Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation

[tonyrey]

Read the OP of this thread. That’s where you will find my explanation

You have not explained why self-determinism is not possible where persons are concerned. You simply stated that “Libertarian free will” presupposes indeterminism" as if it is self-evident. It amounts to denying that we can control ourselves and are not responsible for our thoughts or decisions…

 

[Counterpoint]

You have not explained why self-determinism is not possible where persons are concerned. You simply stated that “Libertarian free will” presupposes indeterminism" as if it is self-evident. It amounts to denying that we can control ourselves and are not responsible for our thoughts or decisions…

I never argued that self-determinism was not possible. I’m simply argued that self-determinism (free will) must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism (as the terms were defined in the OP).

Libertarian free will must entail some element of randomness. If this were not the case, then it would be completely compatible with strict determinism. IOW, there would no difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. (Note that I did not argue that libertarian free will must imply that all our voluntary actions and behavior are completely random.)

 

[davidv]

I never argued that self-determinism was not possible. I’m simply argued that self-determinism (free will) must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism (as the terms were defined in the OP).

Libertarian free will must entail some element of randomness.

What do you mean by randomness, and why is it a factor? My use of free will is very non-random. Multiple factors are considered. However, none of these factors, nor their interactions predetermine my choice. I don’t see why the dicotomy. Why not both determinism and indeterminism? Determinism applies to the physical world. Indeterminism applies to the sphere of volitionally choices.

If this were not the case, then it would be completely compatible with strict determinism. IOW, there would no difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. (Note that I did not argue that libertarian free will must imply that all our voluntary actions and behavior are completely random.)

 

[tonyrey]

I never argued that self-determinism was not possible. I’m simply argued that self-determinism (free will) must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism (as the terms were defined in the OP).

Self-determinism or free will has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism because persons are not things - as a Neoplatonist should be aware…

Libertarian free will must entail some element of randomness. If this were not the case, then it would be completely compatible with strict determinism.

An invalid deduction based on the unjustified assumption that personal choices and decisions are subject to physical laws.

IOW, there would no difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. (Note that I did not argue that libertarian free will must imply that all our voluntary actions and behavior are completely random.)

A false dilemma based on the unjustified assumption that personal choices and decisions are subject to physical laws - despite the fact that inanimate things and other forms of life are incapable of voluntary activity.

 

[Counterpoint]

Self-determinism or free will has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism because persons are not things - as a Neoplatonist should be aware…

Then why call it self-DETERMINISM?

An invalid deduction based on the unjustified assumption that personal choices and decisions are subject to physical laws.

Physical determinism is not the only kind of determinism. There is also mental determinism. So, interaction dualism is completely compatible with determinism. If all physical events and mental events are deterministic, then their interaction will also be deterministic. (Idealism can also be deterministic.)

 

[tonyrey]

Self-determinism or free will has nothing to do with determinism

Determinism is associated with physical events. The term self-determinism
distinguishes personal from impersonal activity.

An invalid deduction based on the unjustified assumption that personal choices and decisions are subject to physical laws.

Physical determinism is not the only kind of determinism. There is also mental determinism. So, interaction dualism is completely compatible with determinism. If all physical events and mental events are deterministic, then their interaction will also be deterministic. (Idealism can also be deterministic.)

That is true but only self-determinism is compatible with rationality and moral responsibility.

 

[Counterpoint]

That is true but only self-determinism is compatible with rationality and moral responsibility.

But if self-determinism is also compatible with determinism, then it would actually qualify as free willcompatibilist, not free will.libertarian

 

[tonyrey]

But if self-determinism is also compatible with determinism, then it would actually qualify as compatibilist free will, not libertarian free will.

You need to explain how determinism of any description is compatible with responsibility. It amounts to passing the buck!

 

[Counterpoint]

You need to explain how determinism of any description is compatible with responsibility. It amounts to passing the buck!

I have already explained my position in the OP. If you disagree with it, then you have to furnish me with a version of free will does not entail either strict determinism or some element of randomness.

 

[tonyrey]

I have already explained my position in the OP. If you disagree with it, then you have to furnish me with a version of free will does not entail either strict determinism or some element of randomness.

You have not explained how or why biological machines are accountable for their functions…

 

[Counterpoint]

You have not explained how or why biological machines are accountable for their functions…

The subject matter of this thread is free will, not biology.

 

[tonyrey]

You have not explained how or why biological machines are accountable for their functions…

The subject matter of this thread is also Determinism, Indeterminism, **Moral Responsibility, **and Salvation.

You still haven’t explained how machines are morally responsible for their activity… :tsktsk:

 

[Counterpoint]

You still haven’t explained how machines are morally responsible for their activity… :tsktsk:

I don’t have to. I’m not making an argument “for or against” free will. I’m simply arguing that any version of free will must either entail strict determinism or some random element.

