Free Will and God's Existence

[psychopath]

Hi. I'm a new member here - I've been reading a lot of the threads the last couple days, and it seems like there are some really knowledgeable people here, so I figured I'd sign up.

I am a theist, and more specifically a Christian. I like the field of philosophy, so why not make my first post in the philosophy department?

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the free will vs. determinism debate, and its implications regarding God's existence. There are many reasons I think determinism is an unviable position, many of which are outlined here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Free_Will_vs_Determinism.html

Furthermore, though this may have been touched upon by the link, I think that, if mankind has the ability to reason, the existence of free will is implied. Reason is an active process - it is affirming that, for example, because of A, then B, as opposed to because of A, then not B, or because of A, then maybe B. It involves choosing one statement as right, and, in the process, denying those other statements which are contrary. But if my thoughts come to me passively, i.e., through forces outside my control, I don't truly have the ability to make this choice. My thoughts just come to me - even if I feel as if I am the one conjuring them up, I really had no say in the matter. Thus, "reason" becomes meaningless - it is just whatever my thoughts happen to be, caused by forces outside my control, and I don't have any choice in the matter. But without the ability to reason, all human communication, debate, etc., becomes meaningless. If I "affirm" something as true, it is irrelevant to the actual truth of the matter, because this affirmation is a passive process that I, ultimately had no control over. (Sorry if that didn't make sense.)

So, if we have a free will, what exactly IS it? What defines it? I do not see how it can be a physical thing - it would then be composed ultimately of inanimate chemicals, which cannot bring about a true choice, but instead orient themselves in accordance with the laws of nature (not bringing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle into this for now). So if free will does not belong to the physical realm, how can we describe it? I think a viable option is that it must be a spiritual entity that exists within each human being, that gives us the ability to make true choices in the way that we intuit ourselves as so doing, the physical manifestation of which is a specific chosen action, or thought. Such would explain a human's ability to reason.

This is where theism comes into the mix. How can the atheist explain the existence of free will, or, if he is a determinist, how can he explain away the problems with determinism already outlined? A universe that started with a Big bang, produced the Earth via purely physical forces, the latter of which eventually produced human beings via purely physical forces, has no place for any non-physical existent (or, should I say, some existent that does not obey normal physical laws, and does not exist in space). I am not saying that the Big Bang never occured, or that Darwinism is false, but the existence of a free will, if it is granted, seems to be strong evidence of some higher power that is its original creator. It seems as though atheism leads directly to determinism, because our thoughts boil down to nothing more than the firing of neurons based on the orientations of inanimate chemicals in our brains that strictly follow physical laws.

Alright, I'm gonna stop there, because I think I've said enough to spark a discussion. A lot of this is just my own thinking, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is some blatant flaw in my logic :smile:. Theist or atheist, thoughts?

[Lizard]

Bump for the new guy.

[Ishmael]

From Pycopath's web site:

Psycopath's entire article is a straw man. The Determinism vs. Free Will debate has to do with Theological Concerns, not psychological personality development.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Free_Will_vs_Determinism.html


Free Will vs Determinism


A Brief Consideration of Contradictions Inherent in Rejecting Free Will


False premise. There are no contradictions.


Claim: That all human behavior can be explained by appealing to genetics and/or environment; free will is, at best, a convenient illusion; it does not, in fact, exist.

Analysis: Accepting this claim requires accepting a number of contradictions.


Who makes this claim? This is certainly not a "theological" position. Nor is is philosophical for it appeals to biology and environment. It appears to be a psychological argument about personality superimposed onto the debate concerning Determinism and Free Will.

I say, false claim, apples and oranges and not at all relevant to the ongoing debate between determinism and free will.


This claim is offered as an epistemological, i.e., knowledge, claim. This claim is said to be a more accurate description of reality. It claims that the truth regarding explanations for human behavior is X rather than not-X, that the situation is one way rather than a different way. It asks that other people who disagree change their minds/beliefs and accept X as the truth.


So your logical equation could be rendered:

X= ALL choices are determined by "genetics/environment"
-X= ALL choices we make a completely dependent upon our own will

Either X OR -X on the genetics vs. environment psychological debate??? Preposterous...


However, if people's behavior is fully explained by their genetics and/or environment, then so must be their beliefs, i.e., what people believe is also explained by/caused by/determined by genetic and/or environmental factors.


Very faulty. You are speaking of genetics and environment which are conventionally understood to influence the personality. I still fail to see what connection this has to Determinism and Free Will.

There is no basis for disconnecting belief and behavior, psychologically. Human persons engage in behaviors that are fuelled by their beliefs that they may or may not be aware of. There are volumes of psychological data that point to the understanding that hidden beliefs fuel behaviors in all sorts of unexplained ways.

Therefore, if your point is to say that since beliefs are obviously not controlled by genetics and environment, then you are certainly taking a position that is far from orthodoxy in the psychological world.


Yet, if beliefs are explained/caused/determined by genetic/environmental factors and there is no choice, then one cannot "choose" to change one's mind. At best, one can describe one's belief as changing due to genetic/environmental factors.


False. Built on the seriously flawed premise you started with. And has nothing to do with Determinism vs. Free Will.


One must, therefore, simply believe what one's genetics/environment has caused/made one to believe. One is helpless to believe other than as one does. One cannot legitimately claim/judge that someone else's position is "wrong" or "incorrect" if different from one's own. At best, one can only state that that person, as well, simply believes what he/she does because of his/her genetics/environment.


I am sorry, this is drivel and is not connected to the title of your article, at all.


Gaining knowledge and the process of persuasion presuppose that one can evaluate evidence -- poorly or well -- and select among the possibilities and decide/make the identification that the situation is X or not-X. Yet that selection process, i.e., testing and then validating or rejecting a claim, i.e., making a choice, is denied by the claim as being the case.


Determinism in no way denies the ability to reason. False. Argument is against a straw man once again.


