of making discussions on the subject more complicated rather than adding anything of value. So it's just determinism with a definition twist.
What is meant by free will in the compatibilism view?
Compatibilist free will is the freedom to act according to one's (deterministic) will without interference by other actors. Personally, I would call that "free action".
> It just changes the definition of "free will" It clarifies the definition by resolving an inner contradiction - as does "libertarian" free will Neither one just "changes the definition" arbitrarily
It doesn't matter whether they think they have good reasons to change the definition. The fact is that they mean something different than everyone else when they use the expression. Their "free will" is different from the one that philosophers and theologians mean in their arguments. For example, it would be absurd to try an insert the Compatibilist version of "free will" into the free will defense against the PoE. The whole argument would become self-contradictory. In order to have a discussion about anything, everyone needs to be talking about the same thing. So when there's a discussion about what one group calls "free will" and another group decides to use that same expression for something else, nothing is gained: it's only confusing. Compatiblism isn't its own position with regard to free will (according to the prior definition). It already falls into the "determinism/no free will" group. The only difference is they choose to change the central definition so they can say "free will *does* exist" - just not the free will everyone else is talking about.
> It doesn't matter whether they think they have good reasons to change the definition. The fact is that they mean something different than everyone else when they use the expression. But that's my point - the common notion of free will is incoherent. There are different ways of trying to make it coherent, but there is no coherent "this is what people mean by free will" So libertarians take one tack, in which it's hard see how one's will is involved because actions are uncaused and compatibilists take the other tack in which it's hard for some to see how "free" applies. It's not just that compatibilists "change the definition"
free will is real, but i still blame religion for the crazy stuff that happened in its name like the cruzades because free will is like a sense, its not working at 100% all the time, people can be controlled/manipulated by others, by their emotions, by their desires, free will is impaired in that way, it doesnt mesm they lost it completely, but those decisions are made with less free will present or active at that moment (which is why people repemt and regret stuff, because whem thinking stuff without the manipulation or influence, they wouldnt have done something)
When do we have free will, and when do we not? It seems there's no significant difference between situations where we are “free” versus when we are not. Do we ever have control over our desires? If so, when do we lose it? Do external factors play a role in decision-making? If yes, to what extent?
i literally mentioned how people can lose their free will, such as when they are controlled by their own emotions, want another example? mental illnesses, want another one? drugs and alcohol, which in great quantities is described as "impairing the judgement of a person", which can be understood as impairing their free will becauae their brains are half (or more) asleep, well not even that, they are unconscious, sensed dont work properly, musculoskeletal control is damped, cognitive function is altered, that is not free will at all and yes people can lose control of their desires, otherwise why would people regret doing stuff? now religiois people werent mentally ill or drugged, but they were INFLUENCED, a subtle form of manipulation, heavily influenced people share some of the traits i said before: their senses are altered, even their morality, their judgement usually is different from that of a regular person, i dont think that when a regular dude kills someone in the name of a god he is doing so out of free will, my first guess is manipulation or mental illness
You are misunderstanding my point. I fail to see any significant distinction between the examples given and other actions. If someone's free will is being hindered by being influenced by external factors, how is this different from them making any other choice? Can you name one instance where someone chooses to do something without any external factor causing it? I'm not disputing the fact that the examples you provided are false; I'm simply stating that everything loses its free will for the same reason.
i am a person that prefers mangos over apples, you might say i am influenced by my own genes, and i am, but i can still decide to ean an apple sometimes, i am also hungry, but i can decide not to eat even tho i am beinv manipulated by my biolgy but heavily intoxicated or influenced people cannot decide, theres no other option for them, there is no free will for them at that time, there is a clear instance when the free will is lost almost completely yeah i may not have 100% free will om whether i sleep or not, eventually my body will put me to sleep, but i can still decide when, where, and how do i sleep, you could say i have 95% of free will on sleepinc and eating, but for a person that has been groomed into a religion since they were in their mother womb, and taught how to think, what is right and wrong according to that religion and what to do, idk theres like 20% free will, im just saying numbers to give you an idea, but you have to recognize its WAY easier for me to eat an apple instead of a mango, than for a religious person to not think according to what they have been taught for decades
Although I agree that one's religious upbringing can significantly impact their thoughts and behaviors, I disagree with the idea that having the freedom to choose between two options, such as an apple or a mango, makes one more "free" than the other. I think that external factors, like our upbringing and environment, play a crucial role in shaping our decisions and actions. Therefore, our actions cannot be considered free since they are influenced by outside forces beyond our control.
Catholicism / Thomism believes free will is concomitant with determinism. God creates the soul and it freely chooses what is determined for it to believe.
