the bible tells you so.



mods, go ahead and lock this. i don't really think that but jib misread what i wrote in a thread in RGT and offered five bucks to make this thread.

Zeno, please do not lock this. This is not a religious discussion, but a discussion about free will. I want to hear what Durka has to say. This is about justification of the belief in free will devoid of belief in the bible.

This is an accusation that constantly comes up (whether or not OP was making it or not) and I want to hear from atheists that believe in free will.

I believe in comparabely free will.

I don't believe in the Bible in the slightest. I'm not religious at all. My positions are merely philosophical. I wouldn't call myself an atheist since I think that they're no more epistemologically warranted in their belief than the theist. I'm an epistemological agnostic: the only warranted state of belief, IMO. (Therefore, don't group me with the religious sect known as the Agnostics).

I believe the Bible was written by someones

A single book can´t have the concept of free will patented, imo.


Edit: of course, there are several books combined in the Bible, but my statement stands.

I think that you misunderstood (which is understandable as you were not in the other conversation). I am well aware that you are not a christian nor are you a theist. (although your position sounds interesting I would be curious to hear more).

There is a running issue with people over in RGT that claim that I (as a theist) only believes in free will because of the bible. I used you as an example because I knew that you were not a christian and therefore could not be using the bible as justification for your believe.

So you are an example showing that free will can be a belief held wholly apart from theism.

I am curious as to what evidence you show for your belief in free will. It is a question that is posed often that I believe you could give a more articulate answer then I could.

NONE. There can be no evidence. It is not an empirical question.

There are broadly 4 positions on free will:

Hard Determinism
Soft Determinism
Compatibilism
Libertarianism

They differ largely on their positions on two theses: the deterministic thesis (is the universe and all that's in it governed wholly by deterministic processes...and perhaps quantum indeterminacy?) and the incompatibility thesis (is free will and responsibility incompatible with the deterministic thesis?).

Hard determinism assents to the deterministic thesis and assents to the incompatibility thesis: there is determinism AND (therefore) no free will or responsibility.

Soft determinism assents to the deterministic thesis and denies the incompatibility thesis: free will/responsibility are compatible with the deterministic thesis AND the deterministic thesis is true.

Compatibilism is often mistaken for soft determinism. Compatibilism takes NO position on the deterministic thesis. Compatibilism denies the incompatibility thesis. So, IF determinism is true, then there can still be responsibility/free will.

Libertarianism denies the deterministic thesis (that ALL processes are either deterministic or merely the result of something like quantum indeterminacy) and assents to the incomaptibility thesis.

Whether the deterministic thesis is true may appear to be an empirical matter, but it's not. It's not something that could be falsified by any observation, or even group of observations. It would forever remain open to question whether the apparent indeterminacy is merely "random" or that it is controlled by an as-yet unknown deterministic process and only appears random to us in our observations. Let us be clear that the libertarian does not consider "random" to be the right kind of indeterminacy and that indeterminacy =/= random. Randomness is a subclass of indeterminacy and they are not identical.

The incompatibility thesis is also (much more clearly) not an empirical matter. However, it's also one that I'm not sure can be settled by conceptual analysis. It strikes me as an issue where you have an intuition, pick a side, and dig in your heels. No amount of elegant argumentation will convince a compatibilist to be a libertarian and no amount of elegant argumentation will convince a libertarian to be a compatibilist even assuming that such people are intellectually virtuous and 'could' be persuaded if such sufficent reason were given. I'm suggesting that no such sufficient reason may be possible.

So, being a libertarian, I assent to the incompatibility thesis. I don't understand how you can have responsibility without libertarian free will. If you're determined to do something, I don't see how that can be considered a responsible act. Now, I don't quite take a position on the deterministic thesis since I don't see how (just like I'm not an atheist/theist) you can epistemologically have warrant for that leap. So, IF the deterministic thesis is true, you'd find me being a hard determinist...but IF the deterministic thesis is false, then I'm still a libertarian.

It sounds to me like you are saying that you are libertarian because you believe people should be responsible for their actions, therefore you default to libertarianism. Is that right?

I am not hearing that you believe that there is any good reason to go with hard determinism over libertarianism or vise versa, apart from the belief that people should be held responsible for their actions.

Do you not believe that the way that we experience reality can be evidence for one side or another? I understand that there might not be a way to prove one side, but it seems to me that free will is at least prima facie true.

also, thank you for participating.

Great post durkadurka, you got the different standpoints well explained. If I have to choose among these, I think I´m a libertarian. But I can see some of the points in the other ones too.

If you recall, I believe that it is NOT a matter of evidence. It's not an empirical question.

I think that we can be responsible for our actions (I just do) and that responsibility isn't possible with the deterministic thesis being true.

But what leads you to believe that we can be responsible for our actions if not experience?

i am sorry if these questions seem silly or if you have answered them in the past, I am just trying to understand your position.

I can't point to experience since I'd then be begging the question.

I am not following. Could you explain this more?

Also, then what would you point to?

lol

We don´t seem to get rid of that expression in this forum...

If I point to experience and say 'hah! responsibility' then I'm begging the question: I'm assuming the truth of the very thing that I'm trying to prove: that what I'm pointing to is 'responsibility.'

What can I point to? NOTHING "Pointing to" something means that it's an empirical question...it's not an empirical question.