UPDATED:
We think we can choose what to eat for dinner.
There are many, many, many options available.
You can have whatever you want.
As long as you believe in God.
If you don’t believe God exists…
…the Universe determines what you’ll eat.
Godless wisdom says ‘free will’ is an illusion.
You’re not really ordering fried chicken.
Your activity is the result of particles and forces.
A complex cascade of chemicals creates all reality.
You’re not really choosing chicken…
…you’re following physics.
This kind of talk makes for great philosophical discussions.
It is, however, utterly useless in actual life.
Because even though you SAY ‘free will’ does not exist…
…you still PRETEND ‘free will’ exists.
Everyone pretends that ‘choice’ is real.
EVERYONE.
If you don’t think choices are real…
…why vote for president?
…why put criminals to jail?
…why protest injustices?
…why award excellence?
…why even look at a menu?
…and why write a comment explaining how wrong I am?
People who believe in God have no trouble with ‘free will’.
It was God’s idea to give us the ability to make choices.
That’s why He said, “Don’t eat from this one tree.”
He gave us a rule so we’d have the possibility of breaking it.
Heathens struggle with ‘free will’.
There’s no evolutionary explanation for choice.
Evolution is an unguided, chemical process.
How does mindless chemistry evolve intentionality?
How do particles develop ‘a will’?
These are really, really, really, really, really, really, really,
really, really, really, really, really, really, really…
…tough questions.
The simple answer is: free will is an illusion.
Free will doesn’t exist.
But for the good of mankind…
…PRETEND it exists.
Be nice.
Take responsibility for your behavior.
(even though you’re not really responsible for what you do *wink*)
And if pretending seems somewhat dishonest…
…you could just trust your senses.
You could trust that what seems like a free choice…
…is in fact…
…a free choice!
—- UPDATE —-
One of my gifts is the ability to fix atheist memes.
I take their sophomoric concepts and turn them into real thoughts.
Here’s something that an atheist offered recently:
And here is my fversion:
Of course, both versions are fictional dialogues.
Jesus never had these conversations.
You can throw out both versions and get on with your life.
97 Responses
I’m late to the party.
I see JZ is equating animals (lemurs this time) to people again. I suppose lemurs are closer cousins of ours than fish (if you believe that sort of stuff).
And Tildeb is NOT choosing to reply – so we can’t take those replies seriously anyway. Mindless robotic gibberish.
And does the pastor always whine this much? I bid him adieu!
Nameless in Alabama
I really wish I could get a box of popcorn to go with this blog’s comment sections. Reading these arguments are the highlight of my day; seeing people say exactly what I’m thinking gives me an overwhelming amount of satisfaction.
For free will to exist, there must a way for the mind to be independent and separate of the physics of the body (that’s why the radio analogy doesn’t work). I do not think this is the case because if there was something independent of the body then it would require some way, some means, to physically interact with it. I see nothing that suggests this way, this means, is present, is active, is real. So the idea that I am pretending whereas the person who believes in this non physical substance who sits in some driver’s seat and controls some manner of choice of the body while being completely separate from it seems to me to be backwards.
The pretending going on here is the idea that we have good reasons to think that there really are some dualistic operators in our brains, one physical and one ethereal.
All I am suggesting is that everyone has to pretend free will exists, even if they don’t believe it. Strict determinism would destroy civilization.
“For free will to exist, there must be a way…I see nothing that suggests this way…is real…”
Is that Tildeb’s super-clear way of saying he agrees that free will is an illusion?
He believes whatever the most famous atheist tells him to believe. He must follow Dear Leader.
Nah, his next comment was “not that I agree with him,” so he’s backtracking again. We once again are back at square one, with no concrete statement about free will from ANY of the god-deniers.
If you’re going to accuse me of following anyone, then pick Sean Carroll because I think I understand that inserting some means to affect the physical (the ‘immaterial’ affecting the ‘material’) is really claiming that there is some form of energy in play that tells us our Core Theory is wrong. You don’t grasp just how problematic is this assumption and this lack of appreciating it is actually highly problematic to your (and Dennett’s) argument. Pretending the laws of physics shouldn’t be what they are is no way to advance our understanding of what is – including trying to better understand consciousness – no matter how convenient it may rationalized to be. And we predicate our lives on the model that the Core Theory is correct every time we assume the laws of physics are indeed accurate and consistent. Put another way, you are suggesting that this moment does not fully determine how the next moment unfolds but offers nothing to show how this alteration might happen. That’s a real problem for those people who, like you, think Descartes’ dualism is correct. I think that point is fatal to the hypothesis of free will.
