The Good Place

 But the mainstream materialist consensus these days seems to be anything but deterministic, and plenty of theologians have believed in predestination.

Are you sure about that? Whenever I have had similar discussions with materialists I get the impression that determinism is beyond question. I did a little digging and found this paper discussing some of the leading materialist thinkers and their views on determinism. 

The question of free will is a perennial one. With new insights from modern science much reflection is given again to the problem of determinism, and the possibility of human freedom. Richard Dawkins argues that our genes need to be taken into account when considering the question of whether we are free. Daniel Dennett argues for free will from within the context of an evolutionary framework, thereby giving freedom a naturalistic grounding. Both these thinkers operate from within the neo- Darwinian framework, allowing for the possibility of freedom, against the backdrop of determinism/ materialism. One other thinker arising out of the neo-Darwinian framework is the neuroscientist Sam Harris. In his publication Free Will, Harris argues that the concept of free will is incoherent, he appeals to arguments from neuroscience to ‘prove’ that we are not free, outlining that the content of experience is not a free choice, the content is produced out of a complex interaction with the individual, and the environment. For a human being to truly have a free choice, Harris argues we would need to be given access to everything that gives rise to the choice. As Harris draws from findings in neuroscience, discussion will be given to the question of Benjamin Libet’s famous neurological experiment, and the wider discussion of consciousness. The paper argues for the possibility of a compatibilist model of free will in line with Dawkins and Dennett’s approach. Concluding that the naturalist model of explanation has a lot of detail to furnish before it could be proven that free will is an illusion. 

It seems to me, from that summary, that Dawkins & Dennett will allow for a kind of localised free will in a deterministic universe. Harris seems to stand firmly in the deterministic camp. At best you have an argument between "hard" and "soft" determinists (compatiblists).

Are you sure about that? Whenever I have had similar discussions with materialists I get the impression that determinism is beyond question. I did a little digging and found this paper discussing some of the leading materialist thinkers and their views on determinism. 


It seems to me, from that summary, that Dawkins & Dennett will allow for a kind of localised free will in a deterministic universe. Harris seems to stand firmly in the deterministic camp. At best you have an argument between "hard" and "soft" determinists (compatiblists).

I mean from the point of view of physics, rather than philosophy - though I should have said that there wasn't a consensus for determinism, not that there was a consensus for indeterminism.

[Edit: Obviously the question of free-will is different from physical determinism. But if physics were deterministic, I don't see that a materialist could believe in free will. If it's not, then the "biological robots" argument is more difficult to make.]

I enjoyed this show. Its creator wanted to explore the philosophical underpinnings of how people treat each other in fun, bite size, mainstream chunks.

Btw, Kristen Bell is excellent in it, and is very engaging in Marc Maron’s latest WTF podcast, out today.

Boomer Lives!

I feel like you and I will be great friends in the afterlife, given the substance of our disputes will largely be settled. 

I won't even rub it in how wrong you were, and how millions of pixels you spilled being wrong, though of course you'll owe me a drink upon our meeting.

Wow, Malf - a couple of questionable assertions in there, don't you think? Introspection is a dead end? I think you'd find proponents (and many psychologists) arguing that learning to know and love ourselves is the first and essential step to loving anything and anyone.

Appeal to Whitney Houston aside, I didn't mean to imply that introspection itself was a dead end, but the type of narcissistic philosophy that aims to disallow everything outside the introspection.

And the atheist "pure altruism" you describe seems to be somewhat constrained by its own dogma just as much as the pious religious devotees it clearly despises. I can't believe that you don't see the contradiction contained in that sentence?

I don't get this. Only the atheist doesn't carry the burden of judgemental father figure following them around, keeping account of the good and bad deeds. To which athiest dogma are you referring?

Referring back to my previous post, I wonder whether the goal of your own happy life is that selfish motivation I mentioned?

Indeed. The release of endorphins may be the provide purest motivation.

I don't get this. Only the atheist doesn't carry the burden of judgemental father figure following them around, keeping account of the good and bad deeds. To which athiest dogma are you referring?

The contradiction I was talking about is the implied criticism against devotion to a judgemental deity which is, in itself, a judgemental criticism. Other than that, why the need to set atheists on higher moral ground by claiming pure altruism? Constantly asserting your ideology as being somehow better than another seems to me to be dogmatic, as argued in this article:

Why 'dogmatic' atheists think they are right about religion - study

They also found that decreasing empathy among non-religious participants in the study corresponded to increasing dogmatism.

It suggests militant atheists “may lack the insight to see anything positive about religion [as] they can only see that it contradicts their scientific, analytical thinking”.

I don't get this. Only the atheist doesn't carry the burden of judgemental father figure following them around, keeping account of the good and bad deeds. To which athiest dogma are you referring?

This part always bewilders me. It seems the atheist view presented here is that the only alternative to atheism is the god of Abraham. Anyone who reads a few NDE accounts will see that there are other possibilities. Or even through direct personal experience. It isn't necessary to be so constrained in one's outlook - otherwise it makes atheism look like nothing more than a sulking rejection of the establishment. The latter would be ok as a starting point, but one needn't get stuck there.  

Maybe it's time for atheism to truly drop the god of Abraham, rather than continue to carry it as part of the belief system.

This part always bewilders me. It seems the atheist view presented here is that the only alternative to atheism is the god of Abraham. Anyone who reads a few NDE accounts will see that there are other possibilities. Or even through direct personal experience. It isn't necessary to be so constrained in one's outlook - otherwise it makes atheism look like nothing more than a sulking rejection of the establishment. The latter would be ok as a starting point, but one needn't get stuck there.  

Maybe it's time for atheism to truly drop the god of Abraham, rather than continue to carry it as part of the belief system.

Or maybe a few more atheists should read this forum because I believe several of us have made the same point until we're tired of the repetition. This is not a religious forum. Proponents here are not, in general, carrying that burden of devotion.

The contradiction I was talking about is the implied criticism against devotion to a judgemental deity which is, in itself, a judgemental criticism.

This isn't a criticism, but a fundamental tenet of, if not theism, then organised religion as it exists today. That an act of good is done for the sake of the act, rather than to maintain some cosmic balance for fear of repercussion might be worthy of reflection. I said it was a strong argument, I didn't wholeheartedly endorse it.

Other than that, why the need to set atheists on higher moral ground by claiming pure altruism?

I wouldn't say I was a better man than Jesus. That is for others to judge.

This part always bewilders me. It seems the atheist view presented here is that the only alternative to atheism is the god of Abraham. Anyone who reads a few NDE accounts will see that there are other possibilities. Or even through direct personal experience. It isn't necessary to be so constrained in one's outlook - otherwise it makes atheism look like nothing more than a sulking rejection of the establishment. The latter would be ok as a starting point, but one needn't get stuck there.  

Maybe it's time for atheism to truly drop the god of Abraham, rather than continue to carry it as part of the belief system.

Whoa, no need to be bewildered. I was challenged on how an atheist might make moral "good" decisions, and contrasted that with how a theist might make a decision. I wasn't thinking of anyone; if that position isn't yours then that's fine, it isn't aimed at you. However, if you don't believe in a judgmental deity, I suspect those that do would consider you an atheist in any event.

If everything is consciousness, how do we arrive at "good" ways to interact with others, if they do not exist outside of our minds, or outside of our experience of them?

I must say, I've never really understood the assumption that if you're a materialist life must be meaningless.

Me neither.  The simple fact that feelings exist in both us and others and that we have an awareness of "meaning" gives meaning to life.  I get materialism, I really do.