Since atheists (in general) say that consciousness is simply the result of brain activity, there is no soul or mind independent of the brain, and after death consciousness ceases, this would mean that we have no free will, all decisions are simply the results of spontaneous chemical reactions, right?
Do atheists believe in free will?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Some atheists believe in free will. Some atheists don't.
Atheism isn't an organized doctrine where everyone gets together and establishes a common worldview. Indeed, the only thing they have in common for sure is their decision not to be deluded by the belief in the existence of gods. Many atheists are deluded about a great many other things, however.
Atheism isn't an organized doctrine where everyone gets together and establishes a common worldview. Indeed, the only thing they have in common for sure is their decision not to be deluded by the belief in the existence of gods. Many atheists are deluded about a great many other things, however.
Hey Skin, how can a Atheist not believe in free will? If he doesn't, then why fight so hard against theists? Do you think people have free will Skin?
Wouldn't free will merely be concept associated with gods? What other meaning could one derive?
Mind control, perhaps?
That's a great point, so Skin, why would an Atheist believe that anything could hamper his free will?
I honestly haven't given it sufficient thought. I have read some good arguments from both sides on the topic from atheists, however. Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett have both discussed the notion that free will doesn't exist, mainly based on the idea that we are continuously responding to the environment and have limitations imposed upon us from outside ourselves. I don't do their arguments justice, though. I've only given them brief readings, so I don't have complete opinions on the subject, but I was skeptical of their positions.
Susan Blackmore at edge.com: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_2.html#blackmore
Susanblackmore.co.uk: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Brockman2005.htm
Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0142003840/roberttoddcarrolA/
Susan Blackmore at edge.com: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_2.html#blackmore
Susanblackmore.co.uk: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Brockman2005.htm
Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0142003840/roberttoddcarrolA/
I've read Dennett's book. He doesn't argue that free will doesn't exist. Rather, he argues for a naturalistic explanation of free will, and that it may not be precisely what most people think it is. Hell, I read the damn book and even I can't do his argument justice. It's a complex book.
By the way, this atheist does believe in free will, but I agree with Dennett, to the extent I understand his arguments.
That book's on my summer reading list... so I must admit I was making an assumption on its contents. I've read other things by Dennett (or heard him speak?) in reference to Free Will where he was giving some credit to Blackmore and agreeing with her position to some degree. But I got the impression that this was still something he was mulling over as well.
Confused, in the first place, and no, wrong,in the second.vitalone said:
It is quite possible to have a mind - even a soul, in some non-supernatural senses - independent of the substrate brain, without invoking a god.
It is even possible to have supernatural entities, such as souls, without a god - the Navajo and other such cultures provide examples.
And free will does not depend on supernatural entities, in the second. Dennett's book is decent. There are other approaches - but they have enough similarities that Dennett's entertaining and natural style would be the place to start IMHO.
One of the central insights, from such non-supernatural approaches, is that free will is not an on/off proposition. There are degrees of it. You can have more or less of it.
Yes I know what atheism itself means....I'm just saying that most atheists in general do not believe in such things as the soul or mind independent of the brain....they believe that after death consicousness ceases and there's just non-existence......notice how I said atheists in general...ofcourse there some very few atheists that believe in ghosts, spirits, demons, etc...but no God
What is consciousness?
What is free-will?
When a brain has it's corpus callosum severed is it now two consciousnesses? Do they each have their own free-will? I think from these sorts of studies we are coming to a better understanding of what consciousness is. I'd like to think I have a free-will ... .... at times. Probably most of the time we are on a sort of auto-pilot, yet, once in a while when "in the zone" it seems there is a more definable free-will.
Most of the day and every day we forget that everything we hear touch smell taste etc.. is just a construct. And most of this construct is imaginary (wait - all of it is
I mean most of it does not correspond to what is really there - in the real world). Most of your world is an elaborate assumption that's accepted every second of the waking day. In the real world there could really be a monkey sitting quietly on your desk yet because this is normally not the case your brain would probably not add it to your reality - unless it was noticed. You could look square at it and while your eyes would physically registrar it, your consciousness would not "see" it. Consciousness is funny like that.
Even the fact that you can tell you are not a part of your PC (it is something other than you) is running in a part of your brain. You take it for granted and think it natural to realize you are not your PC and that your desk is not you. Maybe you think you are conscious of this fact? Are you really? No you are not. Actually it takes a lot of dedication to stop this realization from occurring. It happens unconsciously. People call it Zen when they stop it from occuring. In Zen they slow down or prevent the part of the brain that automatically determines self from non-self by redirecting blood away from those areas and instead open up blood flow to the occipital lobes. Hence they feel they are one-with-the-universe.
