 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Argument that Determinism is Self-Refuting | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 12:18 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Lethonomia
04/15/01 4:09 PM
Argument that Determinism is Self-Refuting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've recently read several statements of the argument that determinism defeats itself or that mechanistic accounts of belief formation are self refuting.
I'm stuck on one point of the argument however. It seems to imply that we choose our beliefs.
But surely belief formation is a passive matter. Belief formation is something that happens to me rather than something I do. The point of having beliefs is that they put me in touch with how things are. So if I believe something I want my belief to be caused by that which it is about.
Does anyone have any suggestions about how the argument might deal with this? And does the argument in fact imply this?
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
04/16/01 2:03 AM
RE: Argument that Determinism is Self-Refuting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the wonderful things about a discussion board like this is that it gives you something to do at two in the
morning when you can’t sleep.
Lethonomia, the argument you may be referring to runs something like this:
Premise 1: All things are physically caused (premise of determinism)
Premise 2: Causes determine one effect.
Premise 3: Whatever is an effect of a physical cause can have no truth value.
Premise 4: The statement “all things are physically caused” is itself physically caused (from Premise 1).
Premise 5: The statement “all things are physically caused” can have no truth value.
Conclusion: The statement “all things are physically caused” cannot be a true statement.
The crucial but disputable premise in the argument is Premise 3. It seems to me to be correct, however. A
physical cause and effect is like a thunder clap or a belch. A thunder clap or belch is not true or false: it just
occurs. So it is with all strictly physical processes. If all brain activity is reducible to physical causes, then while
they are much more complex than a thunder clap or belch, they have the exact same truth status: namely, they have
NO truth value. Hence, the belief that all things are physically caused must itself be physically caused, and hence
have no more truth value than a thunder clap or belch.
Hence, physical determinism is self refuting.
A different form of the argument that determinism of all sorts (not just physical determinism) is self refuting is
pragmatic. This argument basically goes like this.
Premise 1: Whatever cannot be illustrated in life has no truth value.
Premise 2: We cannot choose in such a way that we illustrate the belief that our choice was exhaustively
determined. (That is, the very act of deliberating between options and choosing necessarilly illustrates [exemplifies,
manifests,etc.] our belief that it is UP TO US what we decide.
Conclusion: The belief that we are exhaustively determined has no truth value.
One might make the point more strongly, in a self-refuting fashion, and say that the very choice to believe in
exhaustive determinism refutes exhaustive determinism. AT the very least, it seems to suggest that at the most
profound level of your being -- the level out of which we ACT, not just SAY what we believe -- we BELIEVE that
exhaustive determinism is not true in the act of deliberating whether or not we should believe it.
As to your comments about beliefs being caused, it seems to me that if beliefs were passively conformed to reality
in the way you suggest, we would not have the variety of conflicting beliefs among humans that we find. The fact
that we disagree on most things suggests that there is an active role which the will plays in coming to belief. We
want our beliefs to reflect reality, but trying to arrive at this involves choice.
This is why the New Testament always regards the decision to believe in Christ as a MORAL issue.
Blessings,
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
04/16/01 6:30 AM
RE: RE: Argument that Determinism is Self-Refuting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc said: "One of the wonderful things about a discussion board like this is that it gives you something to do at two in the
morning when you can’t sleep."
I agree It is so comforting to know that there are other people out in cyberland that sometimes can't sleep at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning! This website is such a nice alternative to television in the wee hours of the morning.
I want to put a plug in for Greg Boyd's Easter sermon -- I hope it's okay to do this here? It was FABULOUS! I plan to give a copy of this sermon to many of my atheist friends and family because it really makes one think about WHY Christ's resurrection had to be for REAL. I encourage anyone who didn't hear it to get a copy of this sermon. It really helps one to see that the Gospel message of the resurrection wasn't just a nice faith story -- it's part of history!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
04/16/01 7:59 AM
RE: RE: Argument that Determinism is Self-Refuting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No time. Gotta be a quickie. On Doc's pragmatic analogy...
