 |
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 5/22/2003 12:55 PM (GMT -6) |   | Please reply to these objections if you want to (I got this from some class notes-):
Definition of Indeterminism: Certain decisions and acts ("free" ones) have nothing that causes them to occur; they are pure chance events; they simply happen, having nothing to do with the person doing the act.
Current theoretical physics recognizes that subatomic events occur in completely random and unpredictable ways. Since not every event is completely predictable, not every event is caused. Such indeterminacy opens up the possibility that we can really affect the future; and in this way we can be free and morally responsible.
Objections:
Indeterminism reduces the whole scientific effort to explain nature and human beings to mere probability, and it makes such an effort a waste of time insofar as it does not guarantee that understanding human behavior will allow us to improve it.
If choices and actions are not determined even by one's personality or character, then a so-called "free" act would be one that occurs spontaneously and unpredictably (even to the person doing it); thus no one could justifiably be held responsible for doing an action which not even he/she could have predicted would occur. Pure chance is thus not freedom in any sense that we would ordinarily recognize.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/22/2003 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Sounds mainly like a scientist who doesn't like humans who may screw up his predictions...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 5/22/2003 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi RD:
I think most indeterminists here would disagree with your definition of indeterminism. You wrote:
"Definition of Indeterminism: Certain decisions and acts ("free" ones) have nothing that causes them to occur; they are pure chance events; they simply happen, having nothing to do with the person doing the act."
Most here would find the notion of an "uncaused event" as absurd as you do. Rather they would prefer to say that identical causes will not necessarily produce identical events. This is demonstrable scientifically.
You wrote:
"Indeterminism reduces the whole scientific effort to explain nature and human beings to mere probability, and it makes such an effort a waste of time insofar as it does not guarantee that understanding human behavior will allow us to improve it."
This is in fact the trend in current scientific thought. That physical system, populations, etc. have a probabalistic nature.
However, I agree that indeterminism in and of itself is not sufficient to create morally resposible actions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/22/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: Definition of Indeterminism: Certain decisions and acts ("free" ones) have nothing that causes them to occur; they are pure chance events; they simply happen, having nothing to do with the person doing the act.
Tom: Hi Gina. Well, this certainly isn't the notion of libertarian, or self-determining, freedom I work with. Self-determining freedom is the belief that the "self" determines the choices for which God holds it responsible. It's not freedom from all influences (there are many influences, some small and some great). Nor is it "uncaused." The "self" IS a cause among others which exist in the universe.
What I'm interested in knowing is how, if you agree that indeterministic free will absolves the agent of moral responsibility, you secure the agent's responsibility on the basis of God's determining the exercise of the agent's will? In other words, if you can argue that the agent IS responsible for her own decisions although a power OTHER than the agent (in the case of your belief, God) determines the agent's choices, it seems to me you could have little reason to object to libertarian free will on the basis that the agent isn't the one determining her own choices. You're prepared to hold people accountable for choices they don't determine provided God does determine them, but you object (I'm asking) to holding people accountable for choices neither they determine nor can any cause be found which can explain the choice.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/22/2003 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Definition of Indeterminism: Certain decisions and acts ("free" ones) have nothing that causes them to occur; they are pure chance events; they simply happen, having nothing to do with the person doing the act.
As anewbeginning pointed out, this is not a good definition. Indeterminism should be defined as the opposite of determinism. If determinism is defined, roughly, as the thesis that for any causally efficacious state-of-affairs there is one and only one physically possible outcome. Then indeterminism should be defined as the thesis that some causally efficacious states-of-affairs allow for more than one physically possible outcome. This is not the same as saying that indeterministic outcomes "have nothing that causes then to occur" or that they are "pure chance events".
quote:
Current theoretical physics recognizes that subatomic events occur in completely random and unpredictable ways. Since not every event is completely predictable, not every event is caused.
Again, this is incorrect. Physics does not say that subatomic events are "completely random" but that they are probabilistic. Furthermore, that an event is not "completely predictable" is not equivalent to its being "completely random". The writer here is assuming that events are either completely predictable (determined) or not predictable at all (random). This is a false dichotomy.
quote:
Indeterminism reduces the whole scientific effort to explain nature and human beings to mere probability, and it makes such an effort a waste of time insofar as it does not guarantee that understanding human behavior will allow us to improve it.
First of all, the language here is very slanted. Instead of indeterminism "reducing" the science of human nature to "mere" probability, rendering it a "waste of time", why not say that determinism "reduces" humans to "mere" machines, and renders efforts to inculcate morally responsible behavior a "waste of time". Rhetoric aside, the writer assumes that if human nature is not deterministic then we cannot control it AT ALL. But that buys into the same false dichotomy as above. If human nature can be understood probabilistically then even if we can't ensure improvement in the behavior of any given individual, still we can ensure improvement in the behavior of humans en masse.
quote:
If choices and actions are not determined even by one's personality or character, then a so-called "free" act would be one that occurs spontaneously and unpredictably (even to the person doing it); thus no one could justifiably be held responsible for doing an action which not even he/she could have predicted would occur.