If knowledge is genetically or environmentally determined, then one cannot sift through evidence, openly and objectively weigh that evidence, and decide/choose what is the best identification of the truth. If, however, one then claims that knowledge itself is impossible, then that is also self-contradictory, i.e., that claim makes a knowledge claim that knowledge is impossible.


How do these wild statements follow? Knowledge is gained through education and observation. This statement again shows how completely unschooled you are in the issue you claim to refute here.



Contradiction 1: The claim asks people to decide (i.e., to choose voluntarily) to believe differently than they do when choice/free will itself is claimed not to exist.


Straw Man. Your claim is a false representation of Determinism.


Contradiction 2: This claim makes a knowledge claim while simultaneously implicitly stating that the foundation for making a knowledge claim does not exist.


False. Determinism makes no such claim about knowledge nor is it in any way an epistemological discipline.


If the claim is accepted, however, i.e., that one's beliefs are determined by genetics/environment, and that these beliefs are sufficient for making a knowledge claim, then we are confronted with a situation in which there is no basis for making an independent selection among differing knowledge claims. Again, all that can be said is that one believes what one is determined/caused/made to believe by one's genetics/environment. One cannot even claim that the means claimed for "knowing" something is valid since that belief, too, would be determined by one's genetics/environment.


If we do not have free will then we have no basis to know anything? Rubbish.


Contradiction 3: X and not-X cannot both be true.


Of course they can't. Because they are both false.
X= ALL choices are determined by "genetics/environment"
-X= ALL choices we make a completely dependent upon our own will


One individual can claim that person Y exists while another individual can claim that person Y does not exist (at the same time and in the same respect). Yet if all individual knowledge claims are equally valid, then there are potentially an infinity of knowledge claims that contradict and are mutually exclusive. All claims are equally plausible/implausible.

If all individual beliefs are valid foundations for evidence and/or for proving X, then we are left with pure subjectivism, i.e., X is true because one believes X (and one must believe X because one has no choice since X is caused/explained/determined by one's genetics/environment). One must simultaneously both accept and reject both the claim that free will does not exist and the claim that free will does exist. Both are equally "true" and equally "false."


NO. They are both equally false and have nothing to do with the Determinism argument.


Contradiction 4: If X is true merely because one believes X, then one can never be wrong, i.e., the claim implies both infallibility and omniscience.


This is plain rhetoric and should have been left out of your paper.


The claim above ultimately leads to the rejection of choice, personal responsibility, reason, logic, morality, truth, and knowledge. It also leads to the acceptance of subjectivity, infallibility, and omniscience. (Also: to the acceptance of choice, etc. and the rejection of subjectivity, etc.; both positions are, according to the claim, determined by one's genetics/environment). The theory advanced by the claim excludes itself and is thus meaningless


Your whole paper is pure rubbish. You need to think about the real issue and then try again. Not a good start.

[Theolog]

To define “free will” you must first define “free”.

I believe that as long as we are in a subject/object relationship freedom cannot exist because the subject is always bound to the object.

Only when the subject is merged with the object could freedom exist but then what’s the good of being alone?

Free will is an illusion.
Free will in election is even a bigger illusion.
Don’t ask how I measure illusions.

[Ishmael]

Theolog:
To define “free will” you must first define “free”.

I believe that as long as we are in a subject/object relationship freedom cannot exist because the subject is always bound to the object.

Only when the subject is merged with the object could freedom exist but then what’s the good of being alone?

Free will is an illusion.
Free will in election is even a bigger illusion.
Don’t ask how I measure illusions.

For us simple minds I would ask you to elaborate on this... :smile:

[Theolog]

First of all;
The arguments for free will are all ill-conceived and pointless responses to the Calvinist declaration that “God is sovereign in election” or “it is God that elects His elect” (chooses the chosen).

These misguided arguments attempt to confuse the issue and bypass the Scripture by changing the premise to whether man has volition or not.

I don’t think many Calvinist would assert that man does not have volition, although some have.

What happens in these arguments is the Calvinist is thinking; “Gods’ Sovereignty in election” vs. “free will in election” and the others are arguing a case for mans volition in general then particularly in election, two different subjects. Something that only two psychopaths would do. In fact that might be the definition of a phychopath.


As for my Zen Philosophical approach to the psychopaths pointless post ( I agree with you it is pure drivel) you will have to think about it for the time being as I have to go to work.

[psychopath]

I will try and give a better response later, but I just want to point out for now that I was not the author of that link, it is just something that I came across and found interesting. You seem to disagree strongly with it, but I don't really have the time right now to analyze what you're saying, so I will do that later and see if I agree.

Just wanted to clear the air and let you know that I didn't write that article.

[psychopath]

First of all, how are you defining determinism? I think we may be working with two different definitions of the concept, and unless that is ironed out first our discussion is bound to go nowhere. The determinism that I'm speaking of is that commonly held by atheists, according to which all human actions are, basically, no more than the inevitable end of some long cause-effect chain, over which the person has no control. My dictionary defines it as "the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." This view of determinism is incompatible with the existence of a free will. If I'm not mistaken, according to the Calvinist view, man is still a free being, but only sinfully free, because of his sinful nature (correct me if I'm wrong here). The determinism I, and the guy who wrote that link, are talking about is incompatible with even this Calvinist view of freedom.

The link said:

''Claim: That all human behavior can be explained by appealing to genetics and/or environment; free will is, at best, a convenient illusion; it does not, in fact, exist.

Analysis: Accepting this claim requires accepting a number of contradictions.''

You said:

''Who makes this claim? This is certainly not a 'theological' position. Nor is is philosophical for it appeals to biology and environment. It appears to be a psychological argument about personality superimposed onto the debate concerning Determinism and Free Will.''

I will alter the original claim from the link, and make it more general -

Claim: All human behavior is determined by forces outside our control; free will is, at best, a convenient illusion; it does not, in fact, exist.

Analysis: Accepting this claim requires accepting a number of contradictions.

This IS the claim made by the determinists which I am discussing - the claim merely restates their position.