 

[davidv]

I don’t have to. I’m not making an argument “for or against” free will. I’m simply arguing that any version of free will must either entail strict determinism or some random element.

If free will is the ability of a person to provide self direction

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

and determinism is
World English Dictionary:

the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory

The two are directly contradictory so one of both of them are false. From an engineering perspective random = caused by unknown factors that create effects with no distinguishable pattern. It is not clear why this is the alternative to determinism.

 

[Counterpoint]

The two are directly contradictory so one of both of them are false. From an engineering perspective random = caused by unknown factors that create effects with no distinguishable pattern. It is not clear why this is the alternative to determinism.

Either every event has a cause OR it does not. It’s really that simple.

 

[davidv]

Either every event has a cause OR it does not. It’s really that simple.

I would stop at every “event has a cause”, whether the cause is know or unknown, or whether the effect is predetermined by the preceeding factors or not.

How does this shed any light on the OP? What does random mean to you? Uncaused? I won’t agree with that definition in this context.

 

[Counterpoint]

I would stop at every “event has a cause”, whether the cause is know or unknown, or whether the effect is predetermined by the preceeding factors or not.

I don’t understand what exactly you are trying to say here. Either you believe that every event has a cause or you don’t. If you do, then you subscribe to determinism. If you don’t, then you subscribe to indeterminism.

How does this shed any light on the OP? What does random mean to you? Uncaused? I won’t agree with that definition in this context.

Random in this context means “uncaused.” To reiterate: either every event has a cause or it does not. If an event does not have a cause, then it is uncaused. (This should not be difficult to understand. It may be difficult to emotionally accept. But it is not difficult to understand.)

 

[davidv]

I don’t understand what exactly you are trying to say here. Either you believe that every event has a cause or you don’t.

I believe every event has a cause. There is not one event that is uncauses. There is only one uncause thing, the being who is God.

If you do, then you subscribe to determinism. If you don’t, then you subscribe to indeterminism.

Non-sequiteur.

Random in this context means “uncaused.” To reiterate: either every event has a cause or it does not. If an event does not have a cause, then it is uncaused. (This should not be difficult to understand. I may be difficult for some to emotionally accept it. But it is not difficult to understand.)

Given your definition above, I believe there are no random events. Therefore there are no uncaused events. Neither determinisn nor indeterminism assume uncaused events. It is pretty clear to me that your are either presenting a false dicotomy, or are equivocating.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

Random in this context means “uncaused.” To reiterate: either every event has a cause or it does not. If an event does not have a cause, then it is uncaused. (This should not be difficult to understand. I may be difficult for some to emotionally accept it. But it is not difficult to understand.)

Given your definition above, I believe there are no random events. Therefore there are no uncaused events. Neither determinisn nor indeterminism assume uncaused events. It is pretty clear to me that your are either presenting a false dicotomy, or are equivocating.

Merriam-Webster defines “indeterminism” as “a theory that holds that not every event has a cause.”

Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of metaphysical libertarianism.

(source: Wikipedia: Indeterminism)

Obviously, we have reached an impasse. If we cannot agree on the dictates of logic, then it will not be possible for us to have a rational discussion and/or debate.

 

[Anselm33]

There are only two options: determinism or indeterminism (If anyone here believes that there are any other options, then please share it with us.)

If determinism holds true, then every decision I make and action I take was predetermined and could not have been otherwise.

If indeterminism holds true, then every decision I make and action I take could only have been otherwise due to some element of pure randomness or chance.

There are only two types of free will: compatibilism and libertarianism. (If anyone here believes that there are any other types of free will, then please share it with us.)

“Compatibilist free will” presupposes determinism.

“Libertarian free will” presupposes indeterminism.

Why does this all matter? It matters, because it has implications for both moral responsibility and salvation.

What are the implications for moral responsibility? The implications for moral responsibility are the same regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism holds true. Why? Because I can be held no more responsible for a decision I make or an action I take that reduces to pure randomness or chance than I can for a decision I make or an action I take that was completely predetermined.

What are the implications for salvation? The implications for salvation are the same regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism holds true. Why? Because the implications for salvation are the same as for moral responsibility. I can be held no more responsible for my salvation (or damnation) for a decision I make or an action I take that ultimately reduces to pure randomness or chance than I can for a decision I make or an action I take that was completely predetermined.

Incidentally, “final causality” does not change anything. It is simply another determining factor.

Did you know that if we have free will, quantum entitities have free will? Please see my blog, a post about the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem.rationalcatholic.blogspot.com/2014/02/do-quantum-entities-have-free-will-and.html
I’d be interested in comments.