"Premise 1: Whatever cannot be illustrated in life has no truth value."
Meph:
This premise is highly suspect, if not outright false. Quote from 03/23/01 10:45 AM of mine:
"One of the main reasons why I dislike naive realism or any OTHER type of system that puts too high a place for experience is that complementarity is ipso facto disallowed. Why? Complementarity deals with the acceptance of MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE tenets solely for the reason that the evidence forces one to do so. Now think about it. Are there ANY, I repeat, ANY experiential sources in human existence that can EXISTENTIALLY affirm complementarity? HECK, NO. Existentially, any mutually exclusive tenets are tacitly seen as CONTRADICTION. This is why many people, like Brandon, keep saying that it's nothing more than contradiction. Primary emphasis on analogy precludes any type of complementarity being used. Do you see what I'm saying? Oh, Lord, tell me that you do! Just like in the my example with HUP. Affirming non-causality and non-locality when my EVERY EXPERIENCE AS A HUMAN BEING deals in causal relationships with localized things and agents would end up in rank contradiction if I didn't hold to some type of complementarity and dynamic tension, by understanding in what frames they work. Also, If I were to toss out complementarity, the idea that matter can act as particles AND waves would be ludicrous contradiction and quantum physics would be meaningless gibberish to me."
Meph:
I think the quote speaks for itself. Complementarity by definition cannot be demonstrated in life. Therefore, if we accept your Premise 1 as true, then we must say that anything that is explained by complementarity MUST not have truth value. Hmmm...I wonder what our scientists would have to say about that. Bottom line. I think Premise 1 is false, therefore the entire argument falls.
Later,
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lethonomia
04/16/01 6:47 PM
RE: RE: Argument that Determinism is Self-Refuting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Dr. Boyd:
Thank you for your reply. The arguments you presented have some similarity with what I have in mind. Here is one simple version of the argument I found online:
1) With respect to the free will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods.
2) Whatever should be done can be done.
3) If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done.
4) I believe in free will.
5) With respect to the free will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods.
6) If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods.
7) If determinism is true, then I refrain from believing a falsehood when I believe in free will.
So determinism is self defeating.
You get 5 from combining 1 and 2. You get 6 from combining 3 and 5.
And thus determinism entails its denial.
Premise 2 is justified by the principle "ought implies can". Thus if one of your students says she could not make it to class on time and it was not possible for her to get to class in any other way it wouldn't make sense for you to tell her that you know she couldn't get there on time but she should have been there on time anyway.
Premise 3 is just a restatement of determinism. If determinism is true then there are no alternative courses of action. There is literally only one course of action. So if something happens it is the only thing that could happen.
Basically the argument is saying that a necessary presupposition of rational thought is the absence of sufficient antecedent conditions.
The argument makes use of a rationality norm to get to the conclusion. So it seems that rationality norms require freedom from determinism.
This argument is essentially the same as an argument defended by Professor Hasker.
With regard to my comments about the passivity of belief, I was referring to a claim by Swinburne and Alston. They both believe that we cannot directly bring about our beliefs by choosing. They make the point that you accept your beliefs because you believe they are caused by how things are. If you were to choose them then it would seem that you were the cause of the belief rather than that which the belief is about. But both admit that we can bring about our beliefs in indirect ways by choosing to investigate and choosing to develop critical thinking skills and by choosing to bring it about that one is more open-minded, etc. Maybe indirect belief formation is what you meant by "an active role" of the will.
I was just curious as to whether or not the argument implies choosing our beliefs in the direct manner.
Anyway, I think the determinism-is-self-defeating argument has considerable force. Also, it is very similar to Plantinga's argument that naturalism is self defeating, Richard Taylor's teleological argument, and C S Lewis' argument against naturalism.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
pneumatika
04/17/01 1:46 PM
Are differing opinions even being heard?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph,
I grant I am a little partial to your view, but why is it that nobody seems to listen to you? You ask some [really] tough questions and few are ever even acknowledged.
--that Pneumatika guy
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:38 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 |
|
|