Free will and determinism

[Tinker Grey]

Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics (look at the length of the imaginative arguments to deny what is self-evidently true) betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.

Tell it to a Calvinist.

 

[durangodawood]

I appreciate that. I was in that position for many years. And there's always the possibility of future knowledge that might change things. But...'as far as we are currently aware'...I can't sit on the fence any longer. It's akin to my position on God. I have never said that He doesn't exist. I'm just so convinced that He doesn't that it makes no sense to be agnostic in that regard. Same with free will.

I may be wrong on both. But I'm convinced that I'm not.

I get that with God. Belief seems very culturally contingent, and even in monotheistic cultures it seems faith has to be continually reinforced.

But with free will, pretty much everyone feels they have some degree of it - even if its often too weak to contend with outside forces and conditioning. So for me, if something seems universally real, then I'll privilege the idea that it is real, rather than illusory - until shown otherwise. But its not a commitment. Just lightly held default position subject to revision.

 

[o_mlly]

Tell it to a Calvinist.

Do they have a special forum here?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do they have a special forum here?

Statement of Purpose - Statement of Faith for the Confessional, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian Forum

Confessional*, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian Forum A few things to know about what Presbyterians believe: We hold the Scriptures to be in absolute authority and the final rule in faith and practice. Subservient to the Holy Bible, we subscribe to the Westminster Standards as containing a...

www.christianforums.com

 

[o_mlly]

Statement of Purpose - Statement of Faith for the Confessional, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian Forum

Confessional*, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian Forum A few things to know about what Presbyterians believe: We hold the Scriptures to be in absolute authority and the final rule in faith and practice. Subservient to the Holy Bible, we subscribe to the Westminster Standards as containing a...

www.christianforums.com

The Presbyterians seem to be on board with free will:

To learn more about what Presbyterians believe please see:​

Westminster Confession of Faith​

The Will of Man - WCF 9.1​

"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil."​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Funny that we both realize that yet reach different conclusions.

Ever watch "The Price is Right"? Door number 1, door number 2, door number 3. Contestant must choose.

Are you saying there really is no choice?

Or

Are you saying something more like, everything is determined by something, even if randomness in nature?

 

[partinobodycular]

The Will of Man - WCF 9.1​

"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil."

But wouldn't free will necessitate that my will supersede God's will... but that's not possible... right? So all that the atheist is actually saying is that there's an underlying cause of reality that ultimately determines everything. For the theist it's God, and for the atheist it's the laws of physics. Seemingly the only difference between the two is that one has conscious intent and the other doesn't.

 

[durangodawood]

But wouldn't free will necessitate that my will supersede God's will... but that's not possible... right? So all that the atheist is actually saying is that there's an underlying cause of reality that ultimately determines everything. For the theist it's God, and for the atheist it's the laws of physics. Seemingly the only difference between the two is that one has conscious intent and the other doesn't.

Why does it have to make sense? "Its a mystery" should be sufficient to solve the problem of human free will coexisting with Gods will for the believer. Seems to me believers acknowledge the mysterious generally. So why not in this case?

 

[o_mlly]

But wouldn't free will necessitate that my will supersede God's will... but that's not possible... right?

God wills that man have free will. We believe He does so in order that we be in His image.

So all that the atheist is actually saying is that there's an underlying cause of reality that ultimately determines everything. For the theist it's God, and for the atheist it's the laws of physics.

The discovered laws of physics do not fully explain the moral acts of men.

The scientific method presumes that there is a rational order in the universe and that that order is intelligible to man. How is that that order came to be and how is it that man can grasp it? A rational Lawgiver and a rational observer?

Seemingly the only difference between the two is that one has conscious intent and the other doesn't.

Science has yet to evidence the cause(s) of human self-awareness. So, the better answer is conscious intent.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think we must acknowledge levels. Sure there are reasons for decisions that we make, some more deterministic than others and some deeper into the structure of neural; networks and pathways. But it is pretty irrelevant when I have to choose between door #1, 2 or 3.

 

[zippy2006]

On the not unreasonable assumption that incompatibilism refers to free will being incompatible with determinism (and determinism is accepted), then there is no incompatibilist free will position. Other than 'it cannot therefore exist.' I thought that was self explanatory.

So you admit that you cannot even represent the incompatibilist free will position? I don't think it is possible to reject a view if you aren't able to represent it.

That makes no sense. I considered determinism entirely separate from any thoughts about free will. I've been a determinist since...for ever. Long before I started thinking about free will.

Sorry, by "determinism" I meant "hard determinism." I thought the context would make this clear.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics (look at the length of the imaginative arguments to deny what is self-evidently true) betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.

For me, Occam’s Razor tells me the simplest answer is that we’re ‘robots’ that believe we’re not. Free will is in no way self evident to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.

You are confusing what isn't necessary to nominate as an atheist with what is required to be a Christian. Whether we have free will or not doesn't affect my opinion on the supernatural. On the other hand...

 

[Bradskii]

So you admit that you cannot even represent the incompatibilist free will position? I don't think it is possible to reject a view if you aren't able to represent it.

