Tell it to a Calvinist.Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics (look at the length of the imaginative arguments to deny what is self-evidently true) betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.
Upvote
0
Tell it to a Calvinist.Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics (look at the length of the imaginative arguments to deny what is self-evidently true) betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.
I get that with God. Belief seems very culturally contingent, and even in monotheistic cultures it seems faith has to be continually reinforced.I appreciate that. I was in that position for many years. And there's always the possibility of future knowledge that might change things. But...'as far as we are currently aware'...I can't sit on the fence any longer. It's akin to my position on God. I have never said that He doesn't exist. I'm just so convinced that He doesn't that it makes no sense to be agnostic in that regard. Same with free will.
I may be wrong on both. But I'm convinced that I'm not.
Do they have a special forum here?
The Presbyterians seem to be on board with free will:Statement of Purpose - Statement of Faith for the Confessional, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian Forum
Confessional*, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian Forum A few things to know about what Presbyterians believe: We hold the Scriptures to be in absolute authority and the final rule in faith and practice. Subservient to the Holy Bible, we subscribe to the Westminster Standards as containing a...www.christianforums.com
Ever watch "The Price is Right"? Door number 1, door number 2, door number 3. Contestant must choose.Funny that we both realize that yet reach different conclusions.
The Will of Man - WCF 9.1
"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil."
Why does it have to make sense? "Its a mystery" should be sufficient to solve the problem of human free will coexisting with Gods will for the believer. Seems to me believers acknowledge the mysterious generally. So why not in this case?But wouldn't free will necessitate that my will supersede God's will... but that's not possible... right? So all that the atheist is actually saying is that there's an underlying cause of reality that ultimately determines everything. For the theist it's God, and for the atheist it's the laws of physics. Seemingly the only difference between the two is that one has conscious intent and the other doesn't.
God wills that man have free will. We believe He does so in order that we be in His image.But wouldn't free will necessitate that my will supersede God's will... but that's not possible... right?
The discovered laws of physics do not fully explain the moral acts of men.So all that the atheist is actually saying is that there's an underlying cause of reality that ultimately determines everything. For the theist it's God, and for the atheist it's the laws of physics.
Science has yet to evidence the cause(s) of human self-awareness. So, the better answer is conscious intent.Seemingly the only difference between the two is that one has conscious intent and the other doesn't.
So you admit that you cannot even represent the incompatibilist free will position? I don't think it is possible to reject a view if you aren't able to represent it.On the not unreasonable assumption that incompatibilism refers to free will being incompatible with determinism (and determinism is accepted), then there is no incompatibilist free will position. Other than 'it cannot therefore exist.' I thought that was self explanatory.
Sorry, by "determinism" I meant "hard determinism." I thought the context would make this clear.That makes no sense. I considered determinism entirely separate from any thoughts about free will. I've been a determinist since...for ever. Long before I started thinking about free will.
For me, Occam’s Razor tells me the simplest answer is that we’re ‘robots’ that believe we’re not. Free will is in no way self evident to me.Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics (look at the length of the imaginative arguments to deny what is self-evidently true) betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.
You are confusing what isn't necessary to nominate as an atheist with what is required to be a Christian. Whether we have free will or not doesn't affect my opinion on the supernatural. On the other hand...Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.
You seem to be constantly mixing up your terms. I'm not rejecting the incompatibilist position. I'm supporting it. The position I'm rejecting is the compatibilist one. And the arguments can be summed up as me saying 'It's deterministic and here is the process (and I can go into as much detail as needed to indicate that fact)' and the opponent saying 'No, we still have free will.'So you admit that you cannot even represent the incompatibilist free will position? I don't think it is possible to reject a view if you aren't able to represent it.
The same response applies. Soft or weak determinism is compatibilism with a false nose and a wig trying to sneak in the back door of a deterministic world.Sorry, by "determinism" I meant "hard determinism." I thought the context would make this clear.
And I live my life as if it exists as well. The mental gymnastics are just too hard to be doing continuously. But...it can impact on your life. I can argue against retributive punishment for example. If someone does me wrong then I can look for reasons why it happened and not automatically blame the person involved. It's kinda easier to forgive people some times.I get that with God. Belief seems very culturally contingent, and even in monotheistic cultures it seems faith has to be continually reinforced.
But with free will, pretty much everyone feels they have some degree of it - even if its often too weak to contend with outside forces and conditioning. So for me, if something seems universally real, then I'll privilege the idea that it is real, rather than illusory - until shown otherwise. But its not a commitment. Just lightly held default position subject to revision.
If someone makes a choice then it's either for a reason or it's random. If it's random then that obviously has nothing to do with free will. If there is a reason then that means that there was cause for making that decision. It wasn't random. So it was determined by something.Ever watch "The Price is Right"? Door number 1, door number 2, door number 3. Contestant must choose.
Are you saying there really is no choice?
Or
Are you saying something more like, everything is determined by something, even if randomness in nature?
I said you were rejecting incompatibilist free will, not incompatibilism. It is a pretty grievous reading mistake to miss this.You seem to be constantly mixing up your terms. I'm not rejecting the incompatibilist position.
If you are an incompatibilist then your position is incompatibilism (I can't believe I had to write that). And your position is to deny that free will is compatible with a determinate world. But there is free will, therefore the world is not determinate.I said you were rejecting incompatibilist free will, not incompatibilism.
Luckily we have you to keep us on the straight and narrow, stop the discussion wandering off into the undergrowth and prevent harm. Thanks on behalf of everyone who has contributed so far. Whatever their pay grade.I honestly think some (most?) people should not engage this debate, not having the intellectual prowess to assess it. This idea may sound harsh, but I think it is also wise. There are difficult topics that not everyone should try to engage, and if they are engaged precociously harm will occur. It is a virtue to be able to identify that something is above your pay grade.
It might be more accurate to say that there are levels of understanding as to what the causes are that determine our actions.I think we must acknowledge levels. Sure there are reasons for decisions that we make, some more deterministic than others and some deeper into the structure of neural; networks and pathways. But it is pretty irrelevant when I have to choose between door #1, 2 or 3.
So for "ToddNotTodd" free will is something he believes in and does not believe eg., FreewilllNotFreewill. Well, at least you appear consistent although incoherent.For me, Occam’s Razor tells me the simplest answer is that we’re ‘robots’ that believe we’re not. Free will is in no way self evident to me.