What is free will?

You could say that although "we" are capable of making
choices, "we" are not capable of deciding who "we" are, and how "we" will
make those choices.

Both of them agreed that there is more to free will than the ability to
make choices, but beyond that, I didn't get any real answers.

coolcubed wrote:

You could say that although "we" are capable of making
choices, "we" are not capable of deciding who "we" are, and how "we" will
make those choices.

That's pretty much what Schopenhauer said.

coolcubed wrote:

Both of them agreed that there is more to free will than the ability to
make choices, but beyond that, I didn't get any real answers.

No, that's what free will is -- the ability to make undetermined choices. There's really nothing more to it.

Well that's just silly:

There is more to free will than making choices, we make choices every day, and yet there are still people who don't believe in free will. Its not that those people are idiots, its that they also bring into question the identity of the chooser.

And if by undetermined choices you mean choices that are not influenced or determined by external factors...

(And by the way, I am aware that that was Schopenhauer's philosophy, but that doesn't make it false.)

Firstly, I will apologize for my misinterpretation of your use of the phrase "Undetermined choices". I disregarded the word "undetermined" partly because I felt your use of it was simply scraping the tip of the iceberg of the free will debate (like saying "The right thing to do is the thing that creates the best outcome. That's all there is to it.) and partly out of my own somewhat childish desire to "win" the discussion.

Secondly, I will apologize for my misinterpretation of your use of "That's pretty much what Schopenhauer said". It appeared as if you were using that fact to discount my statement about determinism.

Finally, to answer your question about how the identity of the chooser is called into question:
People who believe in free will believe that factors such as your previous experiences and other external circumstances, but they feel that since it is our conscious self that ultimately makes the decision, we our the ones who control our own fate. As I brought up in my original post, determinists counter this by saying that we don't control our DNA and therefore don't control ourselves and our fate. From this springs forth the complicated question of what our conscious self really is, and if it matters whether or not we determine who we ourselves are.

I may be scraping the tip of the iceberg, but really I don't think there's much of an iceberg there to begin with.

No one denies that people's actions are multi-determined by a variety of factors -- environment, education, genes, etc. If "determinism" means only that, though, then it doesn't mean anything worthwhile. It's just a mundane truism. As I understand it, "determinism" means that one is not just inclined to make a choice, but that one is incapable of making an alternative choice. It means, in short, that whatever happens must happen.

Answer me this, joefromchicago: If, as you say, determinism is simply a "mundane truism", then why is over 30% of the world christian?

After all, determinism is not truly compatible with Christianity:

If god (being an all knowing deity) knows that we are going to sin because of the situation he puts us in, why does he do so?

John Calvin might disagree.

If god created rabbits, why didn't she know that rabbits aren't ruminants? It is, as they say, a mystery.

Applying human logic to the actions of an entity which some call 'god' is about the most useless exercise in futility I can think of.

Dear joefromchicago,
I'm curious, in the past, you have called my definition of determinism (that all the factors influencing our choices are external, and we therefore have no free will) a "mundane truism". So: how would you define determinism?

As I understand it, "determinism" means that one is not just inclined to make a choice, but that one is incapable of making an alternative choice. It means, in short, that whatever happens must happen.

Haha! I think we can both agree that Calvin was an idiot. His predestination theory only shows how messed up conclusions that are drawn by mixing religion with determinism can be.

A very good question, yet another flaw in a book filled with logical fallacies and errors. However, it does not respond to my initial question: If determinism is so obvious, why are so many people against it?