Determinism?

[The_Catholic]

What are some good arguments against “Determinism,” the theory that the history of the world—all events and their order of occurrence—is fixed and unitary. Anotherwords: there is only one possible history of the world down to every last detail?

I understand that since the quantum age this has in fact been proven false, am I correct? I read breifly about this in a chapter in Kennith Miller’s book: “Finding Darwin’s God.”

But obviously, there are many out there praising it because it blows away the whole concept of religion. So, what other arguments can be used against it besides common sense?

 

[Wowbagger]

I’ve actually never heard a really good argument against determinism. The way I read Thomas, he actually seems to support it. So I’m not of much use to you here–all I can say is, “Trust the Church.”

However, the last bit of your post gets me curious. Exactly how does determinism “blow religion away”–except, of course, in the rather fantasy-prone minds of our most esteemed modern scientists, who think that everything blows religion away? Even if it were discovered beyond all doubt that every single event, every dust particle, every free human choice could have been accurately predicted by an observer at the beginning of time if the observer were given enough information, the facts of the universe are still true: God still exists, God is still good, God still created us that we might be able know, love, and serve Him, we still Fell from Paradise, Jesus Christ still became human, died, and rose that we might be redeemed, and the Church founded by him still lights the way down to the ages to the present day.

Granted, if determinism were true, it would give us Catholics some problems with the Calvinists and various other sects that believe in predestination, because it’s very difficult to reconcile determinism and predestination. But I don’t see how it would at all damage religion–or even Christianity–as a whole. Just because the future is knowable doesn’t mean the past or present stop being true.

So that’s my take. Anyone who could help The Catholic out with an actual argument against determinism should probably still chime in!

 

[The_Catholic]

I’ve actually never heard a really good argument against determinism. The way I read Thomas, he actually seems to support it. So I’m not of much use to you here–all I can say is, “Trust the Church.”

However, the last bit of your post gets me curious. Exactly how does determinism “blow religion away”–except, of course, in the rather fantasy-prone minds of our most esteemed modern scientists, who think that everything blows religion away? Even if it were discovered beyond all doubt that every single event, every dust particle, every free human choice could have been accurately predicted by an observer at the beginning of time if the observer were given enough information, the facts of the universe are still true: God still exists, God is still good, God still created us that we might be able know, love, and serve Him, we still Fell from Paradise, Jesus Christ still became human, died, and rose that we might be redeemed, and the Church founded by him still lights the way down to the ages to the present day.

Granted, if determinism were true, it would give us Catholics some problems with the Calvinists and various other sects that believe in predestination, because it’s very difficult to reconcile determinism and predestination. But I don’t see how it would at all damage religion–or even Christianity–as a whole. Just because the future is knowable doesn’t mean the past or present stop being true.

So that’s my take. Anyone who could help The Catholic out with an actual argument against determinism should probably still chime in!

It blows religion away (that sounds funny saying like that hehe) because those on the anti-religious side claim that there is no free will, no choice, no good or evil, and if there is a God, He is most definetly not good–knowing certain people in certain enviorments would not–CANNOT be able to “choose” good and therefore be cast into hell anyway.

So by that account, the atheist stands triumph, blowing the smoke from her gun barrel while the religious lays at her feet with a hole through his/her head–according to the non-religious peoples’ way of thinking of course.

 

[The_Catholic]

In “There Is A God” by Antony Flew he breifly mentions determinism as well, denying it. I want to read it again, but it’s not in my house at the time. I hope there are some good arguments out there against it, it just doesn’t make sense, demotes the human race to mindless robots.

 

[Wowbagger]

It blows religion away (that sounds funny saying like that hehe) because those on the anti-religious side claim that there is no free will, no choice, no good or evil, and if there is a God, He is most definetly not good–knowing certain people in certain enviorments would not–CANNOT be able to “choose” good and therefore be cast into hell anyway.

So by that account, the atheist stands triumph, blowing the smoke from her gun barrel while the religious lays at her feet with a hole through his/her head–according to the non-religious peoples’ way of thinking of course.