Thanks for clarifying.
Amanda: He believes whatever Sean Carroll tells him to believe.
Paraphrased, you might be interested to know that this is New Atheist and philosopher Dan Dennett’s conclusion as well. Just sayin’…
That’s not a paraphrase, Tildeb.
That’s telling JB to go read someone who (presumably) does a better job explaining himself than you do.
A real paraphrase would be saying “I believe free will doesn’t exist, and we’re only pretending to have choices.”
That’s not a paraphrase, Tildeb.
That’s telling JB to go read someone who (presumably) does a better job explaining himself than you do.
A real paraphrase would be saying “I believe free will doesn’t exist, and we’re only pretending to have choices.”
Good to know Dan Dennett agrees with me. Makes me wonder why you’re so reluctant to admit that we’re right…
To clarify, Dennett’s conclusion – that we have to act as if we have free will (not that I agree with him) – does not include your last point, that “Strict determinism would destroy civilization.”
Determinism is not a bad thing just because we’re willing to accept the laws of physics as they are. Civilizations don’t crash because this moment determines the next. For your claim to stand, JB, you need to show how accepting the idea that moment determines the next moment suddenly destroys civilization.. when it hasn’t so far.
Determinism hasn’t destroyed society so far because most people don’t understand it.
Most people don’t have the patience to read your rambling non-answers. And they aren’t interested in reading all of the exact same philosophers you have, to try and make sense of it. They want to know one thing: do we ultimately matter more than a pebble getting rolled down the river by gravity and wind? Or are we just excited particles, who have slowly developed the ability to tell each other “you are important” because the mindless Laws of Physics selected (mindlessly) everything we are (for no reason).
For the majority of human existence, we have assumed we have choices. We have assumed we have free will. That was before Darwinian evolutionists started teaching kids that Natural Selection makes a great god-substitute. But since the New Atheists have arrived on the scene? What have we seen?
In the last 50 years, when the fundamental, evangelical Atheists started openly mocking people who put their hope in something outside of science, what has the trend been?…
http://www.befrienders.org/suicide-statistics
Congratulations, Atheists! We couldn’t bring down civilization without you!
You see, one of the foundational problems you have is that even if there is a God who created all, you haven’t demonstrated that THAT God is in fact the God of the bible. Just saying it is doesn’t work. You have to show that your God is the same as the one who created all. Additionally, asserting that rejection of your God leads inextricably to lack of free will doesn’t do it either.
You need to demonstrate it, not just by a false conflation with evolution. Neither atheism nor rejection of Christianity automatically means scientific naturalism or evolution or rejection of free will.
Try to keep up, Pastor Mike.
He said nothing about “the God of the Bible.”
Only that free will demands God.
If you believe there’s a better description for what God is like, other than what’s written in the Bible, you’re welcome to start that discussion. But the point of this post is to say that free will–without God–is an illusion.
Curious, why do you both keep denying Yhwh?
You are Christians, aren’t you?
Well, your god has a name. Use it.
You’re not curious. You know well that this has been explained dozens of times:
When you fundamentalists stop obsessing over tiny portions of the Bible, your arguments crumble. You have no good reasons for being a Naturalist/Materialist, other than that you don’t like Yahweh.
Every, single conversation becomes a rabbit trail of why you’d make a better God than He is.
So, I told you to burn your Bible.
Burn it.
And then explain to me why you’re commenting on this thread.
Just because your cascading chemicals caused the instinct for you to do so?
Okay, so you’re not a Christian.
You’re a deist.
You do not believe in Yhwh: the god of Christiniaty.
Fine.
Why not just say that? Why the embarrassment?
Hey, JZ, do you have free will?
Sorry, you are still unworthy of response. Have a nice day
Riiiiiiight. (*wink*)
Unworthy of a response other than to say, “You’re unworthy of a response.”
