Free Will is an Illusion?

Are you interested in Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature and the social contract or his political philosophy writ large? If it’s the former, I think reading the relevant sections would suffice. There are several excellent works in international relations that critique Hobbes’ philosophy and how his theory holds up to the historical record.

It would really be more of a personal challenge at this point. My undergrad and masters was heavily based around western political philosophy, and I took a lot of sections out of Hobbes in both regards, but simply never took the time to actually get through it all.

I’ve read through the critiques of Hobbes and understand where they are coming from, but I appreciated the framework Hobbes put down, even if it was in the most British way possible, haha.

There are many atheists, agnostics, deists, ect. that believe in human agency. There are also many that aren’t militant and condescending assholes. I hope you’re referring to those who are.

1 Like

I’m a fan of Hobbes myself. Anarchy as a defining characteristic of world politics is among the most influential concepts in the field. Hedley Bull’s “The Anarchical Society” takes the best of Hobbs’ work while coming to a significantly different conclusion. I’d highly recommend it if international relations is your cup of tea.

It’s great to have the input of someone that has studied philosophy formally. Im not sure that I qualify as a dilettante. What are your thoughts on stoicism?

Do you suppose God intended for Adam and Eve to eat the apple? As if he created the world and everything in it, just to watch the world degenerate into what it is.

Why? I always believed that Christ reaffirmed free will.

Make no mistake; my formal education on philosophy proper is pretty limited. I minored in it in undergrad, whereas my major/masters was more political science oriented with an emphasis on western political theory, so limited scope. I’ve started picking it back up now that I have some freetime and I missed learning, haha.

I have barely scratched stoicism, getting a little way through Marcus Aurelius meditations. I know I appreciate the theory behind it and actually attempt to practice it at home, but I’ve also read some of the critiques and understand where it is coming from. How about yourself?

I appreciate the book recommendation; I’ll have to add it to the list.

Of course I’m referring to the Evangelical Atheists, in other words the condescending assholes. Chushin, for example, is one of my best friends, and he is an atheist. Honestly, theology and existentialism barely even comes up between us, and when it does, it is always civil and respectful.

I’m all for people who have reached a different conclusion than I have. I don’t like supercilious pricks who look down on me for my tribal atavisms.

Because God exists outside of time, there can be both knowledge and free will. Indeed, what you say can only be true in the absence of free will. Hard core Calvinists actually do believe this. That God intended certain people for Hell and others for Heaven, from the beginning of time. We used to have some very interesting (not at all absurd) arguments about this possibility.

I sure don’t believe it.

Well, because how can you have free will if God is omniscient? I suppose God could know all possible outcomes of every possible choice that could possible be made by anyone, every, but if God doesn’t know what choice you and I will make because we have free will than God is not really omniscient. Right?

That’s one long ass snetence, lol…

I don’t know. I’ve never really thought about it. Maybe their disobedience was preordained. Maybe it wasn’t. Who know, maybe Adam and Eve were supposed to eat the fruit to kick off an experiment of sorts. Who would exercise free will for good and who would do the opposite.

I have met many calvinists and had lengthy, yet polite, conversations with them. It’s an interesting, powerless belief. Aside from the questions it begs (in relation to christianity), I have a tough time believing I am a victim to someone/something’s will (as it pertains to christianity or otherwise).

I tend to agree with this.

This begs too many questions, i think. Why would an omniscient being need to expirement?

With the understanding that christian is defined as believing in God, and that Jesus is son of God.

  • Why did God set mankind up to fail, predetermining who would be ‘believers’ then sending his son to die for everyone?

It’s an interesting conversation that I need a few glasses of wine for, but sadly, I am on a strict diet and can’t.

1 Like

To take it a step further, it’s like joining theoretical physics and religion. There are infinite universes with infinite outcomes, and God knows them all. I guess I can see what you mean.

I’ll be back with more, but I’m too tired to think this hard right now.

How do you practice it?

I have enjoyed reading Seneca’s letters. It actually drove my family and, now my wife, crazy, because I have always tended to be more stoic. It certainly helps me with my career and handling stress.

Thanks Cortes!
Well for a while, I was glad for the pause, because as fun as the discussions are, they are also a lot of work to stay on point and the keep all the facts strait. Especially if you are maintaining a ‘God’ and ‘Religion’ thread separately, simultaneously. Heck, I just skipped the last substantive discussion all together. But then I didn’t expect them to not happen again, until now. But it would be nice to see some more heady stuff here again, rather than just politics.

