On Dawkins' behalf, I wonder if a case could be made that belief in free will is inextricably bound up with a set of independently desirable reactive attitudes, and that optimal functioning of the latter (at least for most people) depends on the illusion of their logical dependency on the belief in free will. (It would be a case of a byproduct having become an underpinning). By contrast, belief in God, to pursue the outlines of the case, has no analogous relation to anything independently desirable about human life.

Rob, I think someone might make that case, but I'm not sure that it could be Dawkins. He's so adamant about keeping "this is desirable" apart from "this is true." Why should it matter that the belief in free will is (indirectly) desirable in the way you describe? What does that have to do with the belief being true? Or to put it another way, imagine someone gave Dawkins compelling evidence that belief in God underpins some set of desirable attitudes (humility, kindness, sense of purpose, whatever). Would he say: "Ok, well I guess there's a God then. I was wrong."?

As for whether the case stands on its own, that's up in the air. It relies on two contentious claims: (1) that belief in free will is necessary to retain these desirable attitudes, and (2) that the belief in God isn't. Those claims might both be true, but I'd need to see a lot more evidence to think that they are true.

Dawkins is an idiot disguised as an intellectual. All it takes is an English accent, tweed coat and an academic appointment.

Physicist Stephen Barr reviewed Dawkins' book, "The Devil's Chaplin" and had this to say:

"Even without his bigotry, we could not expect balanced judgment or logical consistency from Dawkins, because he is a man in a muddle. One encounters in A Devil’s Chaplain at least three Dawkinses: there is Dawkins the Humanist, Dawkins the Reasoner, and Dawkins the Darwinist. Each sits on a different branch, sawing away at the branches on which the others sit. Dawkins the Humanist preaches, inveighs, denounces; he bristles with moral indignation. Dawkins the Darwinist tells him, however, that his humanism is speciesist vanity, his moral standards arbitrary, and his indignation empty. Dawkins the Humanist rebels, proclaiming himself (in human affairs) passionately anti-Darwinian. Dawkins the Reasoner joins the rebellion, declaring that our minds allow us to transcend our genetic inheritance. Dawkins the Darwinist answers with lethal effect that our brains “were only designed to understand the mundane details of how to survive in the stone-age African savannah.”

That's Dawkins. There is no god, so he invented one - himself.

There's not really any inconsistency here - it's no different than the point that Dan Wegner makes at the end of The Illusion of Conscious Will. The only way to salvage any semblance of order in a deterministic world is to act AS IF we have free will. This is different thing altogether from believing in free will.

Free will is a cognitive illusion, and just like a visual illusion, it's hard to define "belief" in it. You may know that lines A and B are the same length, but part of you--your visual system--may believe otherwise. Similarly, I think it's not only intolerable but *impossible* to believe fully that free will does not exist. You keep fooling yourself every time you think about lifting an arm and it happens.

Related posts:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200804/the-greatest-mag...

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200804/the-greatest-mag...

First reaction: It's silly to call "free will" a belief and lump it in with religion. I've heard the "free will" argument / dilemma many times and am unmoved by it. Whether or not the universe is deterministic is a question for physicists or cosmologists and has nothing to do with criminal justice or any other practical matters, which move along unaffected.

Second reaction: On the other hand, saying that "no one should hold any irrational beliefs" is extremely strong. We all hold all kinds of irrational beliefs, often for the better. This is where I disagree with Dawkins.

Wouldn't Dawkins (or a sympathizer) get out of this quandary be removing the belief in a deterministic universe? Modern quantum models of physics point to a probabilistic, not deterministic scheme for reality, and this might give him a way out. One could also argue for a "soft determinism" that leaves room for free will--this is a path many religionists take to get around the determinism problem.