*wink, wink*
It has nothing to do with the fact that you don’t HAVE a response because there IS NO response.
(*wink, wink wink*)
Serious question, though, that you don’t have to answer. Do you think you CHOSE to deconvert from Christianity and become a vegetarian? Or is that something that was predetermined by the Universe–like a tornado causing a tree branch to fall?
Do you have free will? If yes, how did it arise? If no, then your answer is predetermined by the Universe as is my response to ignore you.
I certainly believe I do. Even as a non Christian now, and separately as one who now accepts the theory of evolution and common decent.
How it arose? Sorry, I’m not nearly that versed in science to be able to answer that one.
By the way, could you please ask your daughter to stop attacking me when I’m commenting on one of your posts? If I were addressing her, then I would understand, but it’s getting a bit childish. And she’s lost her privilege of my responses in such cases, especially when she seems to have no idea how adults communicate
So you’re blindly accepting evolution as the explanation for free will?
Amanda! Stop attacking Mike! You’re upsetting him!
No john, she’s being rude and arrogant. Again, I’m going to give you the courtesy of my belief that you didn’t raise her that way
I couldn’t care less about what you think. I ‘raised her’ to think for herself. I promise she’s just as stubborn with me as with you.The difference is I don’t dismiss her as ‘unworthy’ when she jams me up with something I can’t answer.
What she displays in her behaviour is not stubbornness. It’s rudeness, arrogance and definitely not adult or civil. I was giving you the benefit of not having fostered or encouraged it. Have a great day
I was giving you the benefit of knowing that I don’t care about your opinions.
In our house, we’re expected to be able to explain why we disagree with each other. We defend our positions against strong opposition. Sometimes, we’re wrong.
We don’t accept whining as a valid argument.
If you want to express your opinions in this blog space, you’re going to have to pull on your big-boy pants. Are your opinions worth defending? Do you speak truth? If so, then a ‘rude, arrogant’ girl should be no match for you.
Have a great day
He’s just here to get more fodder for his blog, Dad.
Apparently his readers don’t care very much about his neck ties or what chemical-filled animal-substitute he’s eating.
But, when he talks about how mean the Christians are for making HIM answer questions instead of allowing him to do all the asking…well, suddenly the comment section comes alive. 😉
You’re welcome, Pastor Mike.
Sorry–I meant to say former-youth-pastor Mike. There’s such a huge difference there that he has now gotten two posts worth of sympathy from his unbelieving congregation out of the whole scandal. 🙂
I’m serving a purpose. That makes me happy.
I can’t imagine writing that many posts which are just screenshots of things I’ve said to other people….
“Look what I said here!” “And look at this other great thing I said!”
“Here I am, saying something to someone!”
“And here’s another screenshot of something I said!”
Me, me, me, me, me.
I’d get self-conscious of that really quickly.
That’s because you were raised properly.
… and no, I don’t blindly accept things as true anymore. I just don’t have the answer for the question you asked so I am being honest and saying “I don’t know”. The difference is that doesn’t mean “it must be the biblical god then” anymore either. That needs to be demonstrated as true also, not just blindly believed. Have a great day. Gotta get to work now
I’m curious for your answer of why rejection of the specific God of the bible automatically leads to lack of free will. I’m sure believers of other faiths would very strongly disagree
“Rejection of the specific God of the Bible” wasn’t said anywhere. Right now, we’d still be in complete agreement with Jews, Muslims, New Age Spiritualists, and literally anyone who acknowledges that Naturalism/Materialism are bad explanations for life.
So I’m curious for why you think “believers of other faiths” would team up with YOU on this topic? Every Theist in the world would agree with this post…
That makes the god-deniers the ones in the minority.
In all fairness and kindness to the blogs author, I’m going to assume he didn’t teach you to speak with people and interrupt others when they aren’t speaking with you, but do you teach your children to do this?
You didn’t even wait for my answer before you showed off this comment to your own readers on your blog.
LOL!!!!!
You’re a riot, Pastor.
Again, a false conflation of evolution and scientific naturalism with rejection of the biblical God.
You do realize that alot of Christians accept evolution as a fact, right?
Why can’t free will exist without a god, without Olódùmarè?
Do you have free will?
Please answer the question:
Why can’t free will exist without a god, without Olódùmarè?
