No Religion? No Free Will.

Free the chains on your mind and the chains on your soul will melt away.

Religion is the very thing that steals your free will from you. It tells you that you must submit, to the preacher, the book, the will of what ever god they have created.

You will never be free, you will never have free will, you will never have a true relationship with your creator, until you walk away from the lie that is religion.

DENY IGNORANCE!!!!

Wupy

You are confused in your rationale, JungleJake.

Atheists believe there is no God, while the definition of freewill as forwarded by religious doctrine is by virtue of God granting same; i.e. of a spiritual nature. You are trying to apply your definition to all, when it cannot possibly apply.

Atheists cannot and do not therefore confuse a religious doctrine with their own perception that man has the ability to choose to think, believe and act freely without there being spiritual recrimination for that which he wishes to believe in or follow, or accept or deny, or pursue, to the atheists this is how man above all else grows in knowledge, and without having exercised that freewill, or better yet, without having defied religious doctrine on freewill, science would not be as advanced as it is today. Science is the epitome of atheistic belief in freewill in that the ability to make decisions concerning one’s existence or way of life shifts with the progression of science, by virtue of what is learned. The same cannot be said for the Christian belief in freewill, since it endorses no learning perceived to be the domain of God.

The notion of freewill as put forward by Christians is not absolute, it is severely stunted and therefore a contradiction in terms, in that it is their belief that God has given man the choice to believe in him or not, but has directed that should they do so against his desire, their decisions which run contrary to his rulings and orders will be severely punished. Hence, freewill is only rewarded when one path and one path only is taken. This therefore is not freewill, it is legislated will and can be summed up as simply as saying; you can vote for any political party, but if you do not vote in favour of mine, you will endure untold torture and regret it for the rest of eternity.

Originally posted by junglejake
Er...Nygdan, I hate to sound like a lazy informationaphobe, but is there any way you could give us a summary of the science behind the discussions and articles you linked to?

I wish I could take in and condense information like that, make sense out of all of it, and understand it well enough to explain it to others!

but I'm also curious of members opinions and beliefs on the subject. Posting links to massive amounts of information without an explanation tends to kill a thread more than develop it

It does run that danger, but that information was just too interesting to pass up!

I agree too, this place can result in SIB Syndrome! Sudden Inflation of Bookmarks!

Many of your takes are very interesting, but it seems more like they're addressing religion's concept of free will. Let me give my definition of secular free will, and see if we can go from there.

Free will is the ability to, when faced with a choice, influence the course of future events by your choice, and you do have a choice. It hasn't been determined the instant of the big bang, but rather the instant you make up your mind to do something.

SomewhereInBetween, do you believe you can do this? Can you influence the future, or was your course already determined through the laws of physics the instant of the Big Bang? That's what I want to address. I am aware of the implications of various religious doctrine and dogma on free will. I do not understand, however, the scientific reasoning that there is free will, with or without God.

Lack of free will is only a problem for theology, not science. It's not even relevant.

An all powerful, all knowing god = NO FREE WILL. I don't care how you spin it.

But even if you don't accept predestination (though I can't see how one logically couldn't, but then again I was raised strict Calvinist Presbyterian) ...the problems don't relate to physics in the slightest.

Just because someone doesn't believe in the metaphysics of the soul, does not make them a robot or lacking intelligence. By which I mean, the ability to turn matter into energy (eat) then make a decision about which way to go and do so. The big bang has no more control over whether I decide to go to the fridge or McDonalds when hungry.

I mean you can even write software for a computer to make random decisions. That's not controlled by physics or God either.

Sorry I put this in Theology as opposed to leaving it in the creationist conspiracy forum, but unless you meant to be exhibit A in the kind of thinking creationists want to teach in science class, it goes in theology.

There's no reason on earth science or physics should even concern itself with theological conumdrums like an all powerful God and the contradiction of Free Will.

We have free will outside of the will of God. Just as Adam and Eve did, so do we.

As for science and free will,
Until there is a beginning found to the big bang or some other origins idea, then jj's thoughts are as rock solid as any can be on this subject.

Here's my take on the whole "free will" and "predestination" argument: God is omniscient; He knows the past from the beginning. He knows exactly what will happen in any event or decision that we are a part of, not because He causes it to happen, He doesn't; but, because God is "outside" of time, He sees all things as now.

We have free will, God will not usurp our own responsibility for the actions we take. He may allow certain things to happen in our lives, especially if those things are consequences of bad decisions and poor judgement on our part. God did not create us just so he could be a cosmic puppet master.

God gives only good things to those who love Him; when bad things happen it is either because He is disciplining us because of bad choices we have made or because we are human and death, illness and all the rest are part and parcel of being human. Anyway, that's my informed opinion, with the operative word being Opinion.

Grace and Peace,

Lightseeker

...