The link said:

"This claim is offered as an epistemological, i.e., knowledge, claim. This claim is said to be a more accurate description of reality. It claims that the truth regarding explanations for human behavior is X rather than not-X, that the situation is one way rather than a different way. It asks that other people who disagree change their minds/beliefs and accept X as the truth."

You said:

"So your logical equation could be rendered:

X= ALL choices are determined by 'genetics/environment'
-X= ALL choices we make a completely dependent upon our own will

Either X OR -X on the genetics vs. environment psychological debate??? Preposterous..."

Absolutely not; you misinterpreted the link. The link does define X as "all choices are determined by genetics/environment (the latter portion of which I have altered to "forces outside one's control" to make it more general), but, instead of defining -X, as you read it, it defines NOT-X. There is a big difference between these two. Not-X simply means anything but X; it doesn't necessarily mean the exact opposite of X, the way you portray it. The categories, rightly construed, look like this:

X = All choices are determined by forces outside one's control
Not-X = NOT all choices are determined by forces outside one's control (notice the difference between this and -X)

The link said:

"However, if people's behavior is fully explained by their genetics and/or environment, then so must be their beliefs, i.e., what people believe is also explained by/caused by/determined by genetic and/or environmental factors."

You said:

''Very faulty. You are speaking of genetics and environment which are conventionally understood to influence the personality. I still fail to see what connection this has to Determinism and Free Will.''

I will, once again, take the liberty of slightly changing the link's wording, in order to better convey my point - change "their genetics and/or environment" to "forces outside their control." Now, determinists will claim, as aforementioned, that all choices are determined by forces outside one's control. Now, a belief invovles a choice - one may be influenced by his environmental conditions, etc., but he still has to accept/deny the evidence for any claim in order to hold a true belief. My dictionary defines belief as "Something ACCEPTED as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." Acceptance involves a choice (i.e., to include, or agree with) - thus, true belief necessitates a choice. And since the determinist states that all choices are determined by forces outside one's control, and belief requires a choice, it follows that one's beliefs are determined by forces outside one's control (according to the determinist model).

"Therefore, if your point is to say that since beliefs are obviously not controlled by genetics and environment, then you are certainly taking a position that is far from orthodoxy in the psychological world."

There is no doubt that an individual's beliefs are influenced by genetics and environment; however, as I just discussed, a belief still requires the CHOICE of the individual to be considered a belief at all. That's my point.

Link said:

"Yet, if beliefs are explained/caused/determined by genetic/environmental factors and there is no choice, then one cannot 'choose' to change one's mind. At best, one can describe one's belief as changing due to genetic/environmental factors. "

You said:

"False. Built on the seriously flawed premise you started with. And has nothing to do with Determinism vs. Free Will."

Change the phrase "genetic/environmental factors" in the link's quote to "forces outside one's control," and I think the link's quote is valid.

You said:

"Determinism in no way denies the ability to reason. False. Argument is against a straw man once again."

The determinism I'm talking about (which may be different than that which you speak of), IMO, denies human beings the ability to reason. See my first post (not the link) for an explanation.

You said:

"Knowledge is gained through education and observation."

But if pure determinism is true, what you consider "knowledge" is not up to you. You have no say in the matter, because you have no choice - therefore, there is no reason to think that your "knowledge" is any nearer reality than the next guy's "knowledge."

You said:

"If we do not have free will then we have no basis to know anything? Rubbish."

How does the pure determinist viewpiont allow for knowledge? Explain.

I think pretty much everything else in your post is already covered above.

[psychopath]

theolog said:

"The arguments for free will are all ill-conceived and pointless responses to the Calvinist declaration that “God is sovereign in election” or “it is God that elects His elect” (chooses the chosen).

These misguided arguments attempt to confuse the issue and bypass the Scripture by changing the premise to whether man has volition or not.

I don’t think many Calvinist would assert that man does not have volition, although some have."

I am not arguing against Calvinism; I am arguing against the philosophical determinism that purports to deny man's volition. There is no contradiction between man's volition and Calvinism, though I myself am not a Calvinist.

[ACow]

Lets give this "first reply ever" thing a go :smile:

Alot of it might be repeating what calvinist said, but what the hey...i might come at it from a different angle.

In respsonse to the link first:

The arguement is essentially a strawman. The link argues against the points, but unfortunately, they don't have anything to do with the deterministic viewpoint.
I probably won't explain very well, but most/ALL of the arguements are based on knocking down either a poorly argued/faulty arguement of determinism.

. It asks that other people who disagree change their minds/beliefs and accept X as the truth.

Irrelevant. That a person asks you to change your mind is totally irrelevant to the problem of determinism and free will. True, that if living in a deterministic universe, a "free will choice" to change ones mind would not happen, but again, this doesn't mean that minds don't change, and even if they didn't, this isn't really relevant to the free-will determinism debate.

One must, therefore, simply believe what one's genetics/environment has caused/made one to believe. One is helpless to believe other than as one does. One cannot legitimately claim/judge that someone else's position is "wrong" or "incorrect" if different from one's own. At best, one can only state that that person, as well, simply believes what he/she does because of his/her genetics/environment.

False, and false. You could easily claim that someone else's position is wrong or incorrect. Whether they believe what they do because of free-will or determinism does not change what they believe, nor its validity.

Gaining knowledge and the process of persuasion presuppose that one can evaluate evidence -- poorly or well -- and select among the possibilities and decide/make the identification that the situation is X or not-X. Yet that selection process, i.e., testing and then validating or rejecting a claim, i.e., making a choice, is denied by the claim as being the case.

Sorry, but determinism in no way denies the ability to reason.

If knowledge is genetically or environmentally determined, then one cannot sift through evidence, openly and objectively weigh that evidence, and decide/choose what is the best identification of the truth. If, however, one then claims that knowledge itself is impossible, then that is also self-contradictory, i.e., that claim makes a knowledge claim that knowledge is impossible.

We're starting to go a bit all over the place here, but lets just say, that the path to obtaining knowlege, whether throught the free-will or deterministic approach does not in any way apply that that knowlege is not there/knowable.

