Based on what I have seen, people live in experiential-type beliefs but think in credo-type beliefs. This is often the heart of the charges of Christian hypocrisy. (For example, "you believe you should love your neighbor, but you don't act very lovingly." The credo-type belief is "Love your neighbor as yourself" and the experiential-type belief is something like "I'm more important than you").

A "mature Christian" is one who both thinks and acts according to his/her credo-type beliefs (and whose credo-type beliefs are "Christian"). The pursuit of maturity is seen as a noble ambition (in the sense that it is a worthy goal to have) as well as a useful one (in the sense that we believe mature Christians tend to make wiser decisions than immature ones, and more precisely, any specific person tends to make relatively wiser decisions as he or she matures).

It seems that most atheists here hold the view that "free will" does not actually exist. Instead, there is the "experience of free will" which is the result of some deterministic process that started a long time ago (in a galaxy... never mind).

So on the one hand you hold a credo-type belief ("free will" does not exist) but on the other hand you hold an experiential-type belief (I behave as if free will exists).

Is there any sense in which atheists think it is a noble or useful ambition to bring your experiential beliefs into alignment with your credo-type beliefs? If not, then what is the purpose of the credo-type beliefs?

Do you think it is fair to criticize atheists of hypocrisy when their credo-type and experiential-type beliefs are not in alignment, using the word in the same sense that I described Christians of being accused of hypocrisy?

This becomes an exercise in utility if you don't mention names or a specific example. Atheists don't necessarily share beliefs, and I personally have few "kindred" spirits on this board apart from sharing viewpoint on revealed religion with maybe 4-5 of them.

I do not understand what you mean with experiential-type beliefs.

I mean that it's the way you actually live -- you live AS IF you believed that... Your experiences are aligned with such-and-such a belief.

Before we continue, can you please define the following:

Christian
experiential-type belief
mature and immature Christians
atheist

We will then debate the definitions that you provide for these words. Thanks in advance.

They don't necessarily share them, but that's not the point (Christianity is community driven, so it necessarily comes with a plurality of understanding).

The question can just as well be asked of an individual with respect to himself.

Christian/Atheist - I'm going to leave this as broad as possible to avoid getting side-tracked. I'll leave these as self-identifying groups.

Experiential-type belief - I've explained this in more depth in another post.

Mature/Immature Christians - You can take my description as a definition

That makes no sense to me. You mean actions? So your saying that what goes on in your head and what you do dont align sometimes? Or you mean that the pattern that emerges from one's actions indicates a certain belief?

I don't believe humans have free will. I do not believe that anyone I talk to has free will, and I believe that the actions of everyone I talk to and interact with are completely deterministic. I have no idea if these beliefs are shared by other atheists, or not.

I have no idea what it means to 'live my life as though I don't believe humans have free will'. Perhaps you could elaborate on the difference between living as though I do, and living as though I don't?

fwiw I have lots of beliefs that I have no idea what it means to 'live my life as though I believe'. I believe that science has proved that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. What does it mean to 'live my life as though I believe' that? I believe that the Riemann Hypothesis is true. What does it mean to 'live my life as though I believe' that?

Perhaps an example my clarify it further.

A guy sitting on his couch thinks to himself, "I should go to the gym." And then instead of going to the gym, he opens a bag of chips and starts eating.

On the one hand, he holds a belief about what his action should be, but then his he behaves in a manner that is contrary, AS IF he believed that he should not be going to the gym.

And yes, usually this is understood through a pattern of behavior, not a specific event. In the example above, if he usually goes to the gym, but didn't go this time, it's not really an issue. But if he's consistently telling himself he should go to the gym, and consistently not going to the gym, then I would say his credo-type beliefs are out of alignment with his experiential-type beliefs.

So you are saying a 'credo-type belief' is what I think I should do? Your example has muddied waters that I thought were clear and now I have no idea how that relates to free will.

I alternate. One day I behave as if free will exists, the next day I behave as if free will doesn't. Neighbors haven't reported any difference ( my biased view is the same).
Conclusions: the existence of free will has no influence on behavior or it doesn't exist or it's undetectable. Summary: rather a Nietzschean "free will is dead" approach to the concept.
My credo-experiental is not testable.
Try the "he says he like Pepsi best" credo.... hmmm, even that one is harder than I thought for an outsider. interesting.

If I was forced to either wear a t-shirt that says "I have free will" or a t-shirt that says "I don't have free will", I'd put on the second one. Living my credo, baby!

You're asking me about a belief system I do not hold, so I cannot illuminate anything for you.

Not all beliefs in the head are credo-type beliefs. A creed is usually seen as a system of underlying principles, and this is where my notion of credo-type beliefs comes from. Principles are basic notions of how things are or should be. I wouldn't call the Riemann Hypothesis or common descent to be credo-type beliefs.

In this example (which was chosen simply because it came up quite a bit in another thread), there is an underlying principle of determinism, expressed in the negation of free will. Yet life is lived under an "illusion" of free will. Included with this notion of free will, there's an entire litany of subcategories, such as moral responsibility, justice, and fairness to name a few. So it seems that much of the worldview construction exists in a way that directly contradicts the underlying system of beliefs.

Credo-type beliefs are the basic principles of how things are or should be.

If you reject free will as a concept, then there's no reason for anything I said here to make sense. But if you accept that you at least have an experience of free will (defined however it is in your experience), and you believe that free will isn't real, then there is some sort of cognitive dissonance that seems to result.

The tongue in cheek-ness of your post suggests you're trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask a legitimate question.

What does the quote mean?

Alright, I think I understand what you mean by the term now, thanks. I think the use of the word 'beliefs' is misleading in this context.

Yes, but to not experience the illusion that we have free will, we would have to have a complete model of our brain contained within our brain, which was proved as impossible w.r.t computers sometime in the 1950s by Godel I think. Since I believe that the brain is for all intents and purposes a 'really good computer', then it follows that I necessarily agree that the illusion of free will is impossible to avoid.

So if you just meant, sometimes our perception does not match up with our beliefs, then I agree wholeheartedly. I do not see what this has to do with 'living as though free will exists' though.

I was wondering how long it would take to get to, without freewill its anarchy and we cant hold anyone responsible for their actions.

You have already been in this discussion. You either didn't like it and went away, or just got bored and went away.

I read it, and either I didn't like it or think it would be too boring to go look for it.

I never understood that argument.

I guess I have difficulty understanding what free will could possibly be. To my mind, either a system is deterministic (as I believe the human brain is), or it is non-deterministic (in which case it involves an element of randomness).

Do free will believers posit some non-deterministic, non-random system?

Haha, I like it!

So AaronW is asking "what if everyone believed that there was no free will" not "what if you behaved as if you had no free will". An intelligent man knows it makes no difference either way and acts accordingly. Christians have a hard time understanding this, as they see their loving god ready to kick them screaming into hell when they make bad freewilled steps.

Do only I see the incredibly irony in the view that free will makes us behave properly? It means it is free will that limits our actions and unfree will that sets us free.

Well I was being serious. Presumably they don't think 'free will' means 'taking random actions', and they don't believe that we are a deterministic system so they must think there is some middle ground, right?

I understand that it's a serious point, but it's also very funny. Determinism doesn't get them free will. Non-determinism doesn't get them free will (not in the form they want anyway). What's that unknown third category again?

I should add that some philosophers consider free will to be compatible with determinism. What they mean by "free will", I can't say. I believe Daniel Dennett is in that camp. Is his book Freedom Evolves worth reading?