What is so difficult about this? I am looking for science addressing free will. Let's pretend (for some this won't be a large leap) for a moment that God does not exist. The Universe was an accident and our models of its development are dead on. What science says there is randomness in the universe that, were we to measure it (or not, in the case of quantum physics) it would not always have a predictable result? Isn't that the foundation of science; reproducable results? Isn't that what a scientific law is? Doesn't it show that things behave always as stipulated by the physical laws that govern our universe?

Why will no one address this? Why do we keep trying to turn it around and saying that if God exists we have no free will? Did anyone actually read the post, or did you just comment on the subject?

Paperclip, thank you, you've really been the only one to address the issue. I mean...Do I have to start another thread without the word religion in it to keep people focused on what I'm trying to address?

Let's talk about sci-ence, bay-bee
Let's talk about part'cl A and B
Let's talk about all the paths that they may lead
Let's talk about it

Originally posted by junglejake
Let's pretend (for some this won't be a large leap) for a moment that God does not exist.

No pretending involved, so ok so far.

Originally posted by junglejake
Doesn't it show that things behave always as stipulated by the physical laws that govern our universe?

Yes, but only in a statistical sense. That's important in case this turns into a discussion of quantum physics (as it often does).

Originally posted by junglejake
Why will no one address this? Why do we keep trying to turn it around and saying that if God exists we have no free will? Did anyone actually read the post, or did you just comment on the subject?

I read it, and I agree with you completely. I see no evidence that we have free will, at least in the sense of the ability to choose independent of nature.

However, we do have the sense of free will. It feels like we have free will because we are not conscious of the biochemical processes that determine our choices.

It's important to define carefully what you mean by "free will" in a discussion such as this, or you won't get any straight answers. But having been around this block probably a hundred times or more, I already know what your talking about.

Now that we've agreed that if the universe is deterministic (at least in a statistical sense), then we have no free will, please explain the mechanism by which a soul interacts with a brain in order to exhibit free will in the material world while simultaneously not violating the determinism of the universe. Such an interaction would require a perpetual stream of miracles going on within our brains would it not?

After you explain that, then please resolve this paradox. We agree that if there is determinism there is no free will, but if there is not determinism in the spiritual domain, you are left with randomness. How can randomness be considered free either, since you can't control it. You end up without free will independent of determinism.

The concept of absolute free will is incoherent.

Originally posted by junglejake
With the introduction of a soul, however, something intangable, outside of our universe's laws, we can introduce free will. I can't explain the science behind how a soul could change the trajectory of a particle, but I make this assumption because it's the only unknown.
[edit on 8-18-2005 by junglejake]

In order to answer your question, spamandham, I would have to rely on scripture, and that wouldn't mean much to you. If you would like, I could give you passages from the Bible that support free will and passages that display the pseudo-restrictions on it. However, then we're talking about faith, spirituality and theology. I'm game, as I'm sure you know, but don't want to waste my time if the response will be something to the effect of quit falling back on scripture.

You did raise an interesting point with the comment that we don't have free will but we percieve we have free will.

EDIT: I can say this, though. God created physics, and can operate outside of its bounds because they do not limit Him. He created it, so it does not govern Him.

[edit on 8-23-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake
In order to answer your question, spamandham, I would have to rely on scripture,

That won't help. Just say "I don't know".

Originally posted by junglejake
God created physics, and can operate outside of its bounds because they do not limit Him. He created it, so it does not govern Him.

If you accept that the brain is in control of your body, and you promote the idea of a supernatural soul that is your seat of consciousness, and you further propose that this soul is ultimately in control of your body, then there must be a soul/brain interface of some kind that allows the soul to manipulate the brain to control the body.

Does this interface violate the laws of physics? If so, then we should be able to detect these violations at least in principle right?

However, if we could detect them, that would provide proof of the existence of the supernatural, and according to the Bible, god does not provide proof of his existence because somehow that is viewed as violating our free will (a pretty lame argument if you ask me). So, you (junglejake) must conclude that we will not be able to detect these violations. The brain must then obey the laws of physics just like everything else from the Biblical perspective.

But if the brain obeys the laws of physics, in what sense is the soul in control? The brain would just obey the laws of physics in the absence of the soul anyway.

I did say I don't know in the first post of this thread, and I quoted myself saying that in the last post I made. That's why I said I'd have to go to scripture; I don't know the science of the soul.

I fail to see the logic in the statement that, because we can't detect something, it's not there, though. You're using a circular logic that assumes that if we can't detect something, it doesn't exist, and that's a huge assumption. Do you really think our science and detection systems are that advanced that we can detect everything? If so, what are these scientists talking about with this dark matter and energy mumbo-jumbo (which, if you're right, is exactly what it is)

During my time here on earth, I have been subjected to several different religions, all of them due o the fact that I have a grandfather who is a preacher (Calvanist), a greatgrandfather who was a missionary (Indonesia) and a father who was so mixed up he didn't know which way to turn (Calvanist, Christian Reformed, Presbyterian and United).