Contradiction 1: The claim asks people to decide (i.e., to choose voluntarily) to believe differently than they do when choice/free will itself is claimed not to exist.

To put it simply, this statement is a lie. Not much more needs to be said. But if you've got any questions, just ask.

Contradiction 2: This claim makes a knowledge claim while simultaneously implicitly stating that the foundation for making a knowledge claim does not exist.

See above.

If the claim is accepted, however, i.e., that one's beliefs are determined by genetics/environment, and that these beliefs are sufficient for making a knowledge claim, then we are confronted with a situation in which there is no basis for making an independent selection among differing knowledge claims. Again, all that can be said is that one believes what one is determined/caused/made to believe by one's genetics/environment. One cannot even claim that the means claimed for "knowing" something is valid since that belief, too, would be determined by one's genetics/environment.

Wrong. Determinism does not imply that knowlege is unknowable. To put it simply, reaching a conclusion purely because it was a deterministic one does not neccesarily make that conclusion wrong or invalid.

Contradiction 3: X and not-X cannot both be true.

Determinism does not state that this is the case.

One individual can claim that person Y exists while another individual can claim that person Y does not exist (at the same time and in the same respect). Yet if all individual knowledge claims are equally valid, then there are potentially an infinity of knowledge claims that contradict and are mutually exclusive. All claims are equally plausible/implausible.

Determinism states no such thing.

If all individual beliefs are valid foundations for evidence and/or for proving X, then we are left with pure subjectivism, i.e., X is true because one believes X (and one must believe X because one has no choice since X is caused/explained/determined by one's genetics/environment). One must simultaneously both accept and reject both the claim that free will does not exist and the claim that free will does exist. Both are equally "true" and equally "false."

See above.

Contradiction 4: If X is true merely because one believes X, then one can never be wrong, i.e., the claim implies both infallibility and omniscience.

The claim above ultimately leads to the rejection of choice, personal responsibility, reason, logic, morality, truth, and knowledge. It also leads to the acceptance of subjectivity, infallibility, and omniscience. (Also: to the acceptance of choice, etc. and the rejection of subjectivity, etc.; both positions are, according to the claim, determined by one's genetics/environment). The theory advanced by the claim excludes itself and is thus meaningless


The claim above, again unfortunately, does not have anything to do with determinism and free will.

Now, on to your own actual writing :smile:

[ACow]

[Edit: It should be noted that my typing is often all over the place, with some words somehow coming out as phonetically spelt, others missing completely, and some appearing in the wrong parts of the sentence. I skimmed through and tidied it up, but if the mistakes are there (which they always seem to be) i apologize)]

If it makes it any better too, i'm not arguing from a christian theological or philisophical standpoint. One could say that i'm arguing from an atheistic perspective (in that at the moment, "god" hasn't cropped up in the arguement), but that would mean i can't bring "idea's" of some god/ultimate into things at a later date, which i may or may not do at a later date, or if the discussion heads in that direction. Anyway, on to the rest of your first post (i see some more have appeared while i type this).


Furthermore, though this may have been touched upon by the link, I think that, if mankind has the ability to reason, the existence of free will is implied. Reason is an active process - it is affirming that, for example, because of A, then B, as opposed to because of A, then not B, or because of A, then maybe B. It involves choosing one statement as right, and, in the process, denying those other statements which are contrary. But if my thoughts come to me passively, i.e., through forces outside my control, I don't truly have the ability to make this choice. My thoughts just come to me - even if I feel as if I am the one conjuring them up, I really had no say in the matter. Thus, "reason" becomes meaningless - it is just whatever my thoughts happen to be, caused by forces outside my control, and I don't have any choice in the matter. But without the ability to reason, all human communication, debate, etc., becomes meaningless. If I "affirm" something as true, it is irrelevant to the actual truth of the matter, because this affirmation is a passive process that I, ultimately had no control over. (Sorry if that didn't make sense.)

I understand what your trying to say, and i apologize if my reply also does not make sense.

Determinism would not deny the ability to use reason or logic or any other such means do not exist. One would only be determined to use them or not.

Similarly, what about the notion of "passive" reasoning (to use your language.). You can reason, but only if the thoughts/ideas come to you. Does the fact that such things have come to you in a deterministic way change their validity, or whether or not they are there and can be used in the process of reason or logic? (which has also come to you in a deterministic way)

I would say no. Whether via a free-will choice or a completely deterministic model, the answers, ways to get there, and indeed information processed in the thought, can be, for all intensive purposes, exactly the same. Both starting with the same info, and ending at the same conclusion, regardless of whether such a process was a free will choice, or a deterministic one.

Now, you've said "reason becomes meaningless". This may just be the cynical side of me showing through, but with ALOT of humans, what they refer to as "reason" is just that. But one should not make the mistake of thinking that "valid reasoning" either does not exist or is not valid purely because no choice was made in how to use it, or what data was available to it.

I don't know if i've made myself very clear, ask for clarification and i'll do my best in the future:smile:

Oh, one more thing. At the end there, you say "If i affirm something as true, it is irrelevant to the actual truth". I will say, yup. The next step i think your taking (and where i think you make your basic mistake, if i may so humbly suggest), is that you eqaint this with "what you affirm to be true" is neccesarily false or valueless.

So, if we have a free will, what exactly IS it? What defines it? I do not see how it can be a physical thing - it would then be composed ultimately of inanimate chemicals, which cannot bring about a true choice, but instead orient themselves in accordance with the laws of nature (not bringing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle into this for now). So if free will does not belong to the physical realm, how can we describe it? I think a viable option is that it must be a spiritual entity that exists within each human being, that gives us the ability to make true choices in the way that we intuit ourselves as so doing, the physical manifestation of which is a specific chosen action, or thought. Such would explain a human's ability to reason.

Right, now we're getting into the million dollar questions:tongue:

Now, seriously, i could probably write an entire book on this paragraph and on the nature of free will, but i've got a horrible feeling the end result would be "buggered if i know". But that doesn't mean i can't raise some interesting thoughts and questions and conclusions on the subject.

