I routinely enjoy Barney&Frank. But I find this one both confusing and rather out of character (OOC).
As an atheist, I see the question of free will as a religious uncertainty. As in, would or could a theoretical deity allow free will?
But I think that there is no deity, so the question is moot. So, humans have free will by not being controlled by any outside powers.
So when Barney says “I have been drawn to the atheistic concept of the non-existence of free will and that man is hopelessly compelled by instinct and the laws of physics”, that makes no sense to me.
It is the opposite. Free will is automatic if there is no deistic power causing or futurally-predicting actions.
If Weingarten intends to say that biology and chemistry, etc are all that drives us (with no deity), I suggest this argument fails.
I claim to have free will in some situations. Let’s say I am choosing to plant corn or beans in a garden. Flip a coin. BUT, I will negate the coin flip if it comes up corn because I want beans because I decided THAT before the coin flip.
A better example: I look in my freezer and see shrimp, pork, beef, chicken, bacon, and lamb. I roll a die. I decide to have pork without looking at the die. What if I chose the pork because it was time to use up the bok choy for a stir fry?
That’s a judgement call based on observable facts about the condition of the bok choy. Is my evaluation of the condition of the bok choy somehow forced on me?
That strip was just wrong about free will and I am rather surprised about it…
I routinely enjoy Barney&Frank. But I find this one both confusing and rather out of character (OOC).
As an atheist, I see the question of free will as a religious uncertainty. As in, would or could a theoretical deity allow free will?
But I think that there is no deity, so the question is moot. So, humans have free will by not being controlled by any outside powers.
So when Barney says “I have been drawn to the atheistic concept of the non-existence of free will and that man is hopelessly compelled by instinct and the laws of physics”, that makes no sense to me.
It is the opposite. Free will is automatic if there is no deistic power causing or futurally-predicting actions.
If Weingarten intends to say that biology and chemistry, etc are all that drives us (with no deity), I suggest this argument fails.
I claim to have free will in some situations. Let’s say I am choosing to plant corn or beans in a garden. Flip a coin. BUT, I will negate the coin flip if it comes up corn because I want beans because I decided THAT before the coin flip.
A better example: I look in my freezer and see shrimp, pork, beef, chicken, bacon, and lamb. I roll a die. I decide to have pork without looking at the die. What if I chose the pork because it was time to use up the bok choy for a stir fry?
That’s a judgement call based on observable facts about the condition of the bok choy. Is my evaluation of the condition of the bok choy somehow forced on me?
That strip was just wrong about free will and I am rather surprised about it…