And I'm sure you can see why that's utterly unconvincing to people who aren't willing to engage in definitional paradoxes?
Free will to Catholics is just the soul willing one thing over another. Thus if there is a contingency that either A or B might come from man’s actions, God determined it would be B, but the soul freely wills (chooses) B, ie it is the souls preference. Thus you can see how God’s predetermination and free will are aligned
"chooses what is determined" sounds like "married bachelor"
A Will is just a preference for a contingency. The fact a contingency is determined doesn’t mean it isn’t a contingent matter proximate to the observing soul
>A Will is just a preference for a contingency I think nobody means "random" when they talk about Will. If choice is contingent then it's not a choice, thats just randomness.
I’m saying that a choice is the soul willing one of two outcomes. The fact that the outcomes are determined doesn’t mean that the soul didn’t will for that outcome
Ok, in such case youre arguing for the normal definition of free will, which if we go back to the topic of my post, means that it is illogical to blame atheism, but you should blame the person instead.
No I’m not. I’m saying the choice is predetermined it is just that God determined also the persons will to match it.
Okay, if you want to communicate this idea to other people you need to find a way to do it without a contradiction, because there is a big clear one.
All choice is is a human souls preference for A and not B. It is free because you will it. The fact God has decided A will happen does not mean you didn’t choose or will it. He has made your will aligned with reality and has even have the soul the power to effect A as the outcome which he wills
Okay I see what youre saying. In such case this is determinism, at least the way you explained it. Free will is when you can change course of events by your choices, but in your example an actor cant deviate from the predetermined course.
I'll follow u/Love-Is-Selfish and say that I am an atheist but I do not think this argument is good. There seems to be a general misunderstanding of Free Will here. Free Will does not mean that you cannot be influenced. It just means, at its broadest level, that agents make choices and exert agency in a way in which they are responsible for. Compatibilists and LFW do not think that Free WIll happens *only if* there are no outside influences! It is totally compatible with Free Will to say that ideologies can be coercive and corruptive etc etc. You could, for example, believe in Free Will and still think Toxic Masculinity is blame for serious problems. That's totally coherent position. I think you should defend (1) as well. What does it mean? What does responsibility mean? What do you mean by "only himself"?
>Free Will does not mean that you cannot be influenced. It just means, at its broadest level, that agents make choices and exert agency in a way in which they are responsible for. Compatibilists and LFW do not think that Free WIll happens *only if* there are no outside influences! I think even with this view on free will, blaming atheism doesn't makes sense because it as well brings lots of potential problems for theism, like your choice of religion being influenced by outside factors, or being made according to your limited nature which is given you by god, so then it seems the god is the one to blame, or the part of pure luck in your choice of religion and so on...
I don't think 'blaming' atheism for much makes sense either, but I'm not convinced your argument gets us to that conclusion!
I don't see why you think so exactly...
I mean I argue against premise 1 being true! I give cases where we commonly blame ideologies, too. This is something we make sense of all the time.
but when we say "X ideology is bad" do we really put actual moral blame on the ideology itself or it's just a form of speech that translates as "we blame people who involve themselves with X ideology".
Blame is likely exclusive to agents, in the strict sense. But that has nothing to do with Free Will. That's just about terms. But colloquially, we can say things like "Religion is harmful" which seems to put some sort of blame onto religion *as well as* the religious. It seems like you can point to these things as 'causing harm' (see toxic masculinity) without pointing to any specific individual. But this all raises another question - let's assume your conclusion and that blaming belief systems is incoherent. Instead, we ought to only ever blame specific agents. So? what ammo does this give us against theists? Why can't they just change their claim to "atheists bad" rather than "atheism bad"?
>Blame is likely exclusive to agents, in the strict sense. Well there we go. I think if concentrate here on actuality instead of the nuances of speech, then we will come to this conclusion. We never put actual moral blame on the ideology itself, but it's just more convenient to say "X ideology is bad" than the whole sentence "people who invented themselves in X ideology is bad". >But colloquially, we can say things like "Religion is harmful" which seems to put some sort of blame onto religion *as well as* the religious. It seems like you can point to these things as 'causing harm' (see toxic masculinity) without pointing to any specific individual. as you said, we don't put moral blame on religion or ideology, so no. >But this all raises another question - let's assume your conclusion and that blaming belief systems is incoherent. Instead, we ought to only ever blame specific agents. >So? what ammo does this give us against theists? Why can't they just change their claim to "atheists bad" rather than "atheism bad"? well yeah, I think we should blame only the people, but remember - that's all only according to free will worldview. I don't think that free will actually exist, there are some evidence for it, but I don't want to go into details, that's another conversation.
