Do Atheist Believe in Free Will? Part 2?

Question

I'm apologize. My previous question must not have stated my assumptions clearly enough.

In this question I've made the assumption that Atheist for the most part agree on two things, that evolution is responsible for where we are and what we are and where we are is all there is. (meaning no spiritual reality and by extention no God). And from these conclusions, we are only the sum of our parts and experiences

With this worldview assumption, I don't see how a person could possibly claim responsibility for his/her actions. Thus the person is simply a slave to his/her environment.

If I'm making a mistake in my assumptions, or if there is something wrong in my logic please feel free to point it out. I'm interested in what you have to say.

icarus: maybe responsibility is a bad word to use then. Maybe a better question would be "should people be held morally accountable for their actions if they are no more than the sum of their parts and experiances?"

Thank you for the answers: Please keep in mind that I'm assuming the Brain and all the decisions we make are a result of either random or cause/effect mechanisms.

Answer 1

You are making erroneous correlations/assumptions.

Not believing in god has nothing to do with taking responsibility for one's actions.

Morality is instinctual. Without it, we would not be here - man evolved by learning how to cooperate and get along with his companions - not doing so would have meant certain death.

Religion does not ensure morality. Look around you at all the immorality involved in religion - if it were a panacea for such ills, these examples would not exist.

Answer 2

You are equating people with animals who live by instinct. The human brain is more advanced than that. We have better cognitive and reasoning skills. That allows us to see the long term future ramifications of our actions. A person still thinks independently and a person is in control of their actions.

Are you saying that environment can cause a person to react in a particular way? Of course it can. Ever touched a hot stove by accident. Your hand jerked back super quick. Reflex. You did not have to think about it. There is a big difference between reflex and thinking about it.

You question is not thought provoking. It is kind of pointless and not based on reality. If you have a point, come out and say it.

Answer 3

You mean as opposed to a slave to a scripture?

As an atheist I don't believe anything has to have a purpose. It's good enough for me that we just are. However, I also believe it is fundamental to life that we co-exist peacefully under a set of guidelines that provide a frame of reference for appropriate behaviour. Fortunately we have this framework in law and cultural convention.

You say that "we are only the sum of our parts and experiences" as if it were a bad thing. It's not, it's a glorious, wonderful thing to learn and experience and grow.

When I die, that will be it so I intend to enjoy this life as much as I can. This does not mean I will be going on a rampant murder/torture/rape spree as, frankly, those activities repel me. Instead it means I will enjoy the journey in the company of good friends and family.

That's all I want. You can keep the rest.

Answer 4

If physics conspires to convince a person to take responsibility for his actions, then that person can claim responsibility. There is much more affecting a person's actions INSIDE that person than what goes on outside. A person who chooses to be moral can follow his chosen moral code, whenever he wants to. When he wants to is already determined by the state of the universe.

Answer 5

The question of Free Will has bugged philosophers for centuries. I doubt it will be sorted out without clearing up the mind body relationship - the subjective experience of consciousness remains a mystery to our current materialist science, although neuroscience is helping us understand how physical mechanisms influence the content of our experience.

I suspect, like many mysteries, that it will take the discovery of a new scientific paradigm to make sense of this. Maybe we never will.

Answer 6

"With this worldview assumption, I don't see how a person could possibly claim responsibility for his/her actions. Thus the person is simply a slave to his/her environment. "

-- ...and his/her brain. Absolutely right. We are not responsible for ANY of our actions. That doesn't mean we don't punish wrongdoing though. What we do contributes to the input of others' brains and influences their actions. We can remove dangerous people from society as protection as well. As it applies to justice, this implication adds fuel to my contention that revenge is pointless. Prevention and removal from society are the keys.

Answer 7

I think you are asking how are you in control of the chemical reactions in the brain right? If all our thoughts are just chemical reactions.
The great thing about science is it doesn't claim to have all the answers, but thus far it has found out a lot of them. To claim truth where none exists is illogical.

Answer 8

There is a logical mistake. To make your argument you have to assume that only being the sum of parts/experiences means that you lack control over those parts and experiences.

Answer 9

You assume the the environmental signals process at such precise levels that no variation in response is possible. There is a lot of variability in neural response, especially in dealing with complex problems.

Answer 10

We have free will, but it's influenced by our genes and our memes. They control most of our instincts, impulses, emotions and desires, but its our decision and our free will to act on them or not. Free will was a necessary evolutionary step towards cooperation and tribal life. We had to evolve restraint so that we wouldn't be incompatible with society. Other pack animals (apes, dolphins, wolves, etc.) also display degrees of self control and free will, but they are still more likely to follow their genetic urges.

Really though, I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins to learn more about genes and evolutionary behavior. Any evolutionary psychology book would be even more helpful (Dawkin's book lays much of the ground work though).

And yes, we are morally accountable for our actions. We have free will (which did evolve) and as such aren't blind automatons to to evanescent whim of our genes/instincts. They definitely influence our behavior, but morality evolved as well to perpetuate our cooperation. Morality and free will evolved hand-in-hand, and we are certainly to be held accountable for our actions.