Free Will vs. Determinism

Here is a puzzler for you. I occasionally read the Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog. For a funny guy he has some pretty screwy ideas about things. He is obsessed with the politics of the Middle-east, he is a vegetarian, and he does not believe in free will or in God.

I call them screwy ideas only because I don't agree with most of what he says in the blog. That does not make him wrong and it does not necessarily make him actually screwy. He is certainly entitled to his opinions and it is his blog so he can say anything he wants. But from my perspective he is a loony-toon.

The part that puzzles me is the concept of determinism. Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

According to Mr. Adams, we are nothing more than a collection of chemicals and electrical synapses (a moist robot) who's actions are pre-determined by genetics, environment and other moist robots. Deciding when to get up, what to wear, what to eat, who to marry, what career to pursue, which questions to ask and whether there is a God or not are all out of his hands. He is no freer to make choices on any of those things than a light bulb is free to turn on or not once the switch is thrown.

Hyper-Calvinists believe in this degree of determinism but they call it pre-destination. They believe that God has decided before all of creation everything that would eventually happen (short version).

I have found that most people who deny the existence of a God are usually independent thinkers who do not want the moral restrictions of a religion to interfere with their personal choices. But their BIG thing is that they have choices. Determinism does not allow for individual choices. Without free will we really would be moist robots.

I guess what I am saying (and what puzzles me the most about this concept) is that I always thought the battle was between those people who thought everything was God controlled and the Free Will proponents. I don't understand how you can deny God and give up your free will at the same time. What does that leave you?

I'm sure the idea that not being held morally responsible for your actions must seem attractive to some people but giving up your free will to get there seems like a high price to pay. Try using that defense in a court of law.

Here is a discussion question: If you were to completely eliminate God from the discussion, is it possible to argue whether we have free will or not?