Posting this because I think it’s an interesting examination of the overlap (or lack thereof) between atheists and general skeptics. It’s worth remembering that the term ‘atheism’ only means a rejection of theistic beliefs; non-theistic beliefs that are nonetheless irrational and unsupported by evidence are not relevant to the term. And yet one can easily see why there is an overlap between these two communities and why many atheists scoff at other atheists who profess belief in things like astrology, ghosts, reincarnation, etc.
I’m definitely one of those who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural, but I’ve certainly met atheists who do. It’s worth remembering the two groups aren’t synonymous.
Whether you decide that it matters or not, it was the only decision you could have made knowing what you know and being who you are at the moment you made it.
If believing in a faith based idea doesn’t matter does that mean we should adopt the belief?
deleted by creator
Do you really find it convincing that quantum randomness and unpredictable errors could give humans free will?
deleted by creator
Belief is opt in, not opt out. There’s no reason to believe that free will exists, so I don’t believe that free will exists. I’m not going to believe that freewill exists by default, and wait for it to be debunked. That’s basically pascal’s wager. I’m going to NOT believe in freewill until I have a reason to. There’s no reason to believe that free will is hidden in quantum physics, so I don’t believe that free will is hidden in quantum physics. Quantum effects can be random and unpredictable, but it doesn’t mean they’re “free will” and you have no reason to think that they are free will. You have a desire to have free will, which is understandable because everyone wants to believe that they have agency, but it doesn’t make it true. you can’t just say “something something quantum physics” and call it a day. That’s just appealing to the god of the gap, you’re just swapping out “god” for free will. Both of these things are equally unlikely to exist. While it’s true that we cannot predict errors in complex systems, it doesn’t mean that those errors are unpredictable. It means we can’t predict them. When we’re a Kardishev type 3 civilization we’ll probably have that sorted out too. We don’t know if free will is possible, and the reason that we don’t know if it is possible is because there is no evidence to support it. So unless someone can come up with a functional model that explains a process by which free will might occur in the real cosmos, I’m not going to believe in free will. It’s not even a choice, it’s determinism.
The fact that it’s a binary decision doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily a default fallback answer. If there’s not enough evidence to conclude either opinion, then there’s just not enough evidence.
You’re free to believe in a lack of free will, of course, but as far as I’m aware, it’s not a substantially more well-founded belief than a belief in a lack of free will. I guess I just don’t see a reason for having such a militant attitude about it.
Since there is nothing to indicate that freewill exists, I don’t see why we should entertain the idea that it does. That’s it. That is not militancy. Our past creates our present, our present creates our future. There is no reason to believe that humans are some magical exception in an otherwise deterministic universe. If you believe that we are, that’s faith. It’s fine though, you can believe in freewill if you have to. It’s not like you have a choice in the matter.
You missed the point. Either you don’t have the ability to choose to believe… Or free will exists. The argument is moot in this context.
If you don’t have free will, the argument is irrelevant. If you do, then it matters but the argument is invalid due to false premise.