I already answered this question in the post. We have free will because God exists. Call Him whatever you want to call Him, Dolt.
Do you have free will?
That doesn’t answer anything.
Please answer the question without further juvenile evasion:
Why can’t free will exist without a god, without Olódùmarè?
It answers your silly question, you worthless, howling, wind!
Again, you’ve forgotten that you’re in MY blog space. Most people (save your sycophants) have figured out that it is YOU who evades every tough question put to you. For example:
Do you have free will?
For goodness sake. You made the claim, so please explain it.
You can explain it, can’t you?
So, please answer the question without any further evasion.
Why is a god necessary?
Ta dah!
No. You don’t have free will, JZ.
The universe compels you to respond as a noisy wind.
John, please answer the question.
There must be a reason why you believe a god is necessary, and I’m genuinely interested in hearing that reason.
Personally, I’m not particularly interested in the subject. I assume we have free will, although I also recognise that people far smarter than me (principally, neurologists who actually study it) have mostly come to the conclusion that we don’t.
That being said, people are reading this, John, and wondering, no doubt, why you are refusing to answer what should be a very simple thing to answer.
I mean, you bothered to write a whole post on the matter, so it’s absurdly odd, then, that you refuse to explain your reasoning.
So, again:
I don’t know if you saw it, JB, but I answered this question for JZ, too.
He is just stalling now.
He agrees with the premise of the article. He’s either unable or unwilling to admit it.
It annoys him when I’m right about things…
Of course he agrees with the premise! There is no way to argue differently! That’s why Clarence Darrow and Richard Dawkins and Alex Rosenburg (to name just three Atheists) also agree with the premise.
We are made of the same particles as dirt and came from the same mindless source…
No wonder mood imbalances are skyrocketing.
Believing that we’re just self-deluded dirt is enough to drive a person crazy.
He keeps asking the SAME QUESTION. The question I answered IN THE ARTICLE! I even explained that if he’s asking that question, the conversation is over his head…and he came right back and asked THE SAME QUESTION!
It would be the end of his world to concede that we agree.
JZ answers questions like that zombie kid in the YouTube video. “I like turtles…”
HAHAHAHA! Post that video!
I explained why god is necessary for free will. It’s in the article. I don’t need to shout it into the wind again. If you really can’t understand then this discussion is over your head.
You ‘assume we have free will’ then concede ‘smarter people’ say ‘we don’t’. If you think THIS is an answer then this discussion is over your head.
My post was about how EVERYONE at least pretends to believe in free will. Your comments suggest that you agree with me.
You said: “There’s no evolutionary explanation for choice. Evolution is an unguided, chemical process.”
First, Evolution is natural selection, not chemistry.
Second, Evolution explains the development of the brain, and the larger the brain the more opportunities for action and behaviour are presented.
This isn’t complicated.
It doesn’t, however, even begin to explain why, exactly, a god is necessary for choice to be present.
So, John, people are reading this, so please answer the question.
First, evolution is chemistry because life is chemistry.
Second, evolution does not explain the development of the brain.
Third, people are NOT reading this. You flatter yourself. You’re here making noise because people are NOT reading your blog. That’s because you have nothing relevant or interesting to talk about. Hijacking my comment section doesn’t change that.
Do you disagree that everyone must pretend to believe in free will? If yes, then explain why. If no, then we agree (like I said) and you can take a break from your mindless howling.
First, no, chemistry is chemistry. Evolution is natural selection.
Period.
Second, yes, Evolution does explain the development of the brain.
Period.
You, however, are not even talking about the brain, but some other ethereal element. That’s fine. I’m happy top grant you that for the sake of argument.
Third, you’re probably right, no one is reading this.
Your question makes no sense. People don’t pretend to be hungry, for example, do they? You either have a choice, or you don’t.
And this returns us to the question you keep evading. How does the availability of choice (and the mechanisms/means to decide on a particular option over another) indicate a god?
Are you saying that without a god a lemur could never choose between ‘this’ fruit and ‘that’ fruit depending on how it felt at that moment?
So John, one last time before you bore me to tears and leave your readers (if they exist) thoroughly perplexed as to your staggeringly strange, thoroughly unjustified, entirely juvenile, evasive behaviour:
Whooooosh.
