How does the concept of atheism reject free will?
What motivates the life of an atheist puppet in an environment where everything is predetermined?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The author of the question, apparently, did not understand the question at all and does not know that there is no “doctrine of atheism”. Neither Dawkins nor Hawking, much less Crick, are authorities on atheism. An atheist is anyone who has no contact with the divine and needs such contact. Nothing more. At the same time, he can deny free will, recognize free will, do not think about free will at all, and have arbitrarily contradictory views on this topic. In this regard, an atheist is no different from a believer-Spinoza, for example, denied free will, and millions of believers have a complete mess in their head and do not even try to turn it into something harmonious.
I am an atheist, a compatibilist, and I do not accept rigid determinism. So I don't have any problems with free will, but I do have problems with people who have decided that there is a bible of atheism and Hawking is a prophet of it.
It seems to me that before discussing free will, it would be a good idea to demonstrate its existence.
Before discussing the lack of free will, it would be a good idea to demonstrate its absence.
Here, of course, everything depends heavily on definitions. Usually, the concept of free will refers to the idea that the same person can make different decisions in perfectly identical situations. And yes, of course, every time I subjectively think that I really have a choice. But this does not say anything about whether it actually exists. I do not know what experiment could demonstrate the presence of this choice.
Therefore, being an atheist, I honestly say about free will that I have no idea if I have it. And I continue to live quietly in the (possible) illusion of choice. I don't know what should bother me about this.
It is not clear where the author of the question got the information about atheism's rejection of free will and universal predestination. And why is an atheist a puppet? The concept of atheism has never rejected anything like this.
It doesn't refute it in any way. Free will is an invention that does not need to be refuted. Just like you don't need to refute religion and morality. Atheism does not refute any of this, it is simply above these idle questions.
The atheist is driven by values, just like everyone else. They are not just given from the outside, but are always experienced (existential aspect). That is why formal morality (what should be, is declared) always runs parallel to the real one (what and how is implemented in practice).
You can't give something that you don't need. Freedom is where it is at will, not duty.
The author is a religious dogmatist and is immersed in his own illusions, which are very far from the truth. It works at the level of reasoning: what kind of beard does God have – white, black or red? To the answer that God does not exist for an atheist, he says that this is not an answer, he needs an answer about the color of God's beard. Well, a sick person on the head, what to take from him. He saw the unfreedom of the will, being himself bound by religious dogmas to the limit. Psychology should be studied.
There is nothing UNAMBIGUOUS in the world. Determinism and indeterminism are equally valid. The world is not predictable, because only this property of the world ensures our decision-making.
Both freedom and will are something indefinite. A person has only an independent choice and this choice is predetermined by his private inner world. This means that it chooses based on the information available in it, and this choice is always predetermined. With the attitude to God, i.e. the cause of the world, this is not connected in any way.
What a rude thing to say about atheist puppets! :)) Recently, every second geezer shoves this will into the text, in some ephemeral sense. Will is the degree of freedom for certain actions – physical, imaginable, whatever! Atheists have their own prejudices, believers have their own, and within the framework of these prejudices they exist, this is the degree of their freedom, their will! :))
It's all driven by your instincts and beliefs. So make no mistake, everyone is an idiot to one degree or another! :))
THE QUESTION IS COMPLICATED. BUT INTERESTING. AND “PROVOCATIVE”. BECAUSE IT REVEALS THE DEEPEST PART OF ATHEISTS. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T LIKE IT. AND, OBJECTIVELY, “TOO TOUGH”. Uv. Dmitry, great question, bravo! Who, to his shame, initially did not understand himself. It requires an equally serious answer, so I ask you to consider this one only as an approach to it, as a kind of preface.
What can we say about the majority of commentators, whose entire atheism is often “everyday” or “semantic”, at the level of a phrase drummed into a preschooler, about the absence of anything that cannot be seen or felt. They then called it supernatural, which later became fixed as an “empty” denial of the Creator.
Naturally, the question cannot be understood or answered at this level.
(They say, is it consistent with the predestination of actions when an “atheist” does what he wants? (As it seems to him). Not constrained by almost any framework. After all, he can go, say. go to a nightclub, or drive a car on the roads, do body building, or, conversely, sniff glue. And if there is money-then buy “factories, newspapers, steamships”, and even whole islands (which part of our “elite” does, in fact, is not able to explain why). It can throw money to charity funds , or it can throw people out on the street with whole businesses. What greater freedom can a mortal dream of?)
And in conclusion, I will agree that the atheists are still right about one thing: that there is no concept of atheism and cannot be. Because, figuratively speaking ,you can “spit on the carpet in the living room “without any “concept”. Which, figuratively speaking, they do.
(Due to natural time constraints, I will try to develop what I started here in the next answer (s). I am grateful to the author for the question, and to all readers for their attention).
The concept… God created man in his own image and likeness, who created God in his own image and likeness. That's the whole concept. Don't fool the public : there is no concept of atheism. He lives on earth, not in a fantasy “out there”. And a person can do whatever he wants and does,despite the existence of disciplinary, administrative and criminal liability, I am already silent about Satan, who went against the will of God.
Now let's talk about freedom in religion. In the afterlife, the will of the human soul is taken away and the most interesting thing is that there are only two options for life, as in the trigger: eternal heaven and hell ( and why eternal, and not temporary, until you get tired, and why not heaven at the same time as hell, and why does God not ask him: does he want life there or not at all ? etc.).
Well, who has more freedom ?
It's amazing : the believer knows better than the atheists themselves what they want and explains why. When it comes to believers, as well as for atheists: leave them alone, do not impose your worldview and prevent them from living as they are more comfortable : with or without faith. Religion and atheism are based only on desire and only affect the person psychologically. And nothing else. Believers, some kind of lyad, forgetting about the basic principle ( God does not go against his will), continue to bend their line.
An atheist, like any other person (regardless of worldview), is driven by causal relationships. The answer is obvious.
You can call it a puppet, a biorobot, but it is impossible to cancel determinism and incompatibilism just by CALLING them names
I think that the author put another meaning in the phrase ” what motivates?”: namely, why should a person do something if his actions are already predetermined.
Alas, such a question also carries a remnant of the illusion of free will: allegedly, a person can think “why do something if my actions are already predetermined?” and … and, in fact, what?
If my actions are predetermined, does that oblige me to do something about it? If my actions don't make sense, should I not do them? Yes, this fact does not affect anything at all!!
An atheist, not an atheist – he will do something, because the previous life, the situation, awareness of the future, etc., etc. will INEVITABLY force him to do something, to perform some actions. And the person himself, since he does not have free will, cannot influence this in any way))
The illusion of free will, as it arises , is a separate interesting topic. If you are interested , we can continue in the comments
Answer to the first question:
no way.
Answer to the second question:
yes, it is better to be with the illusions of choice and freedom than to be a slave of God of the Satanist sect, whose servants wear black, crosses with the image of a corpse, forcing other servants of God to perform satanic rites with eating a ritual piece of a corpse (“…eat, this is his flesh…”) and drinking ritual blood (“…drink, this is his blood…”). And all this is varnished with golden domes, fantasies about eternal paradise, and about gehenna of fire.
Reason moves those who do not want to be a slave to the mythical god, but waste their faith on black heresy.
(Concisely and abstractly.)