Determinism does deny free will, yes, and so it also denies free choice. However, good and evil still exist, even if we are not truly free to choose between the two. Many determinists like to claim that the non-existence of free will “proves” the non-existence of moral good and evil, but the two claims really have nothing to do with one another. One claim is about what human beings are capable of (free choice); the other claim is about an objective fact of the universe (whether or not there is moral good).

This is why most determinists are really just overexcited atheists eager to justify their own largely irrational philosophy.

You’re right about the other bit–if there is no free will, then a just God cannot hold us accountable for our sins, because we had no choice but to commit them. There are two ways to deal with this, though: first, a determinist Christian could argue that God designed a world where certain people were destined for Hell. (Calvinists, in fact, do exactly that. So do Calvinist offshoots, like the Reformed and the Presbyterians.) Personally, I find the idea repulsive, but it at least shows that you can be both a determinist and a Christian. Much more appealing is the second way: a determinist Christian could argue that, because there is no true free will, none of our actions are truly free. According to Aquinas and the Church, only a free act can be sinful. Therefore, no person can truly commit a sin. Therefore, in the infinite mercy of God, all people are saved. This conclusion is much more comforting, and is actually only a heartbeat away from what the Church actually teaches.

I don’t think either formulation is true, of course, because I trust the Church when she says that determinism itself is untrue. But it does, at least, go to show that determinism does not pose nearly the threat to religion that certain determinists like to pretend. I, therefore, do not consider it a terribly pressing question for me.

However, I would love to hear Anthony Flew’s argument. It could solve a number of theological problems for me in my own attempts to understand the Church teaching. So, if you find it, please post it!

 

[diggerdomer]

What are some good arguments against “Determinism,” the theory that the history of the world—all events and their order of occurrence—is fixed and unitary.

What are you having for lunch?

 

[Wowbagger]

French fries and a Mickey-D’s burger with my girlfriend. 's gonna be great. Why?

Are you going to point out that I cannot know my future lunch for certain? I agree with you. But my ignorance is not because my ultimate choice is a free one; I merely lack the infinite knowledge required to determine what it will be.

Determinists don’t claim to know the future; they only claim that, given perfect knowledge, the future is perfectly predictable. I find it difficult to resist this argument, because, even including the soul and the theological virtues in the model, it still seems that each free choice is no more than a combination of environmental factors, innate virtue, and previous choices judged in light of the current situation (through the intellect) using prudence and relying on justice, fortitude, and temperance (the elements of a good free will). The problem is that none of these things–environment, virtue, strength of intellect, strength of prudence or the other virtues, previous choices made–are under the control of the chooser at the moment of the choice. Thus, no choice is truly free.

I know I’m wrong, because the Church says I’m wrong, but I don’t see the flaw in the argument.

 

[diggerdomer]

French fries and a Mickey-D’s burger with my girlfriend. 's gonna be great. Why?

Are you going to point out that I cannot know my future lunch for certain? I agree with you. But my ignorance is not because my ultimate choice is a free one; I merely lack the infinite knowledge required to determine what it will be.

Determinists don’t claim to know the future; they only claim that, given perfect knowledge, the future is perfectly predictable. I find it difficult to resist this argument, because, even including the soul and the theological virtues in the model, it still seems that each free choice is no more than a combination of environmental factors, innate virtue, and previous choices judged in light of the current situation (through the intellect) using prudence and relying on justice, fortitude, and temperance (the elements of a good free will). The problem is that none of these things–environment, virtue, strength of intellect, strength of prudence or the other virtues, previous choices made–are under the control of the chooser at the moment of the choice. Thus, no choice is truly free.

I know I’m wrong, because the Church says I’m wrong, but I don’t see the flaw in the argument.

So if you’re right, let’s assume I have perfect knowledge. Ok? Great. Let’s assume that. I would still ask my original question: what are you having for lunch?

How would my having perfect knowledge have any bearing on that question? You are still free to choose what lunch you have.