Yep, that’s the sound of you running away from what should be a simple question to answer.
Goodbye.
No.
It’s the sound of your incessant, pointless wind. It’s the sound of atheist bluster.
The question was answered. Asking the question in the first place demonstrates that you don’t even understand what this article is about.
Accusing me of ‘running away’ demonstrates that you don’t even recognize when you’re question has been addressed.
Don’t say Goodbye when you don’t mean it. You should always say, ‘see you next time’ because you’ll be back. Your content free void has nothing to talk about.
Well, as your description of Evolution was hilariously wrong, your “answer” was (and will remain) fundamentally meaningless.
But don’t worry, I’m used to you presenting your pantomimes and trying to pass them off as somehow persuasive.
This still, however, leaves the question open for you to answer…
Go read Dennett, JZ.
That’s what Tildeb did.
Windbag,
See? Told you you’d come back!
Evolution makes it’s ‘natural selection’ from the options provided by chemistry. Laugh it up!
You enjoy being wrong, don’t you?
No. When I’m wrong I take steps to correct the error.
If I’m wrong about the connection between evolution and chemistry, I will adjust accordingly when the error is revealed.
I know. HILARIOUS!!
OK, demonstrate to me how this chemical reaction Fe + O2 + H2O → Fe2O3. XH2O affects the fitness (that which can be either selected or not selected by a given population) of say, the human genetic mutation which gave rise to an opposable thumb.
Or, perhaps you can show me how this chemical reaction HC2H3O2(aq) + NaHCO3(aq) → NaC2H3O2(aq) + H2O() + CO2(g) affected the selection of the gene for, say, longer legs.
I’m not the atheist, remember?
I think there’s a mind behind the chemistry. Unless you’re entertaining the possibility of ‘God’ (Mithra, Zeus, Olódùmarè…take your pick) then YOU have to explain evolution in terms of chemistry.
Forgive me, Windbag. I require an explanation for where I’ve erred. Asking me questions IS NOT explaining my error. You’re a mighty, blowing wind.
This post is about the need to at least pretend that we have free will. Do you understand that? Do you agree? Why or why not?
Sorry, but no, I have to explain Evolution in terms of phenotypes and natural selection. Chemicals don’t evolve, John.
To your question: Do you often have to pretend to be hungry?
And are you ever going to address my original question to you?
I don’t pretend to be hungry.
God is necessary for choice to exist because:
Life does not arise from non-life.
Intelligence only exists in living things.
Intelligence causes the contemplation of subjects like ‘why am I here’ and ‘what is the proper way to behave’?
Okaaaay, so that’s your “faith” (belief without evidence) not reality.
Got it.
Thanks.
Yes. Belief without evidence.
Just like you!
And here’s a fun little article that might help you. It’s written by a Nobel chemist (not a theist) who explains that nobody understands evolution. https://goo.gl/tRKABf
You ought to write to this guy, JZ! I bet you and he could share a laugh at how stupid I am!
So, do chemicals evolve, John, or does the living organism’s phenotype?
Ask James Tour.
The Christian who believes in miracles?
LOL! I’m kidding. He’s a theist so he doesn’t know ANYTHING.
Send him your book! Send him your book!
You did write this sentence, did you not?
Like I said, it helps to actually read the articles you post.
It might save you future embarrassment.
I did write that sentence.
I was wrong.
Tour is, in fact, a theist.
Good news for you is that you can disregard EVERYTHING he says!
Send him your book!
Darn it.
It’s getting harder and harder to find good scientists who aren’t Theists…
Yep.
I don’t have to disregard what he’s written. He admits what he has is nothing but “faith,” not evidence. Good for him. At least he’s honest.
He’s also got a Nobel prize…
In literature? 😉
Everybody has faith. It’s usually just the theists who are honest enough to cop to it.
No, everyone has beliefs, which can be divided into “rational” beliefs (which are justified by the evidence) and “irrational” beliefs (which are often only supported by emotional appeal).
This post is about the need to at least pretend that we have free will.
Do you understand that? Do you agree? Why or why not?
And John, perhaps you should actually read the articles you post. The author is indeed a theist, a Christian. See the last paragraph.
