Comments on: Free Will vs. Determinism as the Core of Political Disagreement

By: Alessandro

Alessandro — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:04:00 +0000

Apparently you can’t even read replies. I clearly stated that atheism is a consequence of living in a successful society, not the other way around. The real head scratcher is how couldn’t you see it for yourself.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:06:00 +0000

Standards if living are inversely correlated with religiosity in most countries. Try reading a book other than the Bible.

By: Alessandro

Alessandro — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:59:00 +0000

This is one of the most blind assumptions that I have ever witnessed. There is plenty of evidence of the fact that atheism destroys societies, while the most advanced society has been built upon Christianity. The more you need to be responsible to survive, the more religious the general population becomes; conversely, the more advanced the society, the lazier and less responsible people become, so that atheism is a good excuse for self-justification. It’s really easy to find plenty of evidence that atheism is a byproduct of fully developed, prosperous societies, not the other way around. Sadly, once you turn the shower to the blue mark, while still enjoying hot water pouring all over you, it’s only a matter of time before you get the inevitable icy cold water shock. And for a very good reason. Determinism is anti-human, because it removes any motivation or incentive for being altruistic. I simply am; I’m not responsible and nothing really matters; eventually the only choice is the default choice: full fledged egotism, and the pursue of personal pleasure.

By: Dave Larson

Dave Larson — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:03:00 +0000

“Demand instead to discuss the real issue–separated from overloaded terms–i.e. the level of responsibility each of us has to help others.” This issue is often further subdivided into how should people be helped. Individually? Through organizations such as churches? Through government?

By: Frinty

Frinty — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:56:00 +0000

I'm not a Christian but I find your ignorance -- in the true sense -- of Christianity and Judaism astonishing considering the strength of your opinion. Vast (and I do mean vast) swaths of Christianity not only believe that there is no such thing as free will, and that further, to think one can influence their destiny by an act of free will is prideful, foolish, and yes, inevitable. If you assume that religious people all believe man has free will how do you explain the Calvinist, Lutheran, and Reformed movements in Christianity? Can you possibly be ignorant of the theological chasm between the predestination crowd mentioned above and the Arminians? Further if you stick to the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, how do read a passage like the one where it says, paraphrasing, that God hardened the pharoah's heart? Did said pharoah have free will? Ask an orthodox Jew to explain Isaiah 45:7 to you.

I really am not arguing against atheism here, just suggesting that at least part of your argument is against a straw man.

Yes, the false humility of many Christians annoys me, but I spent a nearly a year and four months homeless (in the strictest sense of the word -- sleeping on the ground outdoors every single night) and honestly, to suggest that Christians don't care about their fellow man is slander of the highest order. I know who reached out, and I know who did not. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you ignore the centuries old traditions of Jewish, Christian and Muslim charity. Go to any large evangelical church in America and tell them you would like to help in the community charity services they provide -- you'll be astonished at how much work they have for you.

Again, I'm not a Christian, I simply don't buy the 'Atonement' story. And yes, having a reasonable conversation about philosophy with a pridefully ignorant fundamentalist Christian is an exercise in hair pulling frustration, but to suggest that most Christians are hard hearted bastards is simply slander.

By: freewillie

freewillie — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:12:00 +0000

Regardless of how exhaustive aren't we hanging a lot on one study?

"Find someone who’s angry because they have to give up some of their money to help the poor and suffering, and you’ll likely find someone who’s not only religious, but someone who thinks religion is required for morality. "

So if I claim 50% of your income because I need it, you won't be angry, right? If those representing you in Congress tell you need to give me 50% of your income to me because I need it, you won't be angry or object, right?

By: freewillie

freewillie — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:05:00 +0000

"...if He all ready knows everything ie what we're going to do, how is that free will? "

So mere knowledge of you are going to do ISN'T free will. How does knowledge of what you are going to do prevent your actions or direct your actions?

By: lostintimeandspace

lostintimeandspace — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:37:00 +0000

I agree that there are several correlates involved. I'd like to list a few more:

Atheism -> Determinism -> Nothing I do will change anything -> I am an evolved ape with an evolved albeit predetermined sense of morality, and I like helping people and am in a position to do so, so why not?

Atheism -> Determinism -> Nothing I do will change anything -> Although, really, that's just philosophical silliness, of course our actions have consequences, helping people helps me, so I should help people

Atheism -> Determinism -> Nothing I do will change anything -> I'm barely scraping by on my own, but I will try and improve my station because sitting around doing nothing makes me anxious, which is unpleasant, and I will help peopld if/when I am able

Atheism -> Determinism -> Nothing I do will change anything -> I have a sense of morality, but I'm tired and The Big Bang Theory is on tv, and I'm tired of arguing with peoplez on the interwebz anyway, so why bother?