An interesting thing about a lot of secular philosophy I've noticed is that it requires you to throw your common sense out the window, so to speak. Holding two contradictory ideas (people don't have free will/people have free will) in your mind at the same time works for some people but if you actually acted on this stuff then you would become a very weird person. I think it's absolutely forgivable for religious people to believe in God if it lets them to hold a set of views that allows them to believe in common sense on an intellectual level, in addition to believing in it on a purely emotional level.

It would appear that I never chose to be alive. I do not ever remember giving my consent for any of this. This makes it difficult for me to be prideful about the nation, religion, socioeconomic environment, asthetic attractiveness, etc, that I was born into as I certainly did not hand pick any of it.

So, now if I say that I want free will then it seems logical that if I kill myself, I have now remedied this initial problem. So, I hold my breath for as long as I can tolerate it and something makes me breathe again. Well, it wasn't ME who made me breathe, so who was it? Was it "not my time to die" and God made me breathe? Was it that I'm not in control of my involuntary processes and despite my best conscious efforts I gave into them?

Does any of this really matter? Do I want to die? Do I know I'm going to die? Do I really have a good feeling for this fact? Probably not.

I always liked the way my grandma dealt with death. I was supposed to go on my first trip overseas when JFK Jr's plane went missing. I was freaked out and called my grandma telling her I was afraid to fly. She said very sternly, "If you're afraid to die, then you're afraid to live." Well, that was the end of that discussion.

She really held that sense of courage right to the end, too. She just passed away this past Christmas eve and a few days before she was in the hospital with chemo-complications and asked her daughter who is a physician, "Am I dying?" And my aunt replied, "Yeah, mom, you are". And my grandma said sternly to her, "Well, if you keep me alive one more moment longer than necessary, I'm going to haunt you." And that was the end of that discussion :)

So, anyway, back to free will.

I think Dawkins does a huge disservice to intellectual discussions due to his arrogance. It's as ridiculous to be arrogant about the existence of God as it is the nonexistence of God. This universe itself could be the science experiment of some sixth grader in a much larger universe for all we know.

Again, who cares???

We have to look at the things we HAVE influence over in life. We need to overcome the load of bullcrap that weighs us down from living a more productive and loving life. Our brains are overloaded with delusions and prejudices and compulsions and addictions that need to be straightened out. This will at least give us a feeling of MORE free will. I think it's only ever an argument of "more or less" free will and never an argument of whether it exists or not.

I think within a person's lifetime they will experience varying degrees of "free will" and will have varying degrees of "free will" compared to other people. I think this seems to be directly proportional to how "consciously aware" one is. Which is something that can be worked on and whether or not we realize we are, we're always working on this, some just at a slower, more indifferent pace.

This also could be considered how spiritual or enlightened one is, I suppose. So, athiests and theists can both enjoy becoming more consciously aware, more enlightened, more spiritual, or attaining more "free will". However, we willingly keep ourselves shackled to whatever environment we were raised in, the path of least resistance. It's also miserably depressing, although, I think we're only now as a society realizing this fact..

I consider it a universal existential crisis that athiests and to a lesser extent theists are going through. One in which we must define a meaning for ourselves beyond survival and reproduction.

I don't know, but I found taking a Meyer's Briggs personality test to be quite helpful for me because it at least gave me a sense that each of us have somewhat of a programmed "mission" or "goal", some way of living that is congruent with how our brains are set-up. Once I started acting in accordance with my personality (instead of what I thought I "should" be doing), life starting getting more enjoyable.

Thank you for an interesting post!
:) YG

Dawkins, Dennett, etc., all seem to think rather poorly of their fellow humans, that, without the illusion of ultimate responsibility, they will run amok.

But does the degree to which people run amok correlate with their belief in free will as well as, say, their socio-economic circumstances? Apparently there's a very low percentage of atheists in prison. It would be interesting to test the theory (according to the free will illusionists, the prisons must be full of determinists, proportionately!) The laboratory study done recently seems an exercise in silliness, equivalent to testing children's behavior immediately after they've been told there's no Santa Claus.