Again, we see the false dichotomy of determined vs. unpredictable. No one, not even libertarians, claims that our free choices have NO relation to our personality or character. What libertarians claim is that at least some of the time personality and character do not determine our choices; instead, WE do qua agent cause.
In Christ,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/22/2003 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If determinism is defined, roughly, as the thesis that for any causally efficacious state-of-affairs there is one and only one physically possible outcome. Then indeterminism should be defined as the thesis that some causally efficacious states-of-affairs allow for more than one physically possible outcome.
Alan-
Hey, I saw it! I saw it--the square of opposites at work!
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/23/2003 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi guys - ALan wrote"Then indeterminism should be defined as the thesis that some causally efficacious states-of-affairs allow for more than one physically possible outcome."
Why is there more than one physically possible outcome? Can you give evidence of this (not talking aboutquantum subatomic stuff ). Give me a real life situation. Thanks.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hi guys - ALan wrote"Then indeterminism should be defined as the thesis that some causally efficacious states-of-affairs allow for more than one physically possible outcome."
Why is there more than one physically possible outcome? Can you give evidence of this (not talking aboutquantum subatomic stuff ). Give me a real life situation. Thanks.
Who we fall in love with and marry. There need not be just one with whom it is fore-ordained. And whether the marriage succeeds or fails is also open.
We're all praying for you RD, take the leap of faith again and embrace Openness!!!!
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/23/2003 2:17:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | You're praying for me to embrace open theism? SOrry, that won't happen in this lifetime! | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | You're praying for me to embrace open theism? SOrry, that won't happen in this lifetime!
And your example of "who we fall in love with and marry" is completely unfalsifiable and tells me nothing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You're praying for me to embrace open theism? SOrry, that won't happen in this lifetime!
And your example of "who we fall in love with and marry" is completely unfalsifiable and tells me nothing.
I see so you have it down to an exact science then? Me I'm still perusing the relevant mathematical equations.
You asked for a concrete instance where multiple outcomes are possible. So you are saying that some marriages are doomed to fail?
I was being tongue-in-cheek. You keep posting such lame arguments for determinism.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt has a point. Ten times out of ten, when you drop buttered bread, the buttered side lands down.
Though to really test it, you would need to attach the bread to the back of a cat, buttered side up. Which will fail first? The cat landing on it's feet or the buttered bread landing on the buttered side?
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Edited by - Laika on 05/23/2003 2:17:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/23/2003 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | I keep posting such lame arguments. Right. You don't even understand at all what i'm talking about.
Who you marry most certainly is a choice that is caused. Prove to me otherwise. Or maybe you just randomly married the first person to walk past you on the street? Even if that was the case, the cause of the choice to marry is then the criteria you made of the first person to walk past you on the street.
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 5/23/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
Even if that was the case, the cause of the choice to marry is then the criteria you made of the first person to walk past you on the street.
Iconoclast
Yes, but you had to first CHOOSE to decide to marry by the establishment of some criteria. What CAUSED you to CHOOSE to decide it this way?
I get the sense Reasonable that you are categorizing determinism verses choice the following way:
Determined = Caused = Influenced by a set of things
Choice = Completely Random = NOT influenced by ANYTHING
Please correct me if I am hearing you wrong but your questions seem to presuppose that free-choice is a completely random sort of thing where absolutely no influences are operating and that if there are ANY influences operating on a decision then the decision is in some measure CAUSED by that set of influences AND that if a decision is caused by a set of influences that it is therefore determined which means there cannot be ANY free-will choice involved.
Am I hearing you correctly?
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 05/23/2003 4:36:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/23/2003 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I keep posting such lame arguments. Right. You don't even understand at all what i'm talking about. Who you marry most certainly is a choice that is caused. Prove to me otherwise. Or maybe you just randomly married the first person to walk past you on the street? Even if that was the case, the cause of the choice to marry is then the criteria you made of the first person to walk past you on the street.
You're missing DLW's, point, RD. You asked for a real-life (not quantum) example in which more than one outcome is possible given the existing causal nexus. DLW has offered a prima facie example of such a situation. After all, it seems like we have a real choice about whom we marry. The example isn't conclusive, to be sure. Indeed, there are no conclusive examples because you can always respond, "Well, it just SEEMS like more than one outcome is possible given the causal nexus, but it's REALLY a determined result." So us non-determinists haven't proven our point, but then again neither have you proven yours. From our point of view the fact that something SEEMS undetermined is prima facie good reason for thinking that it isn't determined.
If we find your arguments for determinism less than impressive it is because they turn on assumptions that seem implausible to us. DLW and the rest of us do understand what you are saying. We just think you are wrong.
In your response to DLW you contrast being "caused" (i.e., determined) with being "random", as if these were the only alternatives. This is one of those assumptions that us non-determinists find implausible. Furthermore, DLW never said he thought the choice to marry was random. By interpreting his example in that way you're foisting on him a dichotomy (determined vs. random) that he would reject. This is uncharitable.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/23/2003 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | You know back in my elementary school days, I had developed a crush on a new girl, named Virginia, back when my family lived in TX. After we moved to MN, I developed a habit of developing a crush on a new-comer every year. So was this random or me being determined on the basis of my past experiences?
