 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/20/2003 4:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'm just throwing this quote out there for comments:
"It's false that we must in some sense be radically free in order to "make sense" and be rational creatures. If indeed we were causally disconnected from the world in some respect, freely choosing our words without being determined how to choose them, how would this help us be more rational, or help us better understand reality? Animals, presumably without free will and as a result of natural selection, got to be better and better at predicting the outcomes of their behavior and other events, and so arrived at more accurate views of the world than those that didn't make the evolutionary cut. As rather sophisticated cognitive systems, we're very good at modeling the world, and any causal disconnection from the world would worsen, not improve, our ability to model it. Stepping outside of determinism, an impossibility, can't give us a more correct view of things. Any part of us outside the causal network, anything radically free to choose its words, would be uninfluenced by the world, and so this part couldn't know anything about the world. There's no conflict between being influenced or determined to have a view of the world and having a truer, more accurate view of it. Some deterministic systems (e.g., scientists) simply do a better job of modeling the world than others (e.g., Richman, astrologers, palm readers)." =- Sheldon Richman
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/20/2003 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As rather sophisticated cognitive systems, we're very good at modeling the world, and any causal disconnection from the world would worsen, not improve, our ability to model it. Stepping outside of determinism, an impossibility, can't give us a more correct view of things.
How does he know if he's never been disconnected? He's being caused to think disconnection won't give a more accurate view.
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/20/2003 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
Sheldon was predestined and made determined to say what he said! He had no choice.
Gads!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 05/20/2003 6:21:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/20/2003 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | I think the point is that anything that is outside the causal chain is supernatural. The question is whether we think our own wills are supernatural.
One could be a materialist and argue that there is absolutely nothing outside the causal chain. Or one could be a theist arguing that God is the only thing that is outside the chain - the first cause.
But this argument has been beaten to death ont his board.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/20/2003 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
I think the point is that anything that is outside the causal chain is supernatural. The question is whether we think our own wills are supernatural.
Iconoclast
What does it mean for God to create us "Imago Dei" (in His image)? What does it mean that we will be "higher than the angels"?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/20/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Sheldon: Stepping outside of determinism, an impossibility, can't give us a more correct view of things.
Doc: If determinism is true, then Sheldon was determined to see stepping outside of determinism to be an impossibility...
but then how could it be "true"?
Effects following causes are neither true nor false. They JUST ARE. Thunder claps, rain splatters, stomachs belch, electricity sparks. IF physical cause and effect exhaustively define everything, the brain is simply a complex version of a thunder clap, a rain splatter, a belch and a spark.
Sheldom gave a complex belch, and it came out:
"Stepping outside of determinism, an impossibility, can't give us a more correct view of things."
I'm inclined to say, "Excuse you," but not "is that belch true?"
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/20/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Well the New Testament speaks about how "all our righteousness is as rags." So maybe a belch is an appropriate way to describe it.
Seriously, I don't get the invective. Most atheists think it is a simple matter of science that determinism is true, and that deserves serious attention and recourse. If it can be shown that God is consistent w/science, I say more power to the argument.
Mind you, I am not saying you mUST agree with me, but I do think the arguments should be taken seriously. I respect someone more who disagrees with me who has a reasoned response for the disagreement that someone who would blindly agree with me, so that's not the issue.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/20/2003 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
Most atheists think it is a simple matter of science that determinism is true, and that deserves serious attention and recourse. If it can be shown that God is consistent w/science, I say more power to the argument.
Iconoclast
Isn't the problem with this that once we convince atheists to believe in God based on the old Newtonian science paradigm (determinism) that once they hear about the current scientific consensus that indeterminism is true that they will then no longer believe us about God?