Some will object that different rules apply to intellectuals and non-intellectuals (Smilanksy made that assertion), that too probably needs testing.

Keepup the good work!

We have no free will, that is, ultimate responsibility, whatsoever. To hold people utimately responsible makes things more simple though, and some people, most in fact, seem to be either unwilling or unable to handle the extra layer of complexity which acknowleding the truth involves. It's a pity because blaming and praising other people and oneself is really very, very silly. And once it's become a habit (as with just about everybody) it's hard to get rid of.

Dawkins is inconsistent and should admit that we have no free will. On the other hand, those with a brain can conclude from the rest of what he says that we have no free will, so he doesn't need to state the obvious. And for many of those to whom it's not obvious -- perhaps it really is better for them and the rest of us.

The mentally ill don't have free will. They are bombarded with many symptoms,delusions being one of them. The mentally ill can only mimic free will or pretend to be normal or ethical. Sincerely,David

The mentally ill don't have free will. They are bombarded with many symptoms,delusions being one of them. The mentally ill can only mimic free will or pretend to be normal or ethical. Sincerely,David

I think this is a pretty week attempt at discrediting Dawkins. If this is the best you can do, then the victory goes to the Atheist. Sure, the man can be painfully arrogant in his opinions, but he makes a solid point. Unlike this article.
Free will can be shrouded in a fog of technicalities, or can be simplified to saying "I feel like staying in bed today" and then acting on it. To come to the conclusion that you are the one deciding to get out of bed is a whole lot more sensible and believable then assuming that some unseen/unheard/non-present actor is somehow responsible for it. The arguments for that are too obvious to necessitate me going into them. Fate? That just implies a hindsight philosophy in life. Which I find depressing, that you needn't try at all because what is "supposed" to happen will undoubtedly happen.
It really all comes down to your outlook on life. If you want/need someone looking over your shoulder all the time telling you he loves you in one breath, while threatening you with eternal damnation in the next, then by all means enjoy the voices. But if you believe in rational discussion taking into account past and current realities, then you have little hope of making a case for religion to mr Dawkins. Because there is nothing rational about religion. Fact.

...don't we have free will in the moment we make a decision knowing all sides...pros/cons...understanding that either the negative or positive outcomes based on a single decision we make; then do exactly the thing we know will cause us problems/pain/negiative outcome anyway...and willfully?

For example...having an affair. Most people spend a great deal of time contemplating that action before they actually act out on it. Most people think of all the possible ramifications (mostly negative as I see them statistically speaking only) to themselves, family, social contacts, professional. yet, even with all that 'enlightened knowledge," and yet they go ahead with an affair.

Some of you will say that is a bundle of chemicals and such moving us into a direction in spite of free will but that may really only mean that person is selfish and narcissistic, not lacking free will to decide to have the affair, or not.

...don't we have free will in the moment we make a decision knowing all sides...pros/cons...understanding that either the negative or positive outcomes based on a single decision we make; then do exactly the thing we know will cause us problems/pain/negiative outcome anyway...and willfully?

For example...having an affair. Most people spend a great deal of time contemplating that action before they actually act out on it. Most people think of all the possible ramifications (mostly negative as I see them statistically speaking only) to themselves, family, social contacts, professional. yet, even with all that 'enlightened knowledge," and yet they go ahead with an affair.

Some of you will say that is a bundle of chemicals and such moving us into a direction in spite of free will but that may really only mean that person is selfish and narcissistic, not lacking free will to decide to have the affair, or not.

Dawkins: "Free will is an illusion, and it is useful"
Dawkins: "Theism is an illusion, and it is useless, potentially dangerous"
Theist: "Theism is real, and it is useful."

Do you see the difference? Dawkins never said "Theism is real", he never claimed free will beyond its semblance, so he is not being contradictory.