My view-point now is that I believe both predestination and free-will are valid in some respects, but that I will always face uncertainty regarding which are which.
You may or may not be able to choose who you fall in love with, and after the fact, you may or may not be able to change your mind. However, I take it as a near-certainty that all marriages can fall apart due to neglect.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/27/2003 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | "On the one hand, indeterminists claim that we do not act without reasons. On the other hand, they deny that any reasons or other causes serve as sufficient conditions for what is chosen. But if nothing is a sufficient condition to incline the will to choose one thing over another, then how do we choose at all? If the causal influences really were at a stand-off, then we would not choose. Moreover, if causal influences are not sufficient to move the will to choose, then what is? Some indeterminists claim that a person just chooses. Fine, but on what basis? If the answer is that he or she just chooses, surely this is no explanation at all. If the indeterminist argues that the choice is made in accord with what appears to be the best reason(s), then, in fact, the act is causally determined (reasons have functioned as causes sufficient to produce the act)" (Feinberg, p. 36).
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/27/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | "What the empirical under-determination of Global Science shows is that there are various defensible ways of conceiving the world."
W.V.O. Quine.
Gina,
All your quote is saying is that allowing for indeterminism makes interpreting what is going on somewhat messy. If chance is real then there may not be an explanation for why things happened the way they did. And yet, clearly we do act intentionally. Although, the goals towards which we act intentionally may not be chosen with the greatest of wisdom.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 5/27/2003 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi RD:
You wrote:
"On the one hand, indeterminists claim that we do not act without reasons. On the other hand, they deny that any reasons or other causes serve as sufficient conditions for what is chosen. But if nothing is a sufficient condition to incline the will to choose one thing over another, then how do we choose at all? If the causal influences really were at a stand-off, then we would not choose. Moreover, if causal influences are not sufficient to move the will to choose, then what is?"
Reminds me of the story of Buridian's ass.
"Causal influences". what does this mean? What is being influenced? The will? If there is such a thing as a "causal chain" then there really are no "influences", only causes. Only one possible outcome.
You, me, everybody are only part of a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption. The author doesn't mention "agent causation" which is what most indeterminists invoke as the mode of causation in non event-determined choices. If there is an "agent" capable of being influenced, couldn't said "agent" begin a new causal chain?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/29/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW said, "You keep posting such lame arguments for determinism."
Do you believe the OV will be embraced by the masses when those espousing it speak with such obvious rudeness? The more I continue to view and post in these boards, the more I encounter a rudeness that disgusts me, to be blunt. I left the OV because my own heart was in turmoil, but now I have also witnessed a lack of love and graciousness with OVers. I have seen rudeness displayed in here and then brushed off claiming that the object of the rude comments is not able to enjoy humor and other such comments. I have seen others mention the rudeness (if I recall correctly, Reasonable Doubt, the Hugonot, and others I cannot recall) but no one appears to listen.
Edited by - Christian on 05/30/2003 12:30:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/29/2003 9:47 PM (GMT -6) | | It is as absurd to try to "prove" to somemone that they have free will as it is to try to "prove" to someone that they actually exist. Deny it all they want, they still know they exist and that they have choices to make.
It is also quite absurd (and patently false) to claim that those who don't believe in determinism consequently believe that everything is random or chance. What we who believe in libertarian free will actually believe has to do mostly with morally responsible acts. That is, the moral universe in distinction from the physical universe. This was a crucially important distinction in the New School Divinity of the early 1800s, and it seems to me that it is a very important distinction still.
The PHYSICAL universe (excepting miracles) is governed by the Creator according to the laws of physics.
The MORAL universe is governed by the Creator according to the laws of moral government; i.e., wages of sin is death, gift of God is eternal life, prayer, repentance, and faith each can move God to action, the righteous shall live and the wicked shall die (Rom. 8:1-14).
New discoveries in physics, while they may be very interesting and may draw some fascinating parallels, do not necessarily translate into the spiritual realm. Physics is a rapidly evolving science, while the Moral Law of God is an eternal truth.
My 2c
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/30/2003 3:38 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp, I understand what you're saying about differentiating between the physical world and the moral world - but the reality is, we are physical humans - everything about humans corresponds to the physical laws - including how our brain operates. I'm not going to get into the mind-body problem, which still is a problem, but it is nonetheless true that no one who's brain is dead is able to make a moral decision. The moral decision is made by a physical entity, the brain.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/30/2003 4:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp, I understand what you're saying about differentiating between the physical world and the moral world - but the reality is, we are physical humans - everything about humans corresponds to the physical laws - including how our brain operates. I'm not going to get into the mind-body problem, which still is a problem, but it is nonetheless true that no one who's brain is dead is able to make a moral decision. The moral decision is made by a physical entity, the brain.
Yes, but we also have minds that go beyond just the physical nature of our brains and can reprogram ourselves accordingly.... I don't think our physical natures determines anything either way on the predetermination/free-will front..
Please forgive me if I have been rude, but there is a difference between calling someone's arguments lame and attacking them ad hominem.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/30/2003 09:50:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:24 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 |
|
|