A space occupying lesion can sometimes have the same effect (ie: cancer).
Just some things to think about,
Michael
Last edited:
Lets not limit ourself by following the religious books. instead lets free our will.
I think free-will in an absolute sense does not exist (i.e. everything is probably just a causal action / reaction) - but exists in the sense that most people refer to it (e.g. the making of a simple choice) by being an illusion created by our brains.
Thus, in casual parlance, yes, free-will exists - but in an absolute sense i think it might be merely an illusion.
I guess, like most things, it depends on what you define as free-will.
Thus, in casual parlance, yes, free-will exists - but in an absolute sense i think it might be merely an illusion.
I guess, like most things, it depends on what you define as free-will.
Why would a atheist not have a free will when a theist is a tool of god etcetera etcetera bonded to the devine will of <enter local god's name>.
No kidding but theist got a bid easier being able to say the devil made me do it or gods instrument while a atheist at best can only blame his education
No kidding but theist got a bid easier being able to say the devil made me do it or gods instrument while a atheist at best can only blame his education
I am a Atheist and believe in Free will.
Everyone is able to make a choise. When you do so it's free will.
Simple as that. If you write a book on the subject that there is no free will you just made a decision to write that book thusfore it's an act of free will.
litlle confusing he
Religion is just a form of pindcontrol or the urge to belong to a group. Believing is offering up your free will for the benefit of the many. Alltoough the many? Just ask yourself who benefits from Religion. Religion is dictatorship; where's the free will in that.
There's a lot of unexplanable stuff going on that's a fact but believing it's god or the Devil's work is just stupidity.
I do believe there should be morals because if evryone would act on free will this would be a disaster. But Religion and Politcs should allways be separated.
Every person who does something wrong should be punished and unable to shield him or herself behind religion.
The problem is that morals are different in every culture.
Everyone is able to make a choise. When you do so it's free will.
Simple as that. If you write a book on the subject that there is no free will you just made a decision to write that book thusfore it's an act of free will.
litlle confusing he
Religion is just a form of pindcontrol or the urge to belong to a group. Believing is offering up your free will for the benefit of the many. Alltoough the many? Just ask yourself who benefits from Religion. Religion is dictatorship; where's the free will in that.
There's a lot of unexplanable stuff going on that's a fact but believing it's god or the Devil's work is just stupidity.
I do believe there should be morals because if evryone would act on free will this would be a disaster. But Religion and Politcs should allways be separated.
Every person who does something wrong should be punished and unable to shield him or herself behind religion.
The problem is that morals are different in every culture.
Can we start with a definition of 'free will' first please? Can someone who believes in it, define it, and can someone who also believes, second the definition? Can you also point out an example of where free will can be clearly distinguished from a complex reaction to stimuli? Can you suggest how 'free will' is free from external influence?
I would say that 'free will' does not exist, because people have bad moods. If the will was 'free' people would never choose to be angry. Anger is a reaction, not a chosen frame of mind.
I would also say 'free will' does not exist because while being a complex machine, we still are a machine, with inputs, and outputs, and the output (our speech, manner, and personality) depends a lot on our inputs (envirnonment and experiences).
So, please, that definition. Please back up any claim that 'choice' expresses free will, or I might ask you if a die 'chooses' which face to land on, ....
I would say that 'free will' does not exist, because people have bad moods. If the will was 'free' people would never choose to be angry. Anger is a reaction, not a chosen frame of mind.
I would also say 'free will' does not exist because while being a complex machine, we still are a machine, with inputs, and outputs, and the output (our speech, manner, and personality) depends a lot on our inputs (envirnonment and experiences).
So, please, that definition. Please back up any claim that 'choice' expresses free will, or I might ask you if a die 'chooses' which face to land on, ....
Ofcourse every person in influenced by external influence. but when you get angry, sad, or even happy; you still can choose how to deal with it.
When i get angry i can make the choise of banging someone up or destroying somthing but i still can make the choise of cooling down.
When you say a human is a complex machine i agree. And emotion are indeed nothing more than chemical reactions. But you still have a choise. The problem is more if you can control your emotions.
Anything and anyone is influenced by what happens around.