Are you seriously hung up on these types of questions? I don’t know if any of what I wrote is helpful or relevant…guess I’m not a Determinist! LOL…but let us know.

Cheers

 

[paul_c]

This goes back to the Catholic view of predestination. It does indeed believe in predestination but it believes that this can and does coincide with free will.

In short, we believe that God has a plan for each and every one of us and that this plan willl come to fruition because God is both omnipotent and omniscient.

We also believe that God gave men true free will and that how they use it determines whether they will be saved or condemned.

We believe further that God can accomplish both of these objectives without one infringing on the other. While that reality is clear, the mechanism is unknowable in this world. There are two camps of speculation. The Thomist (Thomas Aquinas followers) believe that God made each person in such a way that his free will would always provide the desired results to bring God’s plan to fruition. The Molinist view (Molina’s followers) is that God can see perfectly what each man’s free will choices will be and built his plan accordingly. It doesn’t really matter what the mechanism is because the end results are the same, man can and does freely exercise his will and this yields God’s plan perfectly.

To man there are three ramifications to this:

1. Man does not know God’s plan for him and so he must operate as if there was no plan, doing his best to stay in the state of Grace and be saved, If he falls from the State of Grace he will be condemned.
2. Man can never claim before God that he earned heaven, because in fact, God gave him everything and it will be through his mercy that man will be saved
3. At the same time, man can not blame God if he is condemned, because man was able to fully exercise his own free will and if he is condemned, it will be because he died outside the state of Grace, through his own doing.

So the next time you are asked about determination, you can answer as follows. God indeed has a plan for all men and mankind in general. But that plan involves man making individual decisions that have true ramifications. God is sophisticated enough to make and execute his plan without infringing on man’s free will. If pursued further on the mechanism, explain that we don’t know exactly how but that both Thomists and Molinists offer cogent explanations .

 

[Dark_Warrior]

What are you having for lunch?

LOL

 

[Dark_Warrior]

This goes back to the Catholic view of predestination. It does indeed believe in predestination but it believes that this can and does coincide with free will.

In short, we believe that God has a plan for each and every one of us and that this plan willl come to fruition because God is both omnipotent and omniscient.

We also believe that God gave men true free will and that how they use it determines whether they will be saved or condemned.

We believe further that God can accomplish both of these objectives without one infringing on the other. While that reality is clear, the mechanism is unknowable in this world. There are two camps of speculation. The Thomist (Thomas Aquinas followers) believe that God made each person in such a way that his free will would always provide the desired results to bring God’s plan to fruition. The Molinist view (Molina’s followers) is that God can see perfectly what each man’s free will choices will be and built his plan accordingly. It doesn’t really matter what the mechanism is because the end results are the same, man can and does freely exercise his will and this yields God’s plan perfectly.

To man there are three ramifications to this:

1. Man does not know God’s plan for him and so he must operate as if there was no plan, doing his best to stay in the state of Grace and be saved, If he falls from the State of Grace he will be condemned.
2. Man can never claim before God that he earned heaven, because in fact, God gave him everything and it will be through his mercy that man will be saved
3. At the same time, man can not blame God if he is condemned, because man was able to fully exercise his own free will and if he is condemned, it will be because he died outside the state of Grace, through his own doing.

So the next time you are asked about determination, you can answer as follows. God indeed has a plan for all men and mankind in general. But that plan involves man making individual decisions that have true ramifications. God is sophisticated enough to make and execute his plan without infringing on man’s free will. If pursued further on the mechanism, explain that we don’t know exactly how but that both Thomists and Molinists offer cogent explanations .

This is irrelevent to the OP thread, but paul c, did you used to post a lot at the old green spun Catholic forums about 4-5years ago? your name rings a bell.

 

[paul_c]

This is irrelevent to the OP thread, but paul c, did you used to post a lot at the old green spun Catholic forums about 4-5years ago? your name rings a bell.

No, i only started posting on forums in the last 6 months.