Tell me, John, how many text books contain the word “Miracle” in them?
LOL!
LOL! Great point! No textbooks say ‘miracle’. LOLOLOL You’ve completely destroyed theism!
Write James Tour and let him know he’s got it all wrong!
Errrrum, John, really, you should read the articles your post. What you “think” is being said, isn’t.
Sorry.
You’re not sorry.
Sorry.
Dominoes, JZ.
It’s all dominoes.
Based on the constant laws of the Universe, everything is just action and reaction–going all the way back to the very first, mindless spark. We don’t blame trees for crushing people when a tornado hits. It’s just a natural event! And humans are just natural events, too.
John,
I like a definition of free will that R.C. Sproul uses. He says that our free will is the ability to choose whatever we desire the most in a particular moment. That makes choosing not just a mental exercise, but a spiritual one. As a believer, I can say that I want to do what pleases God 100% of the time. But when it comes time to actually make choices, sometimes the inclination of my heart at the moment is less than holy. All things being equal, I would like to think I would always choose the right thing. But all things are not equal. My flesh and my spirit battle. At times, my flesh wins out, and I sin. By my own free will, I sin.
As you wrote in the blog, if free will was an illusion, then there is no responsibility for our actions. A man can choose to steal from another because he is stronger, and thus more fit for survival. We would not want those weaker members of the species to thrive now, would we? So, by that logic, stealing, and even murder, should really not be crimes, since it our chemically determined brain that makes the choices, aided by survival instinct for the betterment of the species. Specious, says me.
God has given us the ability to choose, and we are responsible for the choices we make. (And here I go all Calvinist on us for a moment…) He chose us for salvation, changing our heart’s inclination toward Him, so that we may choose what we formerly treated with enmity in our own flesh, namely Christ. As believers, we daily, nay, moment-by-moment-ly, make choices based upon the inclinations of our heart. Not the fleshly muscle thing, but the non-corporeal spiritish part of us that science tries to chemical away. That is why God judges a man’s heart rather than just his actions. Good-appearing stuff done for selfish or ulterior motives are not pleasing to God. We can fool some of the people some of the time, but we can’t fool the Almighty.
For a choice to be called free means that it is not determined by outside forces, but by self-determination. There can be coercion applied, but still, when the mugger says “Your money or your life”, we are still making an inward choice based on our greatest desire at the moment.
Jumping back to the Calvinist vibe for a bit, one might argue that since God makes the choice for our salvation, and the Holy Spirit changes our hearts, then are we freely choosing God of our own free will? Yep. Our hearts have been changed and the choice we make is truly ours, and we can choose no other way, since the inclination of our hearts is now towards God.
Lastly, while we are beings with free will, there are things we just can’t self-determine. Our bodies are fearfully and wondrously made by God to do many things automatically. I can’t will my heart to cease, and I can only will myself to not breathe for a limited time. I can’t choose to not digest or smell or hear (apart from some rare psychological disorders where we think we can’t). But none of those things are moral choices, and none are able to be misused and become sinful. (I said hear… not listen).
I got a bit far afield this time. My apologies for going a bit pedantic. It is still going to be on the quiz, though, so I hope everyone was taking notes.
I really like the blog, John. I like thinking deeper into what I believe and why, and I enjoy hearing the thoughts of others who engage with the theme of each post.
Dave
Galatians 5:16-17 (ESV) – But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
There is scripture that says ‘nobody seeks God’ and ‘nobody is righteous’. I can’t say with any confidence that the Calvinists are wrong. Practically speaking, if God is tuning certain hearts to believe while others do not, then free will does not exist. We have theological determinism. Adam and Eve didn’t REALLY choose to eat from the tree. God made them do it.
If that is the case, then nothing I say or do is of any real consequence. God’s will ultimately wins. His programming cannot be circumvented.
I believe that God’s will is for people to actually make decisions. I think it pleases God when we decide to seek Him. I’m enamored with the passage in Genesis where God brings the animals to man in order to ‘see what he would call them’. It’s as if God didn’t know! It delighted the Almighty to see what his beloved man would name the animals. In the same way that parents let kids name puppies.
I’m standing my the article either way. If free will doesn’t exist, we will still pretend that it does. It’s the only way civilization can ever advance.