Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

A conservative politician believes in Free Will.This is because if the criminal has Free Will she should be punished for her crimes as she was entirely free to do otherwise then she did, whatever her circumstances. That is why Republicans are both punitive and 'religious'.

Not that I have a firm grip on what "free will" means...

So you're saying that conservative politicians don't really believe in free will; they just find it a handy excuse for being punitive and religious?

In any case, if there's no free will, why not just say that the positions that Republicans take are predetermined? Same for everyone else.

Please note I have spelled Free Will with capital letters. I do so to signify that Free Will is the name of a religious and political doctrine.

Often somebody will say "free will" when what they intend to signify is freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is relative to ruling regime, and personal psychology. Absolute Free Will, on the other hand, signifies the religious doctrine that humans and only humans are endowed with the ability to make choices that are not related to causes.

In any case, if there's no free will, why not just say that the positions that Republicans take are predetermined? Same for everyone else.

(BobS)

That is the important question. Republicans, racists, freedom fighters, saints, intellectuals, and the hewers of wood and drawers of water are all determined in their behaviours and ideas. As am I, and you. As you see I am a determinist.

However within determinism we humans do have a means of increasing our choices. That means is reason. The more you bring reason, knowledge, and refined judgement to the table the more you increase your choices. For instance in pronouncing judgement on a crime the Republican-leaning judge will not be a fan of extenuating circumstances such as poverty. For instance in foreign policy the Republican will not be a fan of historical causes of old hostilities.

To underline extenuating circumstances may seems a recipe for being antisocial if not downright criminal. However the constant attitude of antisocial people is lack of concerns other than their own, and that is a form of ignorance about how societies and natural ecology work. If an individual knows natural ecology and how societies work she will behave and ideate selfishly only if she also adopts short -termism. Short- termism is typical of many Republican policies.

Refined judgement and knowledge( including personal insight ) enlarge the scope of prediction within a deterministic world, possibilities which the ignorant individual lacks. In the interest of freedom within a determined world it is good to increase our own knowledge and judgement and help others especially children to increase theirs.

[Sculptor1]

A conservative politician believes in Free Will.This is because if the criminal has Free Will she should be punished for her crimes as she was entirely free to do otherwise then she did, whatever her circumstances. That is why Republicans are both punitive and 'religious'.

Not that I have a firm grip on what "free will" means...

So you're saying that conservative politicians don't really believe in free will; they just find it a handy excuse for being punitive and religious?

In any case, if there's no free will, why not just say that the positions that Republicans take are predetermined? Same for everyone else.

As the future is not known there can be no "pre"determinism. We all determined by who and what we are; by the circumstances and the conditions of our environment. But only a omnipotent god would be capable of predicting the future.

In every day conversation "predetermined" is often used interchangeably with "determined." My use of it had nothing to do with predictability.

No.
So "pre" is redundant? There are very good reasons some people use it whilst others are smart enough to not use it.
Predetermination is about Fate - things are written to happen and no matter what you do they come to pass. It is an idea that does not deny free will, but simply makes the action of the will irrelevant.

Given the introductory phrase "if there's no free will," it's odd that you'd suppose I was bringing god into it. I haven't seen anyone around here claim that there's an omnipotent god, on the one hand, but no free will, on the other.

I'm not saying YOU were bringing god into it, but it is an important part of the argument, and has been for centuries.

[Fanman]

God is not omnipotent. An omnipotent being must necessarily be capable of doing anything and everything. He cannot do something and then say that he hasn’t done so whilst telling the truth. So he must be just very powerful – if he exists.

[Tegularius]

God is not omnipotent. An omnipotent being must necessarily be capable of doing anything and everything. He cannot do something and then say that he hasn’t done so whilst telling the truth. So he must be just very powerful – if he exists.

God becomes extremely unproblematic when submitting to the obvious evidence that there is no evidence for its existence. Not a single one! God has always been an imaginary virus we've interminably used to screw ourselves up and constructed whole philosophies on what amounts to a vacuum.

[Fanman]

Tegularius,

God becomes extremely unproblematic when submitting to the obvious evidence that there is no evidence for its existence. Not a single one! God has always been an imaginary virus we've interminably used to screw ourselves up and constructed whole philosophies on what amounts to a vacuum.

I agree, in terms of there being zero evidence for its existence. Where there is no evidence there is no proof. So we do not have a valid reason, in terms of empiricism, to assent to belief in God. What keeps me agnostic though, is the fact that as human beings, the limits of our comprehension do not necessitate the constitution of reality.

I mean, if we consider the sheer size of the universe, it is unfathomably large. How much knowledge is contained within it that we do not know or even can know? And if we look at something like QM. Our classical models don’t fit. So for me as an agnostic, the reason I remain on the fence is because claiming that God does or does not exist, given the scale of the claim and what we currently know. Is akin to claiming that there is an odd or even number of stars in the universe.