And if we are going to discuss politics, I’d rather discuss more important issues than presidential candidates 24/7. Meaning, that talking about the next president is important, but it’s not the end all be all of what is going on. We have wars we are fighting and a people backing a rancid ideology. We have a war on freedom of speech and the rise of the extremist PC nuts. Nobody want’s to talk about that. Or they talk about it in the context of the next president of the US. I find that issue, particularly alarming.

Yeah, and the lack of good, substantive threads, I fear has driven some good folk away, like Kamui and Dr. Matt.

I have been cheating though as I have been keeping my chops up an another forum more dedicate purely to theology and philosophy. I recently held court with a nit wit trying to convince me that and infinite infinity can exist in a given set. LOL! That wasn’t as easily disposed of as it should have been. So while it has not been going on here, I have been doing it because I like it.

Perhaps its time we bring the real stuff back. This thread is a good start.

1 Like

Pretty much as you note; a way to handle stress and events. My wife takes issue with how I “don’t get upset”, and also takes issue when I ask how getting upset makes things better, haha. When I blew out my ACL, I spent a lot of time reflecting on the importance of how I would react to the situation, and for the most part was able to keep things in perspective, but occasionally I allowed myself to enjoy the catharsis that is a good rage.

1 Like

Yeah, my experience tells me that the population runs about half and half. I am running a poll on an atheist website where I asked how many would be willing to do away with free speech just so they could get rid of religious expression. Right now, believe it or not, 64% of respondents are willing to do away with free speech to get rid of religion.
I am really hoping for a bigger sample size before I draw conclusions, but where it is now is frightening alone. That I am struggling among supposed ‘free-thinkers’ to allow free thought and speech.
What I was hoping for, were people to tell me how stupid a question that was. That hasn’t happened. The opposite did, many jumped at the idea. It’s not done yet.

Obviously, this is hardly scientific. It’s not rigorous in anyway. But it does confirm some personal suspicions I have had about atheists in general for a while. That many of them are a lot more militant than they will lead on. I am not hiding as an atheist on this site either. So I am not up to any tricks. I am there who I am here and I have had good discussions there.
I won’t, though, publicly reveal where else I maintain a presence.

By the way, we use the term New Atheist vs. Traditional Atheist to differentiate between the militant and the mellow.

1 Like

That’s a very naturalistic point of view.
There maybe ‘certain things’ to believe in. And yet you use the word ‘choice’ as if a person has one if determined.
Problem is, one cannot prove freewill a illusion any more than determinism is an illusion. So that POV cancels itself out, because they both can be illusions. And since they cancel each other out, it’s not a valid argument.

Did God give people freewill, in other words, to get sadistic pleasure for himself? Is that what you are indicating?

Well, there are several possibilities. One of which is that God also has freewill and omnipotence and can freely choose to suspend his omniscience in order to preserve freewill.

Or, one can argue that the omni-predicates with reference to God, by default allows for paradoxes and contradictions to exist perfectly happily next to each other. For, as physics breaks down in the presence of a black hole, logic also breaks down when it comes to God. As the equations trail into infinities that describe the universe, the arguments for God’s existence do, pretty much the same thing. Logic can tell us God exists, but it cannot describe his nature. As physics can tell us a black hole exists and not describe it’s nature.
The analogy is the processes, not a comparison of God to black holes.

No!!
I just had this argument.
There are finite universes in an infinite multiverse, or an infinite universe (no boundaries). You cannot have an infinite multiverse of infinite universes. That would be an infinite infinity in a given set. Not infinite sets of infinite sets, that’s something different. To have an infinite multiverse of infinite universes is to have and infinite infinity in a given set. That is what is not possible.
Rather you can have neither and the universe is one finite thing. The fact that we can measure the universes entropy, indicates a finite universe, however our view is limited.

Both the infinite universe and infinite multiverse theories are mathematical possibilities. They are not testable or falsifiable. Parts of inflation theory are testable and falsifiable, but neither infinite multiverse, nor infinite universe theories are testable or falsifiable. Hence, they will forever remain unprovable theories.

The problem with physics today is there is such a great fear of avoiding an egocentric approach to science, that the pendulum has swung the other way and wild theories, though based on good math abound. And the math may be good, but the interpretation of that math, maybe not so much.

I leave the door open for both an infinite multiverse, or an infinite universe because I have to. I would say the weight of the evidence, tilts, however slightly, to a finite, though rather large universe.

And in the end, these theories do not do what Hawking, Penrose, Vilenkin and others may have hoped. They don’t get rid of the necessity of God.
These theories take a swipe at two arguments, the Kalam and Design. Contingency and cosmology itself as a philosophic entity remain intact. Unless someone wants to claim quantum vacuums in a dense energy states popped into existence out of nothing. All they did was kick the can further down “Cosmology Avenue”.