Because of this heady mix of religion, spoonfed to me in daily doses (meals and evenings) as well as weekly diatribes (twice Sundays), I have always had an ear for anything faintly religious and my bookcases are overflowing with theological texts.

And what do I hold today? From all of that experience (I am now closing on 60 years) there is one thing I know to be true...

We all have a soul...

But i firmly believe what Mr Wupy says...

Originally posted by mrwupy

Religion is the very thing that steals your free will from you. It tells you that you must submit, to the preacher, the book, the will of what ever god they have created.

So...am I an atheist? I don't think so...I just don't put any faith in anything mankind constructed to represent the Creator. This includes bibles and artifacts...all of them...because nothing exists seperate as a relic of Deity since, imo, everything is that very same Deity.

Free will comes from our conscience...the ability to choose between opportunities based on what it tells us is a good move or a bad one. If I see a $10 bill laying on a table, with no-one around, I have a choice to make...leave it or steal it. That is free will, IMO, and my choice will either put a shine on my soul or sully it.

Originally posted by junglejake
I fail to see the logic in the statement that, because we can't detect something, it's not there, though. You're using a circular logic that assumes that if we can't detect something, it doesn't exist, and that's a huge assumption.

I'm not talking about detecting a soul, I'm talking about detecting evidence of it. If the soul is controlling you, it must be interacting with the brain somehow. This interaction must either be in accordance with the laws of physics, or it must violate them. If it is in accordance with them, then in what sense is the soul in control?

If it is in violation of them, then why would we not be able to detect such violations in principle?

Here are two possible 'outs' for you, and maybe there are others:

1. The soul interacts at the quantum level (we both knew this one was coming back up)

2. The souls of everyone actually influence the initial state of the universe such that our individual actions do exactly what our souls decide without any violation of the laws of physics. This is possible because the supernatural is outside of time.

Originally posted by junglejake
Do you really think our science and detection systems are that advanced that we can detect everything?

No. The question is hypothetical.

Originally posted by masqua
And what do I hold today? From all of that experience (I am now closing on 60 years) there is one thing I know to be true...

We all have a soul...

How do you know this?

I have had an OOBE and it had quite an impact on me. The experience was both frightening and (amazingly) calming at the same time. It seemed I had a choice to make and I chose life. If you can imagine floating above your body and looking down at it, you will know that it would be memorable, to say the least. I usually don't like to talk about it because there are so many people who would tell me it's just chemicals or some psycho BS...but until it happens to you, you really have no idea.

Mainly, knowing the body can be seperated from conscience tells me there is more to life than water, earth, fire and air...there is a fifth element called spirit.

Secondly, my deceased mother has guided me in many things over the past 28 years. This is even more personal than the oobe and because of that, I find I can't talk about it.

Originally posted by spamandham
If it is in violation of them, then why would we not be able to detect such violations in principle?

My answer may shock you, but I think we would. In principle, we could detect how the supernatural interferes with the natural if we understood a lot more than we do today and had some extremely sophisticated detection tools. As I had said in that U2U, I am certain quantum physics is predictable, but the act of measuring it can produce random results as far as we can tell today, so that's no out

If we could track all the particles in the brain and know how they are supposed to behave (as particles, even outside the brain -- by my belief, it would be impossible to get a control sampling by monitoring the brain its self), and then compare that to how they actually behave, we could see evidence of a soul. Yet, even if we did detect that, I'm sure many would not be convinced it is a soul or spiritual in any way, but that it's just another level of something we can't detect. They'd be half right.

Originally posted by junglejake

My answer may shock you, but I think we would. In principle, we could detect how the supernatural interferes with the natural if we understood a lot more than we do today and had some extremely sophisticated detection tools. As I had said in that U2U, I am certain quantum physics is predictable, but the act of measuring it can produce random results as far as we can tell today, so that's no out

Excellent! We have a testable theory (at least in principle).

Now for the next question. Suppose sufficiently sophisticated techniques were developed that could unequivocally make such measurements. If repeatable experiments were performed that showed systemic violations of the laws of physics within human brains, but not elsewhere (animal brains, inert matter etc.), I would be compelled to conceed that we do in fact have souls.

But if the experiments demonstrated no such violations, would you conceed we do not have souls?

Originally posted by spamandham
But if the experiments demonstrated no such violations, would you conceed we do not have souls?

To be perfectly honest, I doubt I would. Like the example I had used of the people who would say it was something else we just can't measure, I would probably end up taking the same type of stance if there were no violations. It's rather hypocritical, but I'm just being honest as to how I believe I would react.

Most likely I would first question the source. If the source was solid, then the technique. If the technique were solid, I'm sure I'd find something else. If everything pointed to this being accurate, I would probably come up with another explanation or become a reformed theologan (they believe in predestination).