Free Will

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

My thoughts have been intruded lately by this particular debate.  It seems to be one of the few "religious" questions that have people who agree and disagree, but aren't necessarily divided on theological lines.

Today, I found the time to read a summary of Sam Harris's essay on the subject and some critiques.  Personally, I was taught to believe in the concept of Free Will, and though I'm not totally educated on the topic, I would still say the idea makes most sense to me.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Oh, what has M Harris to say?

[Blue3]

Yes, I think we do have free will.

And even if we don't, what does it matter? There will always at least be the feeling that we have free will, and we'll never be omniscient. Even if scientists and theologians all unanimously agreed and told the world there is no free will tomorrow... nothing about our lives would change, and we wouldn't act differently either, people wouldn't turn into robots nor would there be mayhem in the streets. The free will debate has to be the philosophical debate with the least impact on our lives and our worldviews, the answer is just not relevant.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes I believe in free will.  It's why I'm a theist in the first place. What we know of the corporeal world indicates that it is predestined.  (Indeed, without such predestiny, experimental science would be essentially impossible.) Thus without some sort of incorporeal existence that can overrule the corporeal world then there would be no possibility of free will.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Oh, what has M Harris to say?

Harris basically argued that because we are bound by our physical limitations (i.e. a serial killer who has a brain tumor that causes violent impulses), then we don't have free will.  Of course, the average person is definitely more capable of decision-making than someone with said brain tumor.  The fact that man can rationalize, be self-aware, create, etc. to me is more than enough evidence of free will.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Harris, of course, also has a creepy (and hilariously ironic) fetish for guns.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Harris, of course, also has a creepy (and hilariously ironic) fetish for guns.

Among much else, yes. From Scott's description, his book sounds like one of the most hilariously unoriginal philosophical discussions of the subject in question imaginable in this day and age.

[© tweed]

Harris, of course, also has a creepy (and hilariously ironic) fetish for guns.

Among much else, yes. From Scott's description, his book sounds like one of the most hilariously unoriginal philosophical discussions of the subject in question imaginable in this day and age.

I heard a discussion by people who had obviously devoted their lives to the topic on non-commercial radio about a year ago that actually lauded Harris' book.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Harris, of course, also has a creepy (and hilariously ironic) fetish for guns.

Among much else, yes. From Scott's description, his book sounds like one of the most hilariously unoriginal philosophical discussions of the subject in question imaginable in this day and age.

I heard a discussion by people who had obviously devoted their lives to the topic on non-commercial radio about a year ago that actually lauded Harris' book.

I don't really care. Most philosophical discussion of free will is hilariously unoriginal.

[© tweed]

sure, what else is there to say?  we either have it or we don't; and if we have it, we have no choice but to have it; so what else is there to say?

[DemPGH]

Agnostic - no. Because it depends upon how you define "free will" and its parameters. In a small sense, yes. In a larger, more comprehensive sense, no. It's an illusion.

Sam Harris is another one who, aside from his stance on guns, I think is fantastic.

[afleitch]

Harris, of course, also has a creepy (and hilariously ironic) fetish for guns.

Among much else, yes. From Scott's description, his book sounds like one of the most hilariously unoriginal philosophical discussions of the subject in question imaginable in this day and age.

I heard a discussion by people who had obviously devoted their lives to the topic on non-commercial radio about a year ago that actually lauded Harris' book.

I don't really care. Most philosophical discussion of free will is hilariously unoriginal.

Most philosophical discussion on just about anything is unoriginal. Doesn't mean you shouldn't care about an ongoing discussion. The concept of free will is a side show, but an important one, to the criminal justice system for example. In my own opinion the idea of free-will is that it exists in a diluted because can never really exist undiluted in any form. Our will is not truly free because our thoughts are grounded in the material matter of the brain and the body which can be influenced by what we consume and what we administer to it. The only division between the superstitious and the non-superstitious is what or who can acts as an external influence (rejecting deities, prayers, stars above the heavens, voodoo etc)

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Harris, of course, also has a creepy (and hilariously ironic) fetish for guns.

Among much else, yes. From Scott's description, his book sounds like one of the most hilariously unoriginal philosophical discussions of the subject in question imaginable in this day and age.

I heard a discussion by people who had obviously devoted their lives to the topic on non-commercial radio about a year ago that actually lauded Harris' book.

I don't really care. Most philosophical discussion of free will is hilariously unoriginal.

Most philosophical discussion on just about anything is unoriginal. Doesn't mean you shouldn't care about an ongoing discussion. The concept of free will is a side show, but an important one, to the criminal justice system for example. In my own opinion the idea of free-will is that it exists in a diluted because can never really exist undiluted in any form. Our will is not truly free because our thoughts are grounded in the material matter of the brain and the body which can be influenced by what we consume and what we administer to it. The only division between the superstitious and the non-superstitious is what or who can acts as an external influence (rejecting deities, prayers, stars above the heavens, voodoo etc)

Oh, no, there's a great deal that could be said about this subject that's, despite having been said before, fairly interesting, it's just that fairly little of what's actually said really captures my imagination or investment in it--and (only) not for religious reasons; this has been true of Christian thought on free will for centuries, although I'm told Barth is an exception (I've yet to really sit down and read Barth for reasons that might be obvious).

[useful idiot]

Oh, no, there's a great deal that could be said about this subject that's, despite having been said before, fairly interesting, it's just that fairly little of what's actually said really captures my imagination or investment in it--and (only) not for religious reasons; this has been true of Christian thought on free will for centuries, although I'm told Barth is an exception (I've yet to really sit down and read Barth for reasons that might be obvious).

If it's sheer volume that makes you wary, I'd say that many chunks of the Dogmatics are quite enjoyable when taken on their own, much moreso than Romans. Evangelical Theology and Dogmatics in Outline are good little reads as well. While obviously I haven't read all of Church Dogmatics, or even a 1/3 of it, once you have a good feel for his style it's easy to read bits and pieces and put them into context.

As for the main topic, it seems sort of useless to me to have arguments between Christians and non-Christians on the subject. There's a debate to be had between seculars and an entirely different one to be had between Christians or within other religions. The presuppositions of these groups vary too wildly, in my opinion, to have a fruitful dialogue.