• popcap200@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    18 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.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I don’t think believing in fate (or a plan) is strongly correlated with atheism

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours 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
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours 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
            8 hours 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.

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

              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?

              In determinism, you still have free choices, it’s just you would’ve made that choice if time was reversed and played again, nothing changed so why would the result be different? You compared all the options, and decided to make that choice, and if we reversed time, and played it back, you’d still make that decision… but it’s not like the universe compelled you to make that decision, nobody FORCED you to make that choice, you still made a decision all on your own, even if we reversed time and you would’ve made the same one, that changes precisely nothing of importance.

              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.

              then he’s just a dickbag putting us all in a world to suffer for fun, when he could just make us all in heaven.

              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.

              yeah it doesn’t make any sense. that doesn’t actually make it make sense, that’s just a vague set of words. So god is a dickbag that needs worship why? Quite frankly like, any decent human being is better than this god, he’s just evil.

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

                Quite frankly like, any decent human being is better than this god, he’s just evil.

                incidentally, i agree with all this. but what a theist would probably say in response is that if god exists, he defines what evil is. what you perceive as evil is just your perception and can be wrong.

                its not a bad argument, but i believe contrarily we have deep moral intuitions and can generally rationalize them in a kantian way, i believe we can make moral judgements independently of god.

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

                  if god exists, he defines what evil is.

                  There’s no way to make babies having cancer moral. There’s no version of that god that is any good. If this isn’t a test, why give babies cancer?

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

                there is a bit of a shifting of goalposts here with respect to how you define making a ‘choice’ with regard to logical and physical possibility/impossibility.

                suppose i place a marble on a slope and let go. the marble rolls down due to gravity. did the marble ‘choose’ to roll down? it does not seem so.

                is it possible for the opposite to occur, that is, the marble to roll up?

                • logically? yes, there is nothing logically contradictory about the marble rolling up after i drop it
                • physically? no, due to the laws of gravity

                the logical possibility that the marble can roll upwards does not mean that it is a free will choice. replace the marble with an agent ‘choosing’ between options A and B, supposing the agent ‘chooses’ B. because you claim to be determinist, i take it you believe physics completely dictates the universe’s events, thus it is physical necessity that the agent ‘chooses’ B. however, it is logically possible for the agent to ‘choose’ A as choosing A does not entail anything logically contradictory.

                what is the difference in the case of the agent vs. the marble? or do you actually believe the marble ‘chooses’ to roll down?

                • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  what is the difference in the case of the agent vs. the marble?

                  The agent made its decision based on knowledge, reasoning, experience, the risks, the morals. A marble doesn’t have knowledge, humans do, even if we’re deterministic, we can make decisions, it’s just that the decision will be made no matter what. That doesn’t free us from the responsibility of our decisions.

                  Just because the agent would’ve never made a different choice, doesn’t mean these things don’t matter anymore, it’s wholly irrelevant to whether or not we should punish them.

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

                    Just because the agent would’ve never made a different choice, doesn’t mean these things don’t matter anymore, it’s wholly irrelevant to whether or not we should punish them.

                    i do not make claims about punishments for actions, but instead i am talking about moral responsibility. consider a cat knocking over my cup, compared to a child who does it on purpose. your inclination is to hold the child morally responsible but not the cat. though you may punish the cat, you would not think that the cat is capable of the type of moral reasoning a child is capable of.

                    it may help to consider the example of a tree falling accidentally by gravity and killing a person. is that tree morally responsible for murder?

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

                    if you haven’t noticed by now, im an incompatibilist (i do not believe determinism is compatible with free will)

                    we fundamentally disagree on what a ‘decision’ is. you believe that logical possibility is enough for free will, i don’t.

                    The agent made its decision based on knowledge, reasoning, experience, the risks, the morals

                    i argue that if you accept determinism, this is an illusion. you believe you are making a decision based on free will because it is logically possible that you can take any of the available options, but it in actuality it is no different than the marble, you are physically bound to a specific outcome.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 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
        ·
        16 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.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Not sure that’s true. Free will doesn’t mean anyone can do anything. It means any decisions a person makes are truly decided by them, and they actually could have made a different decision.

          People who don’t believe in free will believe that the physical laws of the universe are deterministic. That leptons and quarks behave in ways determined by their state. That this is true even inside your brain, and thus decisions you make are actually just the result of particles interacting. Even quantum effects, though random, are not consciously decided and thus do not affect free will.

          The circumstances you are in change the inputs to those equations, but they don’t change the fact that the equations exist.

        • eru@mouse.chitanda.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours 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
          ·
          11 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
        5
        ·
        16 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!

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I reckon we are so incredibly complex, are integrating so much information that from inside it’s hard to see if you’re deciding or selecting by rule your preferred path given what you know

          You can call the complexity free will, we’re all so different having had different parents, different childhood experiences, different education, different opportunities so each has their own solution that rises to the top in any situation

          But also brain scans have demonstrated that for minor stuff (like raising your hand) action precedes “deciding” to take the action.

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 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.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If you’re a complex machine whose action could be perfectly predicted (with full knowledge of everything you ever experienced) it’s still reasonable to punish you for breaking rules - the risk of punishment goes into your programming as part of the (deterministic) calculation of what action to take

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Because one of the many inputs to people’s actions, if we assume that their actions are deterministic, is their knowledge of how other people will respond, and how they have responded to similar things in the past.

        • bramkaandorp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          14 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
      12
      ·
      17 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.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I’m mostly agnostic to it almost all of it. For all I know, the ancient Egyptians were spot on.

        • Klear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 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
            ·
            14 hours ago

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

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 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
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 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.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 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.

    • dontbelasagne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 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.