Really, the very nature of a question of "free-will" kinda makes chills run up my spine. The questions being of course, what exactly is it "free" from or of(if that makes any sense)? If our choices are based purely on "who we are" (that is, a soul or some sense of self, or even god), is this not still a "cause and effect" type relationship? And if not, then what is it? And indeed, if it somehow above pure "cause and effect" how does it interact with the physical world, which most of us would agree seems to run on "cause and effect" principles. Then of course we run into things such as quantumn theory and probabilities and the like. But then the question also remains, if everything is probabilistic, purely chance, or chance intermingled with cause and effect, is it any more of a "free-will"?

I'd love to be able to answer the question, but i think that, for the moment, i have reside to asking myself more questions:tongue:

This is where theism comes into the mix. How can the atheist explain the existence of free will, or, if he is a determinist, how can he explain away the problems with determinism already outlined? A universe that started with a Big bang, produced the Earth via purely physical forces, the latter of which eventually produced human beings via purely physical forces, has no place for any non-physical existent (or, should I say, some existent that does not obey normal physical laws, and does not exist in space). I am not saying that the Big Bang never occured, or that Darwinism is false, but the existence of a free will, if it is granted, seems to be strong evidence of some higher power that is its original creator. It seems as though atheism leads directly to determinism, because our thoughts boil down to nothing more than the firing of neurons based on the orientations of inanimate chemicals in our brains that strictly follow physical laws.

I'll try to keep this short, cause i think i've written enough for the moment, and while i won't go straight into a "theistic alternative" as you have done, i will agree that the atheist position does seem to have many problems with free will, especially from most athiests. There's not really that much more i can say. I agree with you. Atheism has a problem with free will, and most athiests will indeed bury their head in the sand and say "i have free-will, no there aren't any problems with it, next question" if ever probed on the subject.

Now, the problem i see, is that the theistic alternative really isn't that much better. The average atheist doesn't know, but pretends everything is hunky dory, and that there is no problem with free will. The average theist on the other hand, attributes the unknown to god/supernatural, but for purposes of knowlege, is no closer to an actual understanding of the concept or its possible implications.

Anyway, i've written enough for now. Questions, comments, disagreements, praises, put-downs, i'll check in to see if there's any more later :cheers:

[psychopath]

ACow, please note that I may not respond to every single thing you've said in your posts, but that is only because I think it is covered in the responses I do give. But let me know if you think I fail to respond to something important.

You said:

"Irrelevant. That a person asks you to change your mind is totally irrelevant to the problem of determinism and free will. True, that if living in a deterministic universe, a "free will choice" to change ones mind would not happen, but again, this doesn't mean that minds don't change, and even if they didn't, this isn't really relevant to the free-will determinism debate."

I am beginning to think I shouldn't have put that link up in the first place, and just argued from my point of view. So let me try to put this another way.

People hold beliefs for reasons. I believe that, if I hold a pencil high in the air and drop it, it will fall to the ground, because I realize that gravity is a well-established property of material bodies. Likewise, with regard to the free will-determinism debate, people either believe that humans possess free will, or that they don't. The latter believe that free will is an illusion, and that what appears like a choice to us is really the only possible path in our existence, based upon the cause-effect relationship that led up to that action. And these determinists have reasons for believing what they do; if one doesn't have reasons for his beliefs, then there is no reason to take any stock in what he says. For example, determinists say that free will contradicts the natural law of cause and effect, and such things. But if determinism is, in fact, right, these very reasons by which determinists argue their position are nothing more than the inevitable thoughts that occur in the determinist's mind, due to the long cause-effect chain (their upbrining, etc.) that led to that thought. It seems self-refuting: if one is a determinist, then he has absolutely no basis on which to argue for determinism, because this belief in determinism was not something he had control over, but, ultimately, inevitable. Now, I do not think that is necessarily a disproof of determinism itself, but, IMO, it seems to render hard-core determinism as a meaningless and unsubstantiable point of view. Hopefully that was clear enough.

You said:

"You could easily claim that someone else's position is wrong or incorrect. Whether they believe what they do because of free-will or determinism does not change what they believe, nor its validity."

But, according to the determinist point of view, one could ONLY claim that someone else's position is wrong if forces outside his control caused him to do so, in which case he could not have stopped himself from doing so. So such a claim (or lack thereof) is meaningless: if it isn't made, it's because the person COULDN'T have made it, if it is made, it's becaues the person had no choice but to make it.

A determinist has no basis for his beliefs, because, according to his own point of view, these beliefs came to him via forces outside his control. He has no choice but to believe what he believes, regardless of whether he is right or not.

You said:

"the path to obtaining knowlege, whether throught the free-will or deterministic approach does not in any way apply that that knowlege is not there/knowable."

I disagree. Suppose determinism is true. What I call "knowledge" is due to forces outside my control. I had no say in the matter - it was determined. Now, my view of knowledge COULD match reality, but, if so, it would only be pure luck, because this body of knowledge that I have is the only possible one I ever could've had.

You said:

"Determinism would not deny the ability to use reason or logic or any other such means do not exist. One would only be determined to use them or not."

But reason and logic become meaningless tools. Suppose determinism is true. Say that I, through "reason," come to the conclusion that Islam is the true religion. Say that you, through your "reason," come to the conclusion that Christianity is the true religion. We have no means by which to disagree with each other! You had no choice but to accept Christianity, I had no choice but to accept Islam - it was determined by forces outside our control. Furthermore, any disagreement on our part would be meaningless as well, because we had no choice but to disagree with each other.

You said:

"Similarly, what about the notion of "passive" reasoning (to use your language.). You can reason, but only if the thoughts/ideas come to you. Does the fact that such things have come to you in a deterministic way change their validity, or whether or not they are there and can be used in the process of reason or logic? (which has also come to you in a deterministic way)"

What comes to you could be valid, but you have no way of knowing. Like I said, reason becomes meaningless - the process by which one reasons or utilizes logic is determined by forces outside his control. If someone says "if A=B, and B=C, then A=C," and someone else says "if A=B, and B=C, it does not follow that A=C," we have no means by which to discern who is right. The former could not have thought differently, the latter could not have thought differently, and anyone who agrees with either of them only does so because he had no choice but to do so.