When Sir Isaac Newton came along and discovered the laws of motion using a deterministic model the church at the time went nuts trying to discredit this because they believed that it would undermine faith in God. Well, sure enough it did. Atheists use determinism to convince themselves that the whole world is just a bunch of particles in motion - that there is no deeper meaning to life. But now that science has gone back on the Newtonian paradigm and discovered the deeper truth that indeterminism reigns at the quantum level shouldn't we be using this to show the atheists that science no longer contradicts the fact of there really being free creative will in the universe? And thus, deeper meaning to our lives?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/20/2003 10:15:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/20/2003 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Ico :
I respect what you are saying. But you're saying you can't have deeper meaning in your life w.out free will. What if I disagree> What if my meaning is derived purely from being a created being that God made? Determinism DOES NOT equal fatalism. Fatalism can be a belief of free will apologists as well. After all, the modern atheist existentialists totally believe(d) in freedom of the will, and they did so as an affront to God. As a way of saying, my freedom is the only thing that makes my existence meaningful, b/c there is no God to make it meaningful. i think that whatever view of this you hold, you can be either and an atheist or theist. One doesn't dictate the other.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/20/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
What if my meaning is derived purely from being a created being that God made? Determinism DOES NOT equal fatalism. Fatalism can be a belief of free will apologists as well.
Iconoclast
There is a difference between an "espoused belief" and a "belief in use". If determinism was truly someones full "belief in use" then how can that person actually feel that their life has any meaning? Meaning comes from our sense of being able to "make a difference". If you truly believe that you are a mechanical robot preprogrammed and fully determined by a robot creator then how can you possibly have a sense of "making a difference". Making a difference to whom? To God? If you really believed that God determines every action you make then how can you possibly make a difference to him?
fatalism: (from dictionary.com)
1. The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.
2. Acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable.
I agree that "free will apologists" may actually be fatalists. But this only means that they espouse a belief in free will while actually accepting in their innermost being a belief in determinism.
Our actual behavior betrays what we truly believe in our innermost being. It betrays our "deep intention". If you want to know what you truly believe, look at how you act. Certainly that is what we do with other people, why not do it with ourselves?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/20/2003 11:22:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/20/2003 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Reasonable Doubt: Mind you, I am not saying you mUST agree with me, but I do think the arguments should be taken seriously. I respect someone more who disagrees with me who has a reasoned response for the disagreement that someone who would blindly agree with me, so that's not the issue.
Doc: Dang, I thought I was giving a pretty reasoned response. Would you mind showing me how my response was irrational? It can be formalized as follows:
1. Everything is an effect from a previous cause
2. Effects from previous causes have no truth value.
3. The statement "everything is an effect from a previous cause" is itself an effect from a previous cause (from #1)
4. The statement "everything is an effect from a previous cause" has no truth value (from #2)
Conclusion: The statement "everything is an effect from a previous cause" is not true.
The point is that REASONING presupposes that we transcend material determinism.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg-
I love you, man. You KNOW I love ya. And you know I know you know, you know, right?
Tom 
Edited by - TGB on 05/21/2003 05:26:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/21/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Well Doc, I don't know about your premise number 2 - effects from previous causes have no truth value. What do you mean by that?
On the free will thread I started I put out my logical proof for determinism and many people criticized it - which I welcome. So I'm criticizing yours.
CAn you please give me a real life example of a human action that is not caused ? I can't think of any.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/21/2003 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon: Here's an excerpt about split brain patients, and how what you feel is the case may actually be an illusion:
"Our left and right brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized in function. For instance, the right side of our body is controlled by the left hemisphere motor cortex while the left side of the body is controlled by the right hemisphere motor cortex. Furthermore, most verbal thought processes occur in the left hemisphere. The two hemispheres communicate with each other through a thick nerve fiber track called the corpus callosum. With patients who have undergone commisurotomy, this cortical connection has been severed and hence the normal direct communication between the two halves of the patient’s brain is incapacitated. (Subcortical connections between the two hemispheres are still intact.) With both normal brain and split brain people, verbal processing and high level interpretation of what is going on is normally done in the left hemisphere, whereas the right hemisphere is mostly just monitoring what is going on but not interpreting or explaining it. The right hemisphere can also initiate behavioral response to sensory stimuli. Things in the left side of a person’s visual field are sent to the right hemispheric visual area whereas things in the right side of a person’s visual field are sent to the left hemispheric visual area. When split brain patients are presented with a verbal cue in written form in their left visual field, only their right brain hemisphere receives it. Since verbal processing occur in the left hemisphere, the split brain patient will not be able to verbally identify the object seen by the right hemisphere. The patient will say he sees nothing. On the other hand, the right brain might respond to the visual input with an action. For example, if the word “walk” is flashed on a screen in the patient’s left visual field, he’ll report that he saw nothing but he will nonetheless get up and start walking – an action of the right hemisphere. When asked why he got up and where is he going, he will pause and then say something like “To step outside for some fresh air” or “to get a drink of water.” If the word “laugh” is flashed to his right hemisphere, the patient will laugh – an action of the right hemisphere. When asked why he laughed, the patient will respond with something like “You guys are so funny, always doing these strange experiments with me.” These after-the-fact explanations are generated by the patient’s left hemisphere and serve to explain why the patient is suddenly getting up and walking or laughing. The actions initiated by the right hemisphere are, of course, detected by the left hemisphere, but the real cause of the actions is not, hence the left hemisphere invents reasons for the actions. If queried, the patient will insist that he freely choose to get up and walk, to laugh, and so on, when in fact he didn’t. So, just because it may feel like we have made the decision does not guarantee that this is the case. Even in the normal brain case, most of what is going on in our brains does not enter consciousness."
