Considering the fact that there are a goodly share of folks that to some degree or another have doubts in regards to the existence of God and place greater faith in the workings of the mind/intellect to arrive at ‘truth’, and allowing for gradations on that theme, I used A.I. to produce a list of reasons that some folks struggle with the idea of free will.
CoPilot:
This list may not be all inclusive and it may not apply to the reasons that some folks here are hesitant to admit that we have free will and are able to exercise agency.Naturalistic Worldview:
Secular humanists often adopt a naturalistic worldview, which emphasizes empirical evidence and rationality. They may view free will as a metaphysical concept lacking empirical support. Since free will implies the ability to make choices independent of external influences, it clashes with a deterministic understanding of the universe based on natural laws and cause-and-effect relationships.
Existential Mystery:
Secular humanists accept existential mystery as part of life. They recognize that certain questions, such as why we exist or where everything comes from, may remain insoluble. The idea of free will might fall into this category of existential mystery, and secular humanists may not feel compelled to assert its existence without concrete evidence.
Ethical Responsibility:
Secular humanists emphasize personal responsibility and ethical behavior. However, they ground morality in reason, empathy, and societal well-being rather than divine commandments. Some may argue that the concept of free will complicates moral responsibility. If our choices are predetermined or influenced by external factors, the notion of personal accountability becomes less straightforward.
Determinism and Neuroscience:
Advances in neuroscience have led to discussions about brain processes and decision-making. Some studies suggest that our choices may be influenced by subconscious factors, neural patterns, and environmental cues. Secular humanists who follow scientific developments may find it challenging to reconcile these findings with the traditional notion of free will.
But it seems like it might get close enough to the heart of the matter to help us, or me anyway, understand why there may be such a stark line between the simple idea of free will and the complex arguments used against it.
I think I’ve already posted on this earlier in the thread…but here we are again.
Regards,
MG