Only if there is scientific evidence for determinism. I’ve seen some experiments that demonstrate that we don’t have all the free will we pretend we do, but we’re a long way from deciding this means we have none. The evidence simply isn’t in yet.
2 Likes
Actually I’ve conceded the point. I just think it’s a kind of funny point to make. But you’re right all those atheists who reject scientific materialism do not fall within my criticism. They can go on being angry and believing themselves rational.
But I notice you slyly avoided telling me whether you believe there is such a thing as a soul? Are you one of those (vanishingly few!) atheists who believe in scientific materialism after all?
Well it was my question. It might not be the question that the original post was wanting to discuss
I think the question is, is it logically possible to have free will in a materialistic universe?
So you are trying to perpetuate the “angry atheist” trope based on what, exactly?
Sly? Really? You are sure quick on the slights. I consider myself a methodological naturalist. That isn’t what made my atheism, though, it merely confirms the reasonableness of the position. As far as souls go, as far as we know the brain is the mind. There is no sound evidence I know of for souls - minds outside of a physical brain. But I’m open to sound evidence.
5 Likes
Don’t creep about in the bushes. If you have an argument, make it. I’m not going to make it for you.
6 Likes
And that would be different than in a theistic universe where an all knowing god knows the future with perfect foreknowledge how, exactly? Surely the ability of a god to be perfectly prescient is contingent upon determinism.
1 Like
It’s possible to build a logical case:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
If that case pulls in appeals to religion it’s not a rational case, and probably rests on shaky premises and faulty logic, but you don’t need any religion, superstition, etc. to be a compatibilist, and most academic philosophers who are compatibilists are also atheists/materialists/philosophical naturalists.
There are pre-suppositions that correlate strongly with atheism.
Atheism by itself is only one aspect of a world view, not a complete package like most religions are. Whoever believes that there is no such thing as a god has grounds to call themselves atheist. Thus, by definition, there are no presuppositions/tenets other than
- “to exist” has an objective meaning beyond my own subjective experience.
- No God exists.
Atheism follows naturally from scientific materialism, so all pure scientific materialists are atheists.
But there are quite a few people who will believe all sorts of esoteric/New Age/Western Pseudo-Buddhism crap but who don’t believe that there is a God, and so are technically atheists.
And even among scientific materialists, you can have vastly differing views about things like good and evil. Scientific materialism is not an ethical system. There’s a vast array of moral philosophies to choose from.
Could you reiterate your argument as to why atheists shouldn’t be angry like everyone else? It seems to be some kind of free will/determinism argument. So far I fail to see the difference between “This person is not responsible for their actions because their actions follow from natural laws” and “This person is not responsible for their actions because God made them that way”.
Or maybe you could tell me why you think Christian can hold each other responsible for their actions, and I’ll understand why you think the same thought does not work in an atheist philosophy.
2 Likes
No. This is supposed to be illegal under their tax-exempt status.
4 Likes
In my experience, a lot of people form their own view about what God is, which doesn’t necessarily sync up with the Christian definition. So while they don’t believe in a big domineering man in the sky with a mortal son, they see god in another way. That seems different than a flat-out rationalist atheist who stolidly believes there is no god whatsoever, of any definition.
2 Likes
Okay, so although atheists need not be scientific materialists, you are for all intents and purposes.
So do you agree with my original point that the stupid and wrong things that religious (or irreligious) people do are simply the product of natural events and that we should not be regarded as culpable?
That’s a legitimate question, but my argument to this point is not that religion offers a superior framework, but that atheists should not blame people for their actions. Of course, if the case you are making holds, then it simply means that the same is true for theists as well.
See above response to Skeptic. You might find a bit more of what I’m trying to argue in my discussion with LDoBe.
Thanks for that nemomen. That’s a very substantial link and I’m afraid I don’t have time to work through it in detail at the moment. But my understanding of compatibilism is that it is a species of determinism – in that the desires which direct our actions are still fully determined. So even though we feel “free” because we do what we want, the shape of our wanting and the decisions we make to secure it are still all determined behind the scenes. Is that right?
True. In Austria, I’d say half of them identify as agnostic, and the other half as Roman Catholic.
God not being a “big domineering man in the sky” aligns pretty well with what the Catholic church is saying nowadays, too.
I wise man once told me that we shouldn’t believe in a bearded old man sitting on a cloud, with heavenly chicken flapping about him. That wise man was a teacher for “Catholic religion” at my high school, and he was mocking “traditional” views of God and his angels.
(Cultural note: All the major religions get to offer their Sunday school equivalent in the framework of public schools here in Austria. So if you’re registered as Catholic, you’ll get Catholic religion as a school subject; classes are also available for Lutherans, Muslims, and sometimes a few others).
I know many people who believe in some sort of supernatural being that doesn’t fit exactly with scripture.
And I know many people who believe in “something supernatural”, some sort of plan, life force, or logos, that is not a person and therefore does not fit the definition of a god.
And there are people who do not believe in God because their parents didn’t and it’s not forced on them where they live, but who are most definitely not rationalists in any way and will happily accept astrology and other superstitions as facts. But they might still be technically atheist according to the definition of the term.
“Product of natural event” does not imply “not culpable”, but it does invite an examination of what is meant by “culpability”.
And again, we’re at “what exactly do you mean by blame?”.
View them as the primary agent involved in the causative chain that brought about the event, and therefore likely to be the most effective subject to target for actions responding to that event? Yes.
But we do not have free will in the “unmoved mover” sense, because we live in a causally-connected universe. It’s matter and energy interacting all the way down and all the way back.
Does that matter for calculations of “blame”? If you’re thinking of blame in the cosmic justice sense, it might; if you’re thinking about blame in the “assigning consequences to influence future behaviour” sense, not so much.
There seems to be some slippage in the discussion between “responsibility”, “blame” and “anger”. They’re three very distinct things, and don’t always need to occur together.
1 Like
I’m not really interested in that discussion. I’m more interested in the way Christians have managed to get atheists to do their dirty work for them and having non-Christians try to shut down criticism of the Ark Park.
3 Likes
You are probably right here, Wanderfound. Thankyou.
But maybe we could begin with what “culpability” and what that might mean for a person who is wholly shaped by environment and biology? Maybe what you say in the next section about “blame” is the key, but I don’t quite understand it. There you speak about “primary agency.” What’s that?
Why? Do you think they should have chosen to take a higher road?
Have fun playing that game on your own.
By “primary agency”, I’m getting at the point that actions are influenced by history. If I punch someone, I am the entity with the closest causal involvement in that punch, but that action may still have been strongly influenced by the actions of others (for example, if I punched Fred after Joe told me that Fred stole my bike).
If I was giving thumbnail top-of-my-head personal definitions:
Culpability: “most closely involved in the causative chain that brought about an event”.
Blame: “social disapproval associated with negatively-perceived actions”
Anger: “an affective state associated with autonomic arousal, commonly found in situations perceived as threatening, where the perceived threat is often non-physical”.
1 Like
Whoa Whoa there, I have no belief based on faith in the supernatural. But if I sacrifice an animal every week it rains regularly.
8 Likes