I think the title should be "Can a Determinist Believe in Free Will?". Dawkins just happens to be an atheist. I like the point that Dawkins is suggesting belief in something irrational, but I think his greater point is ignored by this article. Dawkins has made a great defense for mankind against religion and specifically against religion that inhibits the pursuit or teaching of natural observation of the world. I agree that he is stumped here, but further reflection (from what I have read of him) leads to a simple resolution. Dawkins has to accept that the human consciouness is limited in its ability to grasp reality in its brutal aspect. I do not think this is at all at odds with anything he has ever said, only that he himself would have to actually think about the matter further to come to this conclusion. This does not, however, support or encourage religion. Rather, the stories of the major world religions are all fairly easily cast in doubt (although their messages are not, necessarily), therefore they can be taken off the table of consideration entirely. Dawkins is very clear that the type of thinking engaged in for religions we see today is damaging mankind. An aesthetic argument could be made for their continuation, but the more pragmatic argument of religion's stunting of human potential and condensing of power recursively in the least capable would easily overrule that. Dawkin's argument is, at heart, more about ignorance versus mindfulness than it really is about creation (it just so happens his arguments themselves have been predetermined by his exposure to religion and the quaint idea of a mechanical universe). This leaves only what has already been commented on: the removal of the mechanistic/deterministic universe. It is easy to project that there are limits to the universe, but, since we do not actually know them, the most rational course would be to withhold judgement. And that last statement is the best summary of Dawkins against this argument. That Dawkins, had he time to think about it, would have to revert to the argument that he is encouraging reasoned collection of data about the world instead of emotional embrace of comforting stories about the world. He just hasn't gotten there yet (perhaps because he is still trapped in the religious world and angry because he is unable to find a convincing way out). The science of yesterday is religion, and his true push, he will find, is to advance science, not accept comforting thoughts.

Not sure why people are coming back to this post, but I'm glad. Real quick:

A Better Way,

I assume you didn't read the post. If you do, you'll see that it's the farthest thing from a defense of theism. Whoever your target is, it's not me.

Anthony,

You're right that Dawkins can make those claims consistently. The inconsistency arises when you consider a further claim of his, namely that it is irrational to accept a belief without evidence just because of the belief's alleged usefulness. Dawkins repeatedly denounces the theist's argument from wishful thinking, and then appears not to hold himself to the same standard when it comes to free will.

Anon 4:23 PM,

I think I agree with your points here, but again, the goal of this post is not to offer support for a religious view but rather to urge Dawkins-style atheists either to apply their skepticism to the free will question or concede that skepticism can be applied selectively. If the latter, that opens the door for all kinds of unfounded beliefs, including theism.

I think some people (like myself) are coming back to this post because it showed up on the Pshychology Today window on their iGoogle home page. To answer your question Tamler. :)

So the post is aimed at whether or not an Atheist can choose to "believe" in free will, while at the same time be skeptical of everything else? For my part, I wasn't aware free will was something that could be disputed, or that you needed to believe in it. At least, I've never been swayed. Would it depend on how far back we go down the chain then? Is a chemical/hormonal response an act of free will or simply one's nature? You could go back and forth for a long while I would think. Back to the point, maybe Dawkins doesn't consider free will to be of the same branch of "beliefs" as theism, therefore skepticism is unwarranted. By that I mean, theism attempts to come up with an answer, while free will is more of a method of choosing an answer. You could substitute "free will" with "genetically engineered to choose X" or "God's plan" and still come up with the same answer in the end, couldn't you? Free will doesn't create anything, to my understanding, and only serves the purposes of defining something we all seemingly do (regardless of what's really responsible... potentially). Which words you use to describe it doesn't change much. Maybe I'm just trivializing and not contributing anything, I apologize if I'm out of my depth, though I find it fun. :)

Maybe I'm missing the point because I just can't fathom not having free will. I just consider it a reality and needn't apply skepticism to it because it seems as natural as truth, life, death or gravity. Maybe that is why he didn't give it such thought. It is so confusing this whole philosophy thing!

Cheers