You said:

"But one should not make the mistake of thinking that 'valid reasoning' either does not exist or is not valid purely because no choice was made in how to use it, or what data was available to it."

As I have already discussed, I think that, in accordance with determinism, "valid reasoning" does not exist, because there is no means by which to judge one person's reason against the next guy's.

You said:

"The next step i think your taking (and where i think you make your basic mistake, if i may so humbly suggest), is that you eqaint this with 'what you affirm to be true' is neccesarily false or valueless."

If my affirmation happens to be true, and a correct representation of reality, it's only because I got lucky. I DO think such affirmations are valueless, because I have had no say in the affirmation and I have no means by which to back up my affirmation. It's empty.

"Now, the problem i see, is that the theistic alternative really isn't that much better. The average atheist doesn't know, but pretends everything is hunky dory, and that there is no problem with free will. The average theist on the other hand, attributes the unknown to god/supernatural, but for purposes of knowlege, is no closer to an actual understanding of the concept or its possible implications."

I pretty much agree; it is very difficult to pinpoint the attributes of a free will, even for the theist. My general take on the issue, however, is that (as I've described above) rational thought and discourse become absurd and meaningless in a determinist universe, so anyone who genuinely believes he has the ability to discover the answers to certain questions about our world (whether simple or complex) must first presuppose that he possesses free will. And since the atheist thinks he has at least some answers regarding God, he must presuppose his own free will, and I simply don't see how this is reconciled with an otherwise atheistic universe. The theist, at the least, can explain the ultimate origins of his free will - presumably, God.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[Ishmael]

02-20-2003 @ 04:15 PM
psychopath:

First of all, how are you defining determinism? I think we may be working with two different definitions of the concept, and unless that is ironed out first our discussion is bound to go nowhere. The determinism that I'm speaking of is that commonly held by atheists, according to which all human actions are, basically, no more than the inevitable end of some long cause-effect chain, over which the person has no control. My dictionary defines it as "the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." This view of determinism is incompatible with the existence of a free will. If I'm not mistaken, according to the Calvinist view, man is still a free being, but only sinfully free, because of his sinful nature (correct me if I'm wrong here). The determinism I, and the guy who wrote that link, are talking about is incompatible with even this Calvinist view of freedom.

The link said:

''Claim: That all human behavior can be explained by appealing to genetics and/or environment; free will is, at best, a convenient illusion; it does not, in fact, exist.

Analysis: Accepting this claim requires accepting a number of contradictions.''

You said:

''Who makes this claim? This is certainly not a 'theological' position. Nor is is philosophical for it appeals to biology and environment. It appears to be a psychological argument about personality superimposed onto the debate concerning Determinism and Free Will.''

I will alter the original claim from the link, and make it more general -

Claim: All human behavior is determined by forces outside our control; free will is, at best, a convenient illusion; it does not, in fact, exist.

Analysis: Accepting this claim requires accepting a number of contradictions.

This IS the claim made by the determinists which I am discussing - the claim merely restates their position.

The link said:

"This claim is offered as an epistemological, i.e., knowledge, claim. This claim is said to be a more accurate description of reality. It claims that the truth regarding explanations for human behavior is X rather than not-X, that the situation is one way rather than a different way. It asks that other people who disagree change their minds/beliefs and accept X as the truth."

You said:

"So your logical equation could be rendered:

X= ALL choices are determined by 'genetics/environment'
-X= ALL choices we make a completely dependent upon our own will

Either X OR -X on the genetics vs. environment psychological debate??? Preposterous..."

Absolutely not; you misinterpreted the link. The link does define X as "all choices are determined by genetics/environment (the latter portion of which I have altered to "forces outside one's control" to make it more general), but, instead of defining -X, as you read it, it defines NOT-X. There is a big difference between these two. Not-X simply means anything but X; it doesn't necessarily mean the exact opposite of X, the way you portray it. The categories, rightly construed, look like this:

X = All choices are determined by forces outside one's control
Not-X = NOT all choices are determined by forces outside one's control (notice the difference between this and -X)

The link said:

"However, if people's behavior is fully explained by their genetics and/or environment, then so must be their beliefs, i.e., what people believe is also explained by/caused by/determined by genetic and/or environmental factors."

You said:

''Very faulty. You are speaking of genetics and environment which are conventionally understood to influence the personality. I still fail to see what connection this has to Determinism and Free Will.''

I will, once again, take the liberty of slightly changing the link's wording, in order to better convey my point - change "their genetics and/or environment" to "forces outside their control." Now, determinists will claim, as aforementioned, that all choices are determined by forces outside one's control. Now, a belief invovles a choice - one may be influenced by his environmental conditions, etc., but he still has to accept/deny the evidence for any claim in order to hold a true belief. My dictionary defines belief as "Something ACCEPTED as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." Acceptance involves a choice (i.e., to include, or agree with) - thus, true belief necessitates a choice. And since the determinist states that all choices are determined by forces outside one's control, and belief requires a choice, it follows that one's beliefs are determined by forces outside one's control (according to the determinist model).

"Therefore, if your point is to say that since beliefs are obviously not controlled by genetics and environment, then you are certainly taking a position that is far from orthodoxy in the psychological world."

There is no doubt that an individual's beliefs are influenced by genetics and environment; however, as I just discussed, a belief still requires the CHOICE of the individual to be considered a belief at all. That's my point.

Link said:

"Yet, if beliefs are explained/caused/determined by genetic/environmental factors and there is no choice, then one cannot 'choose' to change one's mind. At best, one can describe one's belief as changing due to genetic/environmental factors. "

You said:

"False. Built on the seriously flawed premise you started with. And has nothing to do with Determinism vs. Free Will."