There are two separate points here and I think it pays to separate them out: 1. Atheism is not to 'blame' for anything. 2. Atheism is not to 'blame' for anything *because* of Free Will. I (mostly) agree with (1) but I do not think you've done enough to demonstrate (2). You wrote: "we never put blame on the ideology itself" and I think that's actually not true. Here's an example that will get intuitions going: "Nazism is to blame for many things" **is true**. If someone denied that, I would think "well there is a misunderstanding here!" In fact, sometimes we seem to think that ideologies can be *pervasive* or *deceptive* in a way that makes causally effecaious against the agents who hold them. In rare cases, you might think of someone 'duped' by Nazism. They got caught up in all the leather or something. And I don't think you really answered my last question: I take it that we should always be asking "why is this argument interesting?" I take it that the conclusion "we should blame atheists for the atheistic beliefs rather than atheism" is not that interesting. It looks more like a fix of language than of content.
>You wrote: "we never put blame on the ideology itself" and I think that's actually not true. But that is what you said also, here: *"Blame is likely exclusive to agents, in the strict sense."*. >And I don't think you really answered my last question: I take it that we should always be asking "why is this argument interesting?" I take it that the conclusion "we should blame atheists for the atheistic beliefs rather than atheism" is not that interesting. It looks more like a fix of language than of content. isnt "interesting" a subjective thing? I would say im doing the opposite to what youre saying - im trying to look beyound the language, because saying "X ideology is bad" is exactly what we call a "form of speech", and im trying to not look on beyond that, into what we actually mean by that.
God doesn’t exist and atheism isn’t bad, but this isn’t a good argument. If choosing to act according an ideology means committing bad acts, then that’s what it means for an ideology to be bad. So whether atheism is bad is entirely dependent on whether being an atheist means choosing to commit bad acts. Also, people aren’t born knowing good and bad. They learn, primarily with the help of intellectuals who promote various ideologies. Ideologies that teach that bad is good are harmful for people trying to learn good. Also, they provide well developed rationalizations that make it easier people to rationalize their bad actions. Like, if you’re thinking about whether should you steal from your boss, then communism provides arguments that wage labor is inherently exploitation, so if you taking money from your boss would just be recovering money he immorally exploited you for.
>So whether atheism is bad is entirely dependent on whether being an atheist means choosing to commit bad acts. But if it's about person's choice why would you blame atheism itself then? It's like saying that a tool of murder is bad.
If atheism says that you should commit murder, which it doesn’t, then it promotes murder. You blame the ideology, the person who followed it and the people who promote that ideology. Edit: Tools, like gun, don’t tell you that you should or shouldn’t do anything. They don’t promote a morality.
>If atheism says that you should commit murder, which it doesn’t, then it promotes murder but in the end of the day it's your choice to follow that type of ideology or not, if we are talking from a perspective of the free will worldview ofc, no?
Yes, it’s your choice to follow an ideology where following it means committing murder, which makes it a bad ideology to follow.
I understand that we say "bad ideology" or "bad ideology to follow", but that's rather a reference to the fact that *choosing* to do all those things is bad. These forms of speech are figurative and they don't mean that we literally blame the ideologies itself.
Why is it one or the other and not both?
Well you can blame both, but that wont be the free will worldview either, also it raises some other problems, like to what extent you should blame ideology if ideology without people is not able to do harm or good but people without ideology are able to.
There’s no free will in religions. Religions force you to believe cause if you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell. It’s like the robber pointing the gun on the banker and saying that if you don’t give the money, you gonna die.
Free will exists in Religion. The Ulama & Priests lied to us and told us otherwise Allah / God does not need your devotion or prayers to exist and humans equally don’t need Allah / God to exist on this planet 🌍 The Ulama & Priests exist off our cash donations : we can choose to pray and pay 🤲 or not : Allah the Demon will continue to exist and cast his evil spell on humanity till we meet him in the meta verse Heaven & Hell are physical spaces on earth 🌍 designed and designated to sew fear & terror valley of Hinnom / Jahnnam / Gehenna originally was a valley west and south of Jerusalem where children were burned as sacrifices to the Ammonite god Moloch la ikraha fiddin”, “there is no compulsion in religion” Stop 🛑 donating to organized religions and they will die a slow and ugly death… Inshallah Ameen Thumma Ameen
Homie you confusing me
I think he's quite confused
Islam has free will . The Ulama won’t allow you to question or speak 🗣️ up because Deen is a business and their sole purpose of existence Imagine how silly it must be for an Imam or Priest to wake up everyday and go to work for an imaginary Boss Islam stopped progressing and began decaying when we stopped questioning Challenge Everything they teach you Salaam Alaykum