Does free will exist from a secular point of view?

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Say yes or no and then your justification. I'm SUPER curious what NSG's are thinking about this. A couple good rules though:

1. This is a debate forum specifically about free will from a secular context. So if someone says they do not believe in free will and they cite the bible for their reasoning, feel free to tell them they're in the wrong forum. And make sure to put a lot of devils like when you do it.
2. If you believe in free will, don't say something like, "Of course it exist! I picked what I had for breakfast!" You gotta have reason that the choice of what to eat for breakfast was truly only yours.
3. Whether you believe what you say or not, arguments originating from any religious source will probably get laughed at.

Ummmm, just found out I have to type my opinion here or risk getting this locked. I don't believe in Free Will. As stated later in this forum, I think there are too many psychological and biological factors at play. *Whispers to secretary* Am I done? I am? Good!
*normal voice* Religious folk can post here, your reasoning just can't be religious.
Thanks!

[Alvecia]

And what is your opinion on the matter OP?

[Dooom35796821595]

There is no free will, since every possible outcome is equaly valid. Did you chose between cereal and stay puff marshmallows? That's not free will, they both happened! You just happen to be in the reality where you went with the boring cereal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It depends from which school of thought you come from.

Both sides (Determinism and Free-Will) have equally valid arguments.

[Khadgar]

Science only deals with testable hypothesis. Until we ascend to godlike power how are we meant to test this?

[Galloism]

It depends from which school of thought you come from.

Both sides (Determinism and Free-Will) have equally valid arguments.

But can I choose between them?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It depends from which school of thought you come from.

Both sides (Determinism and Free-Will) have equally valid arguments.

But can I choose between them?

You would be a compatibilist/incompatibilist if you believe that determinism exist in varying degrees but free will also exists in an equal amount of degrees or doesn't exist at all.

[Gurori]

No, it's all alternate timelines.

Every decision you make is a fixed point in time, you cannot avoid making your choice. The choices that you didn't choose are alternate timelines.

[Galloism]

But can I choose between them?

You would be a compatibilist if you believe that determinism exist in varying degrees but free will also exists in an equal amount of degrees.

Wouldn't that just be free will with environmental factors?

[Khadgar]

No, it's all alternate timelines.

Every decision you make is a fixed point in time, you cannot avoid making your choice. The choices that you didn't choose are alternate timelines.

If you're going to go Many Worlds it's not just choices, it's every interaction down to the smallest level. Since those are all probabilistic.

[Arkolon]

Fundamental particles don't display willpower or ethereal/spiritual qualities and just react consequentially - since all matter is composed of them, you and I included, and they don't have free will, how could you say there is 'free will' on a larger scale of the same particles?

[Internationalist Bastard]

"Fate is fluid, Captain Wegner, destiny is in the hands of men."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You would be a compatibilist if you believe that determinism exist in varying degrees but free will also exists in an equal amount of degrees.

Wouldn't that just be free will with environmental factors?

Yes, that would be more or less so.

Compatibilists define free will as that which an agent has freedom to act according to their motives. Meaning, your choice of actions are already determined by the conditions which triggered the deliberation, so in that sense you are already bound to a specific set of choices to take upon said set of stimuli. However, you still have a choice to make in the end, so free-will for the compatibilists is much more constrained to your motives and how will you act based on which motives you have to solve the puzzle in front of you, which answer is really any of the set of answers you could have thought of, moral or not.

[PaNTuXIa]

Yes. Although we can't know for certain.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I'm biologically and psychologically deterministic .

Determinism: No free will.
Biological variant: Free will doesn't exist because we are too dependent on society, genetics, the environment.
Psychological variant: Free will doesn't exist because we are too influenced by language, technology, and economical climates.

Biological is pretty self explanatory. Imagine who you are right now. The society you live in. Your upbringing. Where you live is like. If one of those things changed radically, you wouldn't be who you are. In a sense, you are the sum of your influences.

Psychological is a little bit tricky. It involves a lot of something called Ontological Design. I don't really know how to explain it very well. Look up Ontological Design Shots of Awe. Jared Silva explains it way better than I could.

[Alvecia]

I think we have free will in the sense that even if the exact conditions were the same twice, there is still a random element to the decision making process.

[Esternial]

I believe free will isn't absolute, but rather influenced by environmental/genetic factors.

The choices you make are still your own, but they're limited to some degree.

[Wallenburg]

Of course it does. I suppose by my own personal philosophy, "free will" may not mean the same thing as it does to others, but free will has been a very popular concept to secularists since secularism began.

[Anarchist Heathenry]

People have free will within the circumstances they are born into.

The choose, but they don't choose their options.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I think we have free will in the sense that even if the exact conditions were the same twice, there is still a random element to the decision making process.

Kind of like Chaos Theory?

[Dameth]

Free will exists in the language. It is a necessary thought componant of necessary institutions such as law or democratic voting system. It has a discursive and performative existence - which is some existence I guess. Remove free will from the discourse, good luck judging anyone in a court for ex.

However, from a practical pov, it simply does not exist. Humans are machines and most of their actions are reactions to stimuli.

[Lychgate]

In my opinion, free will exists only as a concept to use as justification for unexpected decisions we make and to limit the choices we are given in decision-making.

Why are you eating the chair?
Free will.
But you can't do that. I said you could only eat cereal or fruit.
Oh, you're right. I'd better stop.

Society sets a precedent with one unspoken rule: everyone must follow it. This is especially evident in the newer generations as they become more and more conformist. While its true that some people ignore modern society's rules, they are few and far between. Lots of people don't do things simply because they're afraid it will look bad or be embarrassing. The justification for both going along with the precedent and ignoring it completely is free will. It is a human-invented concept designed to describe how we make choices.

Keep in mind that the choices are limited, too. If given a choice between pancakes and waffles for breakfast, almost no one will say "I want to eat the chair again!" because it's not offered as a choice. Simply put, we invented the concept of free will and limited the choices given as a mechanism of order.

Freedom in terms of decisions doesn't really exist if you're choosing between bad and worse. You just get to pick one small part of a greater scheme.

[Conscentia]

Doesn't exist from any point of view. "Free will", in a metaphysical context, is an incoherent concept. If will is not deterministic (not subject to causality) then how is "free will" distinguishable from random will? Random will is no more free than deterministic will.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

In my opinion, free will exists only as a concept to use as justification for unexpected decisions we make and to limit the choices we are given in decision-making.

Why are you eating the chair?
Free will.
But you can't do that. I said you could only eat cereal or fruit.
Oh, you're right. I'd better stop.

Society sets a precedent with one unspoken rule: everyone must follow it. This is especially evident in the newer generations as they become more and more conformist. While its true that some people ignore modern society's rules, they are few and far between. Lots of people don't do things simply because they're afraid it will look bad or be embarrassing. The justification for both going along with the precedent and ignoring it completely is free will. It is a human-invented concept designed to describe how we make choices.

Keep in mind that the choices are limited, too. If given a choice between pancakes and waffles for breakfast, almost no one will say "I want to eat the chair again!" because it's not offered as a choice. Simply put, we invented the concept of free will and limited the choices given as a mechanism of order.

Freedom in terms of decisions doesn't really exist if you're choosing between bad and worse. You just get to pick one small part of a greater scheme.

I really like that. The term used by determinalist to describe decisions that aren't actually our decisions, is called the Necessity. So to make it simple, a bird is choosing her mate. The decision between the mates is called the Necessity. It was necessary that she made a choice, but the choice had more to do with instinct, and less to do with her ability to make her own choices.

[Neutraligon]

What is free will?