Change the phrase "genetic/environmental factors" in the link's quote to "forces outside one's control," and I think the link's quote is valid.

You said:

"Determinism in no way denies the ability to reason. False. Argument is against a straw man once again."

The determinism I'm talking about (which may be different than that which you speak of), IMO, denies human beings the ability to reason. See my first post (not the link) for an explanation.

You said:

"Knowledge is gained through education and observation."

But if pure determinism is true, what you consider "knowledge" is not up to you. You have no say in the matter, because you have no choice - therefore, there is no reason to think that your "knowledge" is any nearer reality than the next guy's "knowledge."

You said:

"If we do not have free will then we have no basis to know anything? Rubbish."

How does the pure determinist viewpiont allow for knowledge? Explain.

I think pretty much everything else in your post is already covered above.

I did not read your initial post but went straight to the article... :blush: I had intended to go back...

Nevertheless,
This is much clearer and now that I understand what you meant by "Determinism," I am in agreement with you in part.

The article that you directed us to is way below your ability.

My opinion, of course...

[psychopath]

No hard feelings. My original post was a little ambiguous - I should've specified what I meant by determinism.

And I am kinda regretting posting that link, because the more I discuss the issue, the more I realize that my argument is different than that given by the link.

Peace.

[ACow]

People hold beliefs for reasons. I believe that, if I hold a pencil high in the air and drop it, it will fall to the ground, because I realize that gravity is a well-established property of material bodies. Likewise, with regard to the free will-determinism debate, people either believe that humans possess free will, or that they don't. The latter believe that free will is an illusion, and that what appears like a choice to us is really the only possible path in our existence, based upon the cause-effect relationship that led up to that action. And these determinists have reasons for believing what they do; if one doesn't have reasons for his beliefs, then there is no reason to take any stock in what he says. For example, determinists say that free will contradicts the natural law of cause and effect, and such things. But if determinism is, in fact, right, these very reasons by which determinists argue their position are nothing more than the inevitable thoughts that occur in the determinist's mind, due to the long cause-effect chain (their upbrining, etc.) that led to that thought. It seems self-refuting: if one is a determinist, then he has absolutely no basis on which to argue for determinism, because this belief in determinism was not something he had control over, but, ultimately, inevitable. Now, I do not think that is necessarily a disproof of determinism itself, but, IMO, it seems to render hard-core determinism as a meaningless and unsubstantiable point of view. Hopefully that was clear enough.

Rightyo, i think i get what your saying there.

Lets make a pretend deterministic universe in our minds for arguements sake. Said determinists still argue same thing, and WE KNOW that the universe is deterministic (because its in our imaginations). Does the fact that said determinist reached his conclusion via "his own" reasoning deny its validity? I mean, sure, he didn't really do anything, but he's still right. Going a step futher, in our deterministic universe, lets throw in some ancestors for the determinist. Some of them came up with "reason", again its purely determinstic that they did so, but they did. Another of his ancestors, a funny old greek weirdo for arguements sake, "invented" (for he was destined to) something called logic, which just happened to explain a bit about "stuff".
Eerily enough, logic and reason was "pretty close" to the laws under which our deterministic universe runs, and because of this, they continued being taught, and eventually reached the determinist of today, who, through his own predestinated opinion of logic and reason, decided to be a determinist. Now, after all this time, in our deterministic universe:

1) Despite the fact that he only came to such conclusions because of deterministic forces, are his beliefs right or wrong?
2) Despite the fact that they were only created by deterministic forces, does this make the notions of reason and logic any less valid in explaining our world, than if they had been created in the "free-will" universe? Especially given that in a free will universe, whether it be by predestination or choice, the same data and same out come will be given.

Now, whether you or the "deterministic you" believes in gravity, does that make your belief in it valid or false, and does it make those who argue against you any less valid or false?

Or to put it in fewer words:

In a deterministic universe, is a determinist's opinion based on absolutely nothing but the cause/effect chain which came before him? Yes.
Does this neccesarily make him or his arguement wrong? No.
Even though this opinion has been reached without any form of independant reason and logic, "thinking", or "choice" on his behalf?(notice thinking or choice are kinda iffy, because after all, a computer can make a "choice" based on the input given to it, and i doubt your willing to argue that a computer has free-will.)

Of course, for those things are only really assumable under a free-will working of the universe (from the athiest viewpoint at least), while you think they exist, and while you think a question is valid based on reasoning and logic and independant choice, that belief, like most others, is an illusion, and totally deterministic.

But, according to the determinist point of view, one could ONLY claim that someone else's position is wrong if forces outside his control caused him to do so, in which case he could not have stopped himself from doing so. So such a claim (or lack thereof) is meaningless: if it isn't made, it's because the person COULDN'T have made it, if it is made, it's becaues the person had no choice but to make it.

No. The determinist can still claim anyone's point of view is wrong, irrespective of why they hold such views. It will of course not change anything about whether the point of view is indeed right or wrong, but it can be done, and it can hold that it is still perfectly valid. Or put simply: "Choice does not interfere with a belief's validity, nor does the person having the idea".

Ie. There is a card, turned face down on a table. The determinist and his friend both take a guess at what number is on the card. The moment his friend takes a guess, the determinist says "ha, you're wrong". And independantly of what either one believes, the determinists friend either is right or wrong. And the determinist is right or wrong in his belief of his friend's validity. The determinist can very easily tell his friend that he is wrong, and the determinist can very easily be right (especially if he's been deterministically imposed with the idea's of probability ). But irrespective of how or why the determinist did so, after the near infinitely long cause/effect chain that lead him to this outcome, does not change the fact that, for arguements sake, in this case, we'll say he's right, and his friend is indeed wrong.

So, summarized:
The validity of the claim is independant of the path or possibility of choice in the person making the claim.
(if your assuming relativity hopelessly intertwined with deterministic belief, i suggest you get rid of that belief right now, or at least type out again why you still believe it to be so, so i can try to answer, for i believe i would be right in assuming some relativistic tendancies before i answered this question).