Indeed, religions are vacuous, so I would not base any claim relating to “God”, on a single one of the multitudes of religions that are currently out there.

[Belindi]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

[RexArthur]

Actually, if someone threw a rock at your head you would duck because of probability, not determinism. You're not willing to take the chance the rock might miss or, applying quantum mechanics, the very remote chance the rock would simply pass through your head.

[LuckyR]

Actually, if someone threw a rock at your head you would duck because of probability, not determinism. You're not willing to take the chance the rock might miss or, applying quantum mechanics, the very remote chance the rock would simply pass through your head.

Well, there are two options: one is that you processed the brand new information from your perception that there was an incoming rock and chose to duck (or not duck) or you were destined to duck based on the status of the molecules in your brain, no choosing occured.

[LuckyR]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

Very accurate. Why folks in the 21st century get hung up on the Iron Age definition of "omniscience", escapes me.

[Tegularius]

Tegularius,

God becomes extremely unproblematic when submitting to the obvious evidence that there is no evidence for its existence. Not a single one! God has always been an imaginary virus we've interminably used to screw ourselves up and constructed whole philosophies on what amounts to a vacuum.

I agree, in terms of there being zero evidence for its existence. Where there is no evidence there is no proof. So we do not have a valid reason, in terms of empiricism, to assent to belief in God. What keeps me agnostic though, is the fact that as human beings, the limits of our comprehension do not necessitate the constitution of reality.

I mean, if we consider the sheer size of the universe, it is unfathomably large. How much knowledge is contained within it that we do not know or even can know? And if we look at something like QM. Our classical models don’t fit. So for me as an agnostic, the reason I remain on the fence is because claiming that God does or does not exist, given the scale of the claim and what we currently know. Is akin to claiming that there is an odd or even number of stars in the universe.

Indeed, religions are vacuous, so I would not base any claim relating to “God”, on a single one of the multitudes of religions that are currently out there.

Nicely put, and I don't disagree. For me agnosticism is simply a mild form of atheism which states we cannot know for certain. Logic itself is incapable of reaching any valid conclusions; it's simply impossible for it as a discipline to penetrate beyond its parameters to make god verifiable. What we do know for certain is that in all history there was never any appearance of such an entity and that nothing in all science requires such a concept as an explanation.

Within the precincts of logic as well there is no reason for a god to exist even though, as mentioned, it cannot categorically claim there isn't. With what we already know and no final conclusion possible god diminishes to a near zero possibility not worth pondering. But that won't happen since that would cause the wholesale destruction of religion and its invested interests.

Psychologically and by extension philosophically the god concept can never by wholly uprooted from the human psyche. But we also know that the interior world of the psyche often corresponds very badly with the external world of reality.

[Tegularius]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

Sorry, but the very opposite is true as recorded in history.

[LuckyR]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

Sorry, but the very opposite is true as recorded in history.

Obeying rules is separate from goodness and badness, as you pointed out. But it is not inherently the opposite of good.

[Tegularius]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

Sorry, but the very opposite is true as recorded in history.

Obeying rules is separate from goodness and badness, as you pointed out. But it is not inherently the opposite of good.

I never said it was. In fact one must obey rules - depending on the rules - to behave accordingly, but they don't have to be based on religion which more often than not is an infringement of morality as shown in the way people have historically behaved.

[Fanman]

Tegularius,

Logic itself is incapable of reaching any valid conclusions; it's simply impossible for it as a discipline to penetrate beyond its parameters to make god verifiable.

How do you know this? Because it has not yet been accomplished, does it mean that it cannot be accomplished?

Within the precincts of logic as well there is no reason for a god to exist even though, as mentioned, it cannot categorically claim there isn't. With what we already know and no final conclusion possible god diminishes to a near zero possibility not worth pondering. But that won't happen since that would cause the wholesale destruction of religion and its invested interests.

I agree, an excellent point.

Psychologically and by extension philosophically the god concept can never by wholly uprooted from the human psyche. But we also know that the interior world of the psyche often corresponds very badly with the external world of reality.

I wouldn't argue that you're wrong in saying this. But I cannot bring myself to claim that every reported religious experience that has ever been reported, is purely in the minds of people.

[Belindi]

God is the name of personification of perfect goodness.

Religions are man's attempts at getting people to be good, or at least obey the rules.

Sorry, but the very opposite is true as recorded in history.

Obeying rules is separate from goodness and badness, as you pointed out. But it is not inherently the opposite of good.

The point at which obeying rules is the opposite of good is the same as the point at which one prostitutes one's moral honesty to emotionalism, nationalism, laziness, apathy, pleasures, and greed.