-Michael Mussachia | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/21/2003 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Reasonable, I am confused about what point you are making with the split brain data. If your point is that a huge portion of our behavior is unconscious and that we make up reasons for it after the fact then I certainly agree with that. In fact, the research I have seen suggests that over 95% of our cognitive processing is unconscious. This is why I say that the only way to really get at our deep intention is to watch our behavior. Are you suggesting that because we do a lot of unconscious decision making that therefore we are not being intentional at all?
What do you think of the espoused belief versus belief-in-use distinction?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/22/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | This was my point: "If queried, the patient will insist that he freely choose to get up and walk, to laugh, and so on, when in fact he didn’t. "
You mentioned how we all FEEL like we freely choose, so it makes the case for free will stronger. I say that our feelings can be wrong.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/22/2003 5:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, RD. Good to see you back in action here on CVM!
Question: If all of our actions are unavoidable sections of a divinely-mandated causal chain, how can we be held responsible for what we do? After all, if it is divinely predetermined that I will shoot my boss today, and I have no choice in the matter, then how can God hold me accountable for shooting my boss?
For that matter, doesn't your theory of determinism make all of God's commands seem kind of silly? Why would God proscribe conduct if he had already predetermined every action we would ever take? Isn't the obvious implication of a command from God that he wants us to do one thing and not another? But if he has already decided every move we will ever make, what would he need to command us to do anything for?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/22/2003 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey- I don't know. Why did God say in the Bible he will have mercy on whom he chooses, and won't on others? Why did he harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did he have Judas betray Jesus? Why did God pick Jacob?
Determinism doesn't necessarily mean that you're not responsible for your actions. We have laws that are necessary to keep order in society. The fact that many things are illegal and the threat of punishment are determining causes in most people remaining law abiding. Additionally, even if you are a complete psycho sociopath through no "fault" of your own, you still will need to be locked up or put away just to keep you from doing it again and to protect society - whether you are morally responsible or not.
I've never said that God is up there pulling strings on people. It's that he created the chain of causation, he created us in that chain - we respond to natural and physical laws, and all of our actions are caused.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/22/2003 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | RD said:quote:
Hey- I don't know. Why did God say in the Bible he will have mercy on whom he chooses, and won't on others? Why did he harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did he have Judas betray Jesus? Why did God pick Jacob?
Hmmmm. I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with my point.
RD:quote:
Determinism doesn't necessarily mean that you're not responsible for your actions. We have laws that are necessary to keep order in society. The fact that many things are illegal and the threat of punishment are determining causes in most people remaining law abiding. Additionally, even if you are a complete psycho sociopath through no "fault" of your own, you still will need to be locked up or put away just to keep you from doing it again and to protect society - whether you are morally responsible or not.
Who’s talking about the law? My question was how you can explain that God would hold someone responsible for something that he determined that they must do. Again, what would God be commanding us to obey him for if he has determined every action that we will undertake? Because if what you say is true – that all of our actions are predetermined by a divine causal chain – then we don’t have a choice whether to obey his commands or not anyway, right? As such, his commands would be meaningless.
RD:quote:
I've never said that God is up there pulling strings on people. It's that he created the chain of causation, he created us in that chain - we respond to natural and physical laws, and all of our actions are caused.
When you say that God doesn’t “pull strings on people”, are you conceding that there is a certain amount of free will in the world? Because if you are, then we have made a significant breakthrough!
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|