• popcap200@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well. I’m personally agnostic as I don’t have the knowledge to make a decision.

    If we are all just atoms moving/reacting, surely everything we’d ever do would be predetermined by the initial reactions/vectors/forces at the big bang. I know there’s quantum randomness and stuff, but it’s possible that’s all calculable and we simply don’t have the means to calculate it. If that’s the case, IMO we still have freewill because we can’t predict the future, and it’s still worthwhile to move forward doing our best to be good people.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t think believing in fate (or a plan) is strongly correlated with atheism

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      My take is that there is no free will, but that this fact is irrelevant and we’re all better off just behaving as though we do.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        18 hours ago

        At least here in the US, a person’s zip code of birth is a huge indicator of their success and life trajectory. That, to me, would seem to indicate that free will is bullshit.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Not sure that’s true. Free will doesn’t mean anyone can do anything. It means any decisions a person makes are truly decided by them, and they actually could have made a different decision.

          People who don’t believe in free will believe that the physical laws of the universe are deterministic. That leptons and quarks behave in ways determined by their state. That this is true even inside your brain, and thus decisions you make are actually just the result of particles interacting. Even quantum effects, though random, are not consciously decided and thus do not affect free will.

          The circumstances you are in change the inputs to those equations, but they don’t change the fact that the equations exist.

        • eru@mouse.chitanda.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          why would that be a problem for free will?

          all it shows is that we cannot freely choose everything, it does not prove that we are not ever able to freely choose.

        • renzev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Hmm almost as if free will isn’t some magical ability to remove yourself from any disadvantageous situation, but a fundamental liberty to choose how you act in response to said situation and see in it a metaphysical meaning that transcends cultural ideas like success? Damn, wouldn’t that be crazy. If only that was true, could you imagine?

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Or in other words, “free will” is a macroscopic effect arising from the fundamental laws of the universe. Like most everything else we deal with.

        Like… temperature doesn’t really exist, it’s really just an average of kinetic energy of particles. But that doesn’t stop it from being a useful concept!

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I reckon we are so incredibly complex, are integrating so much information that from inside it’s hard to see if you’re deciding or selecting by rule your preferred path given what you know

          You can call the complexity free will, we’re all so different having had different parents, different childhood experiences, different education, different opportunities so each has their own solution that rises to the top in any situation

          But also brain scans have demonstrated that for minor stuff (like raising your hand) action precedes “deciding” to take the action.

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Why are we better off behaving that way? Under that outlook, it seems like free will is a trap to hold people accountable for things they wouldn’t actually be responsible for.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          If you’re a complex machine whose action could be perfectly predicted (with full knowledge of everything you ever experienced) it’s still reasonable to punish you for breaking rules - the risk of punishment goes into your programming as part of the (deterministic) calculation of what action to take

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Because one of the many inputs to people’s actions, if we assume that their actions are deterministic, is their knowledge of how other people will respond, and how they have responded to similar things in the past.

        • bramkaandorp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 hours ago

          It’s also very often used as an argument against rehabilitation in prisons:

          If free will exists, then crime is a choice. If you choose crime, you are a bad person, and punishment is the only way forward.

          If you commit the crime again, it’s because the punishment didn’t work, and/or because the person is simply bad, so a longer punishment is needed, and infinitum.

          It’s also used to justify the death penalty, which would not make any sense in a deterministic universe.

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      20 hours ago

      That’s not a dilemma for atheists because atheists aren’t the ones claiming there’s an omnipotent being guiding everything.

      Also, you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. They cover different things. I’m fairly certain you’d consider yourself an atheist in regards to the sun god Ra.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I’m mostly agnostic to it almost all of it. For all I know, the ancient Egyptians were spot on.

        • Klear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I’m convinced it’s impossible for us to determine whether there are two gods or not.

          I’m a diagnostic.

          • bassomitron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Damnit, I just finished watching Alien Romulus and that’s a dad joke worthy for the android in it.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I think you can have this same dilemma as an atheist as well.

      I’d like to hear your opinions on how you think so (truly). The way I see things, Atheism is only the answer to a single question: do you believe in any gods? If “yes,” you’re a theist or deist. If “no; I don’t know; not currently; maybe one day,” then you’re an atheist. It’s not a philosophy or a comprehensive worldview, and it can’t possibly answer deeper questions.

      What you’re referring to in the latter half is Determinism and Compatibilism (Determinism + free will). Science is currently leaning pretty strongly towards Determinism, but since Compatibilism doesn’t add much more to the idea, it’s also still a candidate possibility.

      It’s very likely you could calculate every chain reaction from the Big Stretch up until now and maybe even into the future. Whether we have the ability to affect or disrupt those chains might be a matter of philosophy.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      That’s not how predetermination works. Just because there is an explosion does not mean that every particle has a preset location it must reach to enact a grander outcome of the combustion. Atheists don’t suffer from a need to have decisions rendered by an omnipotent being or a universe that is some stand-in for that being. There is no grand plan. The Big Bang was not some kick off for a well thought out schematic.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I don’t think we know enough about the universe yet to be sure that cause/effect is 100% the be all end all. It sure seems like it is from where we’re standing now though, that’s for sure.

    • dontbelasagne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      But did you choose which atoms make up you? I think there is no free will because we’re don’t choose out of all options what atoms we get, we are just thrown into a random atom combination.