...

And so on, ad nauseum, however you want to shape it. Not really qualified to touch the God=Free Will/Personal Responsibility stuff. I find there are equally as many shades of nuance among the religous, I just can't really speak to all of their possible motivations any more than the author seems able.

By: Echotrey

Echotrey — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:15:00 +0000

An alternate view: Atheism –> Determinism –> Compassion for the Weak Atheism -> Determinism -> Nothing I do will change anything -> Why bother? vs. Religion –> God-granted Free Will –> Personal Responsibility for Failure –> Apathy (or disdain) from the Strong Religion –> God-granted Free Will –> Personal Responsibility for Failure/Success (My actions will have an effect) –> I can help somebody.

By: Den fria viljan « Niklas Elert

Den fria viljan « Niklas Elert — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:12:41 +0000

[...] i en annan text förklarar Miessler varför det här spelar roll: In short, the belief in free will, as propagated [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:36:00 +0000

The philosophy of Objectivism runs counter to this as well.

By: Reubenesp

Reubenesp — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:17:00 +0000

I came to just the opposite conclusion. Determinism (Calvin, Luther) means that’s just the way it is. Free will (Catholic) means we can help our fellow man by choosing to do good.

By: Kiwi

Kiwi — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:47:00 +0000

I do agree pretty strongly with what you have written. I myself and not Christian and do not follow the “God has given me free will thing” (and in fact, that is sort of a point of contention for me, because if He all ready knows everything ie what we’re going to do, how is that free will?). But I have two things that I think it would be interesting to consider. The first is that I do know some people who are honest and hardworking Christians and who are also some of the most compassionate people I have ever met. They believe, from my limited understanding, that because God loves everyone, they should too, and thus put their whole hearts into it. I think that these people, the kind that truly follow their religion for the sake of the religion and their own beliefs instead of selfish reasons would defy your ‘Religion –> God-granted Free Will –> Personal Responsibility for Failure –> Apathy (or disdain) from the Strong.’ I agree that people use religion as an excuse to be selfish, but I think that is more the fault of the people than the religion. The second idea that floated in my head was that you say religion but you only really address Christianity. When I think of compassionate religion, Buddhism comes forefront in my mind. Now, I’m not an expert nor do I follow Buddhism either, but from my experiences in a Buddhist-inspired university, Buddhists seek compassion and self-knowledge. I’m sure there are other, lesser known or antiquated, religions that have similarities. I really do think the fault of all this is the people. And I do believe, even though I have my own religious practices, that if we as a culture can stop taking religion quite so seriously, or at least follow something we honestly believe can make things better and be open to others, we as a culture are going no where. Oh, another fun idea to snack on, one which I shamefully forgot until the end! This is something I have thought on for a long time, and I’d love to see what others do with it: When you think about it, free will and destiny are the same thing. (I’d explain my thinking but it’s more fun to see what people think and watch the close minded ones tell me I’m wrong.)

By: Jim Sadler

Jim Sadler — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:14:00 +0000

The free will notion is flawed to its core. After all, a baby born so retarded that even the intelligence to breath is absent has no freedom of will at all. It can control absolutely nothing at all. So we are then left with a confrontation, If free will exists then some people by birth have more free will than others. Then upon reflection it is also obvious that the degree of will according to circumstance is also a variable with some having more than others. That being agreed upon we can then establish that we have no way to measure the degree of free will that might be present and available to a person. We could even agree that some people have so little free will, if it exists at all, that they must receive the aid of society. We can even agree that the degree of free will in an individual, if it exists, can change at the twinkling of an eye. A stroke or head trauma can end free will in a split second. Whether having a large sum of free will in an individual is a gift from god or a curse of this world is also debatable.

By: determinist

determinist — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:17:00 +0000

it is you who are being dumb. Why would anybody conclude that reality ends when they end? Are you trying to suggest that societies who don’t venerate a ghostly father figure have no morality? how silly!

By: Doofinator

Doofinator — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:06:00 +0000

Atheism –> Determinism –> Compassion for the Weak

Just plain dumb.

There is NO -- zero, zilch, nil, nada -- NO explanation of how Determinism leads to Compassion for the Weak, or compassion for anyone else for that matter.

