• popcap200@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well. I’m personally agnostic as I don’t have the knowledge to make a decision.

    If we are all just atoms moving/reacting, surely everything we’d ever do would be predetermined by the initial reactions/vectors/forces at the big bang. I know there’s quantum randomness and stuff, but it’s possible that’s all calculable and we simply don’t have the means to calculate it. If that’s the case, IMO we still have freewill because we can’t predict the future, and it’s still worthwhile to move forward doing our best to be good people.

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      This isn’t a problem for athiests, I am a determinist athiest, we have no free will and the idea is silly in a place governed by physical laws. It honestly doesn’t matter at all to me and I don’t see any reason to care.

      it’s a problem for theists because this is supposed to be a big test, god is checking if we belong in heaven. If we have no free will the test makes no sense at all.

      • eru@mouse.chitanda.moe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        not a christian, but it is a problem for atheists depending on your framework of morality

        traditionally, determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility since all actions are predetermined and it is not obvious that one can be held morally responsible for them. you have to do some mental gymnastics with either the nature of causation (see hume), or the nature of morality (see error theory), or the nature of what exactly ‘freedom’ is (see john stewart mill) to resolve this incompatibility

        to the problem of the theist test, standard christian doctrine is that your fate in heaven is predetermined and individuals have been pre-chosen by god (theological term is ‘the elect’). in that sense, your worldly life is not a ‘test’, but the idea is that the holy spirit reveals god to those who have been selected.

        there are philosophical problems with all of these, but just wanted to make the point that both theist and atheist philosophers have been debating this for hundreds of years and it is not at all actually obvious accepting hard determinism solves everything.

        • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          60 minutes ago

          traditionally, determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility since all actions are predetermined and it is not obvious that one can be held morally responsible for them.

          this is nonsense. You’re still making choices, just because you would’ve made those choices no matter what doesn’t mean your choices aren’t punishable or your fault. It’s not that you didn’t have a choice, it’s that you would’ve made that decision no matter what based on the laws of physics. These are not incompatible ideas, and I don’t get why people struggle with this. It’s very straightforward.

          to the problem of the theist test, standard christian doctrine is that your fate in heaven is predetermined and individuals have been pre-chosen by god (theological term is ‘the elect’). in that sense, your worldly life is not a ‘test’, but the idea is that the holy spirit reveals god to those who have been selected.

          this is also nonsense, the point was that it was a test, god should already know who’s going to be selected, if there’s no free will, this is still all pointless. Why does god need the holy spirit to do all that nonsense if it isn’t a test? If it’s predetermined, why did god make all these evil people that were just going to be miserable in hell anyway?

          • eru@mouse.chitanda.moe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            34 minutes ago

            It’s not that you didn’t have a choice, it’s that you would’ve made that decision no matter what based on the laws of physics

            in your view, what is the difference between having a forced decision and not having a choice? and why exactly would this forced choice be punishable in the same way a free one would be?

            the point was that it was a test, god should already know who’s going to be selected, if there’s no free will, this is still all pointless.

            a calvinist would not agree that the point is a test. read up on the ‘doctrine of unconditional election’ if you are curious. in brief, god makes decisions about who is saved and who isn’t not based on conditions they follow in their life, but based on his own purposes and goals.

            If it’s predetermined, why did god make all these evil people that were just going to be miserable in hell anyway?

            this is the problem of evil, there are numerous responses and the literature is extensive. again, a calvinist would probably say that he created evil people for his glory and grace. notably, jesus dying on the cross for humanity’s sins as a display of god’s grace does not make sense without the existence of evil.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      My take is that there is no free will, but that this fact is irrelevant and we’re all better off just behaving as though we do.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        At least here in the US, a person’s zip code of birth is a huge indicator of their success and life trajectory. That, to me, would seem to indicate that free will is bullshit.

        • eru@mouse.chitanda.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          why would that be a problem for free will?

          all it shows is that we cannot freely choose everything, it does not prove that we are not ever able to freely choose.

        • renzev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Hmm almost as if free will isn’t some magical ability to remove yourself from any disadvantageous situation, but a fundamental liberty to choose how you act in response to said situation and see in it a metaphysical meaning that transcends cultural ideas like success? Damn, wouldn’t that be crazy. If only that was true, could you imagine?

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Or in other words, “free will” is a macroscopic effect arising from the fundamental laws of the universe. Like most everything else we deal with.

        Like… temperature doesn’t really exist, it’s really just an average of kinetic energy of particles. But that doesn’t stop it from being a useful concept!

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Why are we better off behaving that way? Under that outlook, it seems like free will is a trap to hold people accountable for things they wouldn’t actually be responsible for.

        • bramkaandorp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It’s also very often used as an argument against rehabilitation in prisons:

          If free will exists, then crime is a choice. If you choose crime, you are a bad person, and punishment is the only way forward.

          If you commit the crime again, it’s because the punishment didn’t work, and/or because the person is simply bad, so a longer punishment is needed, and infinitum.

          It’s also used to justify the death penalty, which would not make any sense in a deterministic universe.

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s not a dilemma for atheists because atheists aren’t the ones claiming there’s an omnipotent being guiding everything.

      Also, you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. They cover different things. I’m fairly certain you’d consider yourself an atheist in regards to the sun god Ra.

        • Klear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I’m convinced it’s impossible for us to determine whether there are two gods or not.

          I’m a diagnostic.

          • bassomitron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Damnit, I just finished watching Alien Romulus and that’s a dad joke worthy for the android in it.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t think we know enough about the universe yet to be sure that cause/effect is 100% the be all end all. It sure seems like it is from where we’re standing now though, that’s for sure.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well.

      I’d like to hear your opinions on how you think so (truly). The way I see things, Atheism is only the answer to a single question: do you believe in any gods? If “yes,” you’re a theist or deist. If “no; I don’t know; not currently; maybe one day,” then you’re an atheist. It’s not a philosophy or a comprehensive worldview, and it can’t possibly answer deeper questions.

      What you’re referring to in the latter half is Determinism and Compatibilism (Determinism + free will). Science is currently leaning pretty strongly towards Determinism, but since Compatibilism doesn’t add much more to the idea, it’s also still a candidate possibility.

      It’s very likely you could calculate every chain reaction from the Big Stretch up until now and maybe even into the future. Whether we have the ability to affect or disrupt those chains might be a matter of philosophy.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That’s not how predetermination works. Just because there is an explosion does not mean that every particle has a preset location it must reach to enact a grander outcome of the combustion. Atheists don’t suffer from a need to have decisions rendered by an omnipotent being or a universe that is some stand-in for that being. There is no grand plan. The Big Bang was not some kick off for a well thought out schematic.

    • dontbelasagne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      But did you choose which atoms make up you? I think there is no free will because we’re don’t choose out of all options what atoms we get, we are just thrown into a random atom combination.