You seem to be constantly mixing up your terms. I'm not rejecting the incompatibilist position. I'm supporting it. The position I'm rejecting is the compatibilist one. And the arguments can be summed up as me saying 'It's deterministic and here is the process (and I can go into as much detail as needed to indicate that fact)' and the opponent saying 'No, we still have free will.'

Bear in mind that the opponent's position is Compatibilism so she has already agreed on free will being compatible in a deterministic world. So how does free will opeate in such a world? Show me the process. I've been into the basement and done as many tests as you could possibly conceive looking for the dragon. I'm telling you it's not there. You have to show me that it is and how we can determine that fact.

Sorry, by "determinism" I meant "hard determinism." I thought the context would make this clear.

The same response applies. Soft or weak determinism is compatibilism with a false nose and a wig trying to sneak in the back door of a deterministic world.

 

[Bradskii]

I get that with God. Belief seems very culturally contingent, and even in monotheistic cultures it seems faith has to be continually reinforced.

But with free will, pretty much everyone feels they have some degree of it - even if its often too weak to contend with outside forces and conditioning. So for me, if something seems universally real, then I'll privilege the idea that it is real, rather than illusory - until shown otherwise. But its not a commitment. Just lightly held default position subject to revision.

And I live my life as if it exists as well. The mental gymnastics are just too hard to be doing continuously. But...it can impact on your life. I can argue against retributive punishment for example. If someone does me wrong then I can look for reasons why it happened and not automatically blame the person involved. It's kinda easier to forgive people some times.

There were a few people stabbed to death last week in a shopping mall close to where I live. He was shot to death by a policewoman who was close by when it happened. He stabbed mostly women and even a small baby who was lucky to survive. The baby's mother didn't. And people were saying that shooting him was too easy a punishment. He was evil incarnate to do something like that. But I found I was suggesting that people don't do these things normally, that there obviously was something mentally wrong with the guy.

And it turns out that he did have mental health problems. No real surprise. Did they cause him to do what he did? Undoubtedly. Was he responsible for having those problems? Obviously not. So to what degree was he culpable?

 

[Bradskii]

Ever watch "The Price is Right"? Door number 1, door number 2, door number 3. Contestant must choose.

Are you saying there really is no choice?

Or

Are you saying something more like, everything is determined by something, even if randomness in nature?

If someone makes a choice then it's either for a reason or it's random. If it's random then that obviously has nothing to do with free will. If there is a reason then that means that there was cause for making that decision. It wasn't random. So it was determined by something.

The world is then either random or determined. In either case there is literally no room to squeeze in free will. There is nothing in the process that doesn't have a cause. Mechanical, electrical, biological, chemical, social, evolutionary...you name it, there was an A before B before there was C. And so on. Think of the chain of events that led to you sitting there reading this. It stretches back for ever. So many different events all leading to you being there right now. All causally connected.

 

[zippy2006]

You seem to be constantly mixing up your terms. I'm not rejecting the incompatibilist position.

I said you were rejecting incompatibilist free will, not incompatibilism. It is a pretty grievous reading mistake to miss this.

I honestly think some (most?) people should not engage this debate, not having the intellectual prowess to assess it. This idea may sound harsh, but I think it is also wise. There are difficult topics that not everyone should try to engage, and if they are engaged precociously harm will occur. It is a virtue to be able to identify that something is above your pay grade.

 

[Bradskii]

I said you were rejecting incompatibilist free will, not incompatibilism.

If you are an incompatibilist then your position is incompatibilism (I can't believe I had to write that). And your position is to deny that free will is compatible with a determinate world. But there is free will, therefore the world is not determinate.

So the answer to this earlier question...

'So you admit that you cannot even represent the incompatibilist free will position?'

...is: The position is that the world is not determinate.

It would have been a lot clearer if you said I was rejecting that position. Which was pretty obvious as I did that in the very first sentence of the very first post. And which nobody has yet rejected. Maybe you want to?

I honestly think some (most?) people should not engage this debate, not having the intellectual prowess to assess it. This idea may sound harsh, but I think it is also wise. There are difficult topics that not everyone should try to engage, and if they are engaged precociously harm will occur. It is a virtue to be able to identify that something is above your pay grade.

Luckily we have you to keep us on the straight and narrow, stop the discussion wandering off into the undergrowth and prevent harm. Thanks on behalf of everyone who has contributed so far. Whatever their pay grade.

 

[Bradskii]

I think we must acknowledge levels. Sure there are reasons for decisions that we make, some more deterministic than others and some deeper into the structure of neural; networks and pathways. But it is pretty irrelevant when I have to choose between door #1, 2 or 3.

It might be more accurate to say that there are levels of understanding as to what the causes are that determine our actions.

 

[o_mlly]

For me, Occam’s Razor tells me the simplest answer is that we’re ‘robots’ that believe we’re not. Free will is in no way self evident to me.

So for "ToddNotTodd" free will is something he believes in and does not believe eg., FreewilllNotFreewill. Well, at least you appear consistent although incoherent.