More logically, atheism is pre-condition for nihilism which is a pre-condition for narcissism which is a pre-condition for ABSENCE of compassion.

There is no God. Since there is no God, there is no transcendent existince. Since there is no God and no transcendent existence, reality ends when I end.

After me, there is nothing.

My compassion, lack or compassion, or outright enjoyment of the suffering of others has no moral consequence, since there is no transcendent existence, no afterlife, and nothing to be gained or lost in any afterlife as a consequence of my behavior.

The only relevant "morality" for an atheist/nihilist/narcissist is "how does any action of mine benefit me?"

If it makes me richer, fatter, and better sexed, it's good. If it makes me poorer, hungrier, colder, wetter, or sexless, it's bad. If it does something to or for someone else, its bad, IF it diminishes MY existence.

Conversely, Free Will is founded on the understanding that there is an external, objective reality, which is populated with other beings also possessed of Free Will. The inexorable logic of universal free will in an external reality ultimately leads to the understanding that a peaceful, harmonious, and "compassionate" society is achieved if everyone agrees on and practices "The Golden Rule". If you need a reason to practice the Golden Rule, how about: "God says it's a good idea".

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:32:58 +0000

I would like to make a quick point also.

I think the real issue is the use of "force". People legislating the use of force against their fellow man. If 51% (or enough people) were to say lets raise taxes so we can give healthcare to anyone that needs it. Well that is compassionate on the surface, it all makes us feel good to help people. I am sure we are all aware of unintended consequences and effects that are actually worse than the thing your trying to stop/prevent. What does it say about that 51% that they will use governmental force to take money that you earned to fund what they determine is right? I think that is the real core of the argument. I doubt there is any large group of people that really dissagree with the compassionate ideas, just not forcing them to fund it with their money (read: property). Its stealing and using the government to steal is wrong. I always say that if all these people really want to help people, then DO IT YOURSELF, put your time money and energy to helping these people. If there was enough of you actually doing that we wouldnt have this issue. I wont get into what really happens when you give the government power, but for this post its never whats on the surface..

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:32:58 +0000

By: Freier Wille vs. Determinismus « L for Liberty

Freier Wille vs. Determinismus « L for Liberty — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:04:19 +0000

[...] Paradox Walter E. Requadt: FREE WILL VS. DETERMINISM Captain Rational: Free Will versus Determinism Daniel Miessler: Free Will vs. Determinism as the Core of Political Disagreement Ben Best: A Case for Free Will AND Determinism (Eine kompatibilistische [...]

By: cooperati

cooperati — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:02:30 +0000

This sticks out.

'"Atheism –> Determinism –> Compassion for the Weak'
vs.
'Religion –> God-granted Free Will –> Personal Responsibility for Failure –> Apathy (or disdain) from the Strong'"

If this were the case, I should expect an easy answer with plenty of examples to the question, "Where are all the atheist charities?"

Also, from this quote:

"Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism."

I deduce that societies advanced enough to maintain competent forms of tolerance for minority groups are tolerant enough to allow atheism to flourish, though it still maintains a minority status. At least, better than in third world countries, if that's what you are judging by.

And, lastly, for now;

"A belief in determinism, on the other hand, is tied to compassion, and it makes sense. Those who believe that the Big Bang happened, and that we all ended up here–some of us doing well, and others suffering–leads to the creation of public policy built upon communal happiness and suffering. And this sort of “it just happened this way” approach relies specifically on the lack of belief in supernatural free will."

Seems to be a feel good reach, like Stuart Smalley, y'know, "I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!: Daily Affirmations With Stuart Smalley." Only, here's an impossibly related reason why: because atheism makes me compassionate, and denying free will is the method by which this happens.

Communal happiness is a civic duty, laid down very well implied in the social contract we all live under as neighborly as we feel comfortable getting. "You watch my back, I'll watch yours", sort of thing.

Overall, I'm impressed with your evolution along this train of thought. One thing you might want to worry about is becoming too isolated and insular concerning what you want to believe, versus what information comes to you that you haven't sought out in affirmations of your hypothesis. What I mean to say is that you seem to value what you seek to enhance your beliefs MORE than any other information. Maybe be a little more adventurous, and question your views a little more, if not to destroy them, to let them stand victorious and tall after each battle. And each battle is all the prize your can savor, as the war of ideas is never won.

Perhaps then you can examine the charities of religion, versus this inherent destructive natures all humans encompass.

Good luck in following this to a conclusion. I want you to find one both useful, and, moreover, true.

-=T=-