It’s probably clear to everybody who’s read any of my posts, but the views begbert2 is ascribing to me aren’t mine.
Right. I should have included the partly-random, partly-“clockwork” option but I think all sides will say it wouldn’t leave room for free will.
For me, the point where I realized the free will concept was silly was when I first heard someone say whether the universe is clockwork, or random at some level, there’s no room for free will. Rather than accepting that that means the statement “There is no free will” is true, I thought about whether there’s any hypothetical universe in which it could exist and whether the concept itself is coherently defined.
The answers are “none” and “no”.
Absolutely. In my view, there are ways you can define free will where it’s trivially obvious that we have it (or trivially obvious that we don’t).
But our religious culture / history means we have stuck on a weird, self-inconsistent unclear meaning. Because those who believe in an omnimax god want to also believe he is 0% culpable for anything bad that happens, and can fairly “judge” us. But there’s no way that can make sense.
As a compatiblist, I feel obliged to say something akin to “well, now, it all depends on how you define the term.”
For example, we compatiblists are lazy-butts. We just point at a person, crudely draw a circle in crayon around their heads, and say “If the stuff happening in there is what determines how he acts, then he’s got free will!” And by gum, he does!
Sometimes it’s great being an atheist. So much baggage that we can just toss cavalierly in the dumpster.