A determinist has no basis for his beliefs, because, according to his own point of view, these beliefs came to him via forces outside his control. He has no choice but to believe what he believes, regardless of whether he is right or not.

Absolutely. This does not change whether they happen to be right or not. Truth is not dependant on the ability to CHOOSE to recognize the truth. If you think it is, you will find the free-will universe in inherantly more relativistic than the deterministic one.
The idea of relativism in a deterministic universe, which was apparent in the article, is inherantly flawed, a straw man, and indeed shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

I disagree. Suppose determinism is true. What I call "knowledge" is due to forces outside my control. I had no say in the matter - it was determined. Now, my view of knowledge COULD match reality, but, if so, it would only be pure luck, because this body of knowledge that I have is the only possible one I ever could've had.

Pah, first of all, there's no such thing as luck in a deterministic universe :tongue:
Secondly, does that change the fact that you do posses that knowlege, and that it is true/false?
(this will of course depend on your definition of knowlege. If you definie it as something which is inherantly in need of free will, then you will naturally enough find it impossible in a deterministic universe. If you define it as something like information however, there is nothing stopping such a possibility. Again, look to computers, which can use information and logic to arrive at an outcome purely deterministically.)


But reason and logic become meaningless tools. Suppose determinism is true. Say that I, through "reason," come to the conclusion that Islam is the true religion. Say that you, through your "reason," come to the conclusion that Christianity is the true religion. We have no means by which to disagree with each other! You had no choice but to accept Christianity, I had no choice but to accept Islam - it was determined by forces outside our control. Furthermore, any disagreement on our part would be meaningless as well, because we had no choice but to disagree with each other

First of all, we both have our own knowlege and data by which to disagree with each other.
Second of all, it doesn't change who's right.
Thirdly, not neccesarily, it could also be determined that our disagreement was predestinated, and indeed, after a lengthy debate, one of us would convert (which was also predestinated).
Is it essentially meaningless, well yeah, welcome to mister "atheistic-universe".

I'm going to try to be psychic now, and pre-emptively guess that we're going to reach a similar point in the discussion that many buddhists/philosophy students reach when they come to doubt the existance of the self. Only this will be in regards to the existance of meaning in the universe.

What comes to you could be valid, but you have no way of knowing. Like I said, reason becomes meaningless - the process by which one reasons or utilizes logic is determined by forces outside his control. If someone says "if A=B, and B=C, then A=C," and someone else says "if A=B, and B=C, it does not follow that A=C," we have no means by which to discern who is right. The former could not have thought differently, the latter could not have thought differently, and anyone who agrees with either of them only does so because he had no choice but to do so.

If we define logic to be one of the two method's, than its validity or invalidity is assured (assuming one is correct). Again, yes, we personally have no way of verifying the validity of such a thing. And its true that one would have no way of independantly knowing. But such is life in the deterministic universe. As most good christians who have ever done serious debating, and most decent philosophy students should know by now, this is why such beliefs (ie. the truths of things) are taken "on faith".
(yes, athiesm is faith based). We have no basis to discern who is right, other than our own experiences, and those experiences are based purely on what comes to us, via our senses, the validity of which, we take on faith.

Oh boy, so much typing, i'll try to finish this before i go to bed...

[ACow]

If my affirmation happens to be true, and a correct representation of reality, it's only because I got lucky. I DO think such affirmations are valueless, because I have had no say in the affirmation and I have no means by which to back up my affirmation. It's empty.

Ahh, here's where the problem lies. The affirmation is not itself valueless (ie. gravity existing, excempt from notions of "my affirmation" or "my idea"). It is YOUR opinion of whether said affirmation is right or wrong that is essentially valueless (or rahter, meaningless towards whether said affirmation is true or false, for your opinon can still be right or wrong).
Yes it is empty, if you don't take anything on faith, which, everyone does.
They ASSUME something is valid and then work from there, of course, they could be wrong. Also of course, they might not.



I pretty much agree; it is very difficult to pinpoint the attributes of a free will, even for the theist. My general take on the issue, however, is that (as I've described above) rational thought and discourse become absurd and meaningless in a determinist universe, so anyone who genuinely believes he has the ability to discover the answers to certain questions about our world (whether simple or complex) must first presuppose that he possesses free will. And since the atheist thinks he has at least some answers regarding God, he must presuppose his own free will, and I simply don't see how this is reconciled with an otherwise atheistic universe. The theist, at the least, can explain the ultimate origins of his free will - presumably, God.

The thing i'll disagree with here is what the atheist must pressupose. By all accounts, they must PRESUPPOSE SOMETHING. Granted, heaps, the great majority of them even, make it free will (even though it tends to clash with a number of their other beliefs). Some start purely with the validity of the 5 senses, and try to work from there. Some start with descarte's most famous words. Either way, while i don't agree they have to pressupose their own free will, i do agree that they have to presuppose something.

Oh, and the "rational thought and discourse" becomes meaningless in a deterministic universe is another thing i might have to disagree with. It might be, granted. But then again it might not. How do we know? Well, all i can say is i'll be more than happy if i figure it out one day.

Although after all that, i always say its good to assume free-will. If i'm wrong, there's not much i can do about it anyway, it was never my choice to do anything different.:tongue:

[ACow]

Ug, there's a number of mistakes and possible clarifications needed to be fixed in my last two posts, but i'll clear them up in later posts if need be.

Seems to happen when i'm trying to think and type fast.

[psychopath]

Aaaarrrgggghhh, I had written quite a bit of a response, but my computer froze up and I lost it.

In light of this, I really don't have the time or energy to keep up with this discussion. So I guess you can have the last word. I will just say that you didn't convince me of your point of view; however, I probably didn't convince you either. But I thank you for the respectful and well thought-out discussion.

[ACow]

That's okay. At best i can probably give a nice lenghty response like that once or twice a week, so any discussion would have to take quite a while. I understand completely.

Thanks for the discussion. Although i never really set out to convert you to determinism, i'd be kinda disturbed if i convinced you of something i didn't neccesarily believe in myself.
:cheers: