Free Will within Atheism

[Drychnath]

Given that Atheism rejects the possibility of any force external to man, it is almost unconditionally an aspect of this system of beliefs that free will is precluded because of the way our world works. Specifically, we know through the revelations of science how it is that we feel and think, and how to predict with considerable accuracy the workings of the natural world.

The argument is that since we can determine the results of any action, and that all actions cause equal and opposite reactions, and given that no change in a system can occur without a force acting on it (which we can likewise predict and examine), with sufficient data we can therefore predict all things with perfect accuracy. This includes the firing of synapses which accompany our decision making processes and emotional reactions. Therefore, there is no free will. When a thing can be known, it is already foreordained by that which came before.

I have been considering this, and while the argument has no real logical flaw, the following things occured to me:
1) Given our knowledge of the workings of the natural world, we can already determine that we can measure no thing without altering it; even the act of subjecting a thing to observation alters it (such as a micron telescope). This would destroy our ability to take measurements with perfect accuracy, and therefore our capacity to predict things with perfect accuracy is destroyed (even given the ability to predict the effects of such observation reasonably). Furthermore, if the act of observation unavoidably alters what you are observing, what does that say about the perfection of our calculations in the first place (given that physics is, at this juncture, essentially our compiled and tested observations of how te world works)?
2) There are essentially infinite factors to consider for every occurance. Therefore even given the capacity to acquire perfect data, and process it with perfect calculations, we cannot make complete calculations.

The conclusion these two realizations led me to is that even given the above argument, we in fact cannot know the results with perfect accuracy. Given the inability to know the answer, we cannot know if it could have turned out differently than it comes to pass. Ultimately, therefore, we can determine that all things may be subject to the same rules, but we cannot determine how those rules affect all things. And seeing as how this runs contrary to the argument that what can be known is unavoidable, then it is therefore effectively avoidable, and we have free will by default.

Thoughts? I no doubt will refine the theory for debate purposes in the future, but there it is in rough form.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

I do not agree that simply because we cannot KNOW what is going to happen actually means that there is no free will.

in response to 1. actually, i'm not sure i have any real arguments with this, it's a pretty simple statement, and as we ahve seen, incredibly true. at least, the first part is true. in terms of our currently held theories based on our observations, we only have past experience to base our conclusions on there is no other real way to understand the world we live in, at least in terms of how it reacts to us, and other things. my point is, although there may be flaws in our theories, at this point, they are incredibly minmal, and can, in application, be shown to come extremely close, if not perfectly accurate. i give you, in point of fact, our space program. if our equations and theories of physics did not work right, there could be no way for our shuttles to navigate anywhere, it is all simply calculations and hoping.

in response to 2. again, i agree, it is true, were we able to read all the the instances and make all the calculations and examine all the influences withina situation, it iwould be entirely possible to predict what is coming next. however, we all know that is not possible, we cannot know an infinite ammount of things, and so, with our current theories, what we try to do is isolate those matters which create the greatest effect and figure out what that may be. obviously it's not perfect, but it's damn close, most of the time.

My major problem here is your conclusion. i think you screwed this up greatly. mostly because of the wording you chose. OK, we cannot know with perfect accuracy, we cannot KNOW what's coming next, but does that, in fact, prove, that whatever's going to happen, in fact, won't happen? i don't think so, even with our inabilities to observe and calculate, IF our actions are determined by our experiences(and it would appear i'm forced to believe this, being an atheist, which i have no problem with), whether or not we can know ourselves what's going to happen does not alter the fact that whatever's determined to happen will happen.

simply put, just because you don't know how the rules act on us, the rules still exist, and still act, and those rules will predetermine.

blough, find a better argument for free will, this conclusion was just playing with words.

[Drychnath]

admin said:

OK, we cannot know with perfect accuracy, we cannot KNOW what's coming next, but does that, in fact, prove, that whatever's going to happen, in fact, won't happen? i don't think so, even with our inabilities to observe and calculate, IF our actions are determined by our experiences(and it would appear i'm forced to believe this, being an atheist, which i have no problem with), whether or not we can know ourselves what's going to happen does not alter the fact that whatever's determined to happen will happen.

You are missing the point; there is no need to prove something won't happen. In point of fact, that's both impossible and contrary to the logic of my argument. Proving a thing won't happen would negate it as an option, thereby precluding the freedom of choice. It is also not possible on the basis of my previous statements regarding our capacity to predict.

Yes, physics and our other areas of science are incredibly accurate, to our nearest ability to tell. Nonetheless, you did agree that perfect accuracy is impossible, owing to less-than-perfect data, calculations, and the inability to process infinite amounts of data.

Given the infinite factors to consider (provided, I suppose, the universe is infinite - a finite universe would ultimately comprise a single system), anything less than perfectly accurate data and calculations lead to steadily growing innacuracies the farther into the future you calculate, as the margin of error grows with each increasingly innaccurate prediction.

Given that it is impossible for us to know what will happen for certain, and the lack of free will conceptually asserts that all things could happen in no other way, I assert that even though all occurances obey the same rules, it is worthless to consider them in this light. Therefore, we conduct ourselves on the basis of the principle of free will.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

ah hah! i see your point now!

yes. we act as if there was free will. MY point is, however, that regardless of how we act, there is none. our ability to predict it being a moot point, our actions are determined, yet our ability to predict the future is extremely limited(we can observe and guess, but that is the best we can do.), and so, we act as if our actions were our own free to will...

in other words: we are free to do whatever we choose, however, what we choose is governed by an infinite number of things, and therefore, unless given perfect accuracy, we cannot predict our choice, it is, none-the-less influenced and determined by the past.

...how's that?