Free Will Is An Illusion

[Peter_Plato]

You are embedded in a physical causal (and ultimately divine causal) nexus. That you are aware of this does not remove you from it. It (your awareness) simply validates my point.

If you choose to limit awareness in that sense and make it impotent, that is an option you have.

I am not clear how awareness validates your point at all, except that you have determined that it has by choice. I haven’t made that determination by my choice. Ergo, free choice is operative.

You choose to invalidate free will by viewing it your way, I choose to validate free will by viewing it as a “choice to choose otherwise.”

Merely having the capacity for free will does not mean everyone exercises that capacity equally, or at all.

If you want to use reason to tie reason in knots and make it ineffectual, that is your option. You are free to do so.

 

[hangnail]

Determinism and indeterminism may be the only two possibilities as far as the outcome is concerned but you are confusing the outcome with what brought about the outcome.

Even if true that an outcome must either be a determined or undetermined one, that leaves completely unanswered whether what brought about the outcome was, itself, a determined or indeterminate one.

In other words, it is quite logical to say an outcome was determined by free will, without being compelled to accept that free will is “determined” even though it “determined” the outcome. This is where your dichotomy becomes irrelevant. A determined outcome may in fact be “determined” by a huge range of possibilities beyond merely the two that describe the outcome. It is here you commit the fallacy of retrospective determinism.

If determinism is true, then all of my voluntary actions were completely determined by God. Therefore, I am not ultimately responsible for them; God is. Why? Because God is the ultimate cause of them.

 

[davidv]

If determinism is true, then all of my voluntary actions were completely determined by God. Therefore, I am not ultimately responsible for them; God is. Why? Because God is the ultimate cause of them.

What if the scope of determinism is limited? What if our choice to act morally or not, is not fixed by the conditions present at the time?
How can God, who is all good, cause evil? God’s will for us is to do good. Yet we can choose otherwise. This is contrary to your OP.

 

[hangnail]

“Indeterminate,” for example, means either that the causes have not been determined or that, in principle, they cannot be. However, how would we “determine” which of those is true, short of having a complete and exhaustive metaphysic that we are certain is absolutely true?

I don’t have to determine whether determinism or indeterminism holds true. Logic tells us that one of them must hold true. And regardless of which one holds true, we are not responsible for reasons I have already explained in the original post of this thread.

As it stands, “determined” means something like “determined” to be the cause by our limited understanding. However, since virtually all of that “determination” is grounded on inductive or probable evidence, we really have no assurance that “determined” means anything more than “we think this is how it works.” Hardly sufficient to go making absolute proclamations that by our “determinations” we have “determined” free will not to be “free.” A concept which, in turn, we have an even less clear understanding of, in any case.

It sound like you want to dispense with causality all together. If that is the case, then we don’t have free will either. Because free will is meaningless if the agent is causally inefficacious.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t have to determine whether determinism or indeterminism holds true. Logic tells us that one of them must hold true. And regardless of which one holds true, we are not responsible for reasons I have already explained in the original post of this thread.

It sound like you want to dispense with causality all together. If that is the case, then we don’t have free will either. Because free will is meaningless if the agent is causally inefficacious.

Actually, what I want to dispense with is the idea that all outcomes are necessarily causal in the “determinate” sense that you insist that they must be to be meaningful. The reason I doubt that to be true is precisely because such a view of effects or outcomes renders them, effectively meaningless and insignificant because everything simply reduces to brute fact.

My position is that the ground of existence is not brute determinate fact, at all, but the Eternally Alive and Active Creator who is Infinitely Fecund Being. Our possibility for freedom follows from the Actus Purus of God, not the determinate nature of an inert and essentially fixed causal order.

 

[hangnail]

Why would God want to predetermine what a criminal chooses?

I answered your question as to who was responsible for the predetermination. Now you’re jumping to another tangent that’s off topic.

 

[hangnail]

hangnail, I have a special interest in the problem of free will myself. The determined or random argument appeals very strongly to our intuition. But that’s because we cannot imagine how a process could be neither, as everything in nature, and everything we as humans have built, either acts in a deterministic or random way. We have nothing to model a potential metaphysical theory of free will on, making it extremely difficult to formulate one.

I have already furnished this thread with a model of free will that accurately describes our decision-making process. It’s called the “two-stage model of free will.” (It’s rather quite simple.)

The upshot is then that Harris’ argument is simply an argument from incredulity (rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity), a logical fallacy atheists often accuse Christians of.

You’re the one who is making an argument of incredulity. You cannot believe that the only two logical possibilities are determinism or indeterminism. Unfortunately for you, they are.

 

[hangnail]

That definition is at best vague.

In control of what?

Our ultimate fate or destiny. We believe that we are in control of our ultimate fate or destiny. But we are not. It’s an illusion. We are not in control. And never have been.

So basically you’re arguing in a circle based upon a extremely vague and flawed concept that you have termed as “free will”?

How about you take the time to look at what other bona fide philosophers, such as Aquinas, have to say about free will before you just out-of-hand assert that its an “illusion”.

Filling your head with fifth-rate sophists like Harris is like gorging yourself on a pillowcase full of Halloween candy, it may be sweet at first, but you’ll rot your brain and end up spewing nonsense.

Well, if Aquinas has already refuted the argument I am making in the OP of this thread, then please share it with us.

 

[hangnail]

Your conclusions are untrustworthy if you’re not in control - including the notion that “Free Will Is An Illusion”…

Well, If you believe that you’re are in control, then why do you have to ask God for help in order to stop sinning? Somebody’s who’s in control shouldn’t have to plead with God. If you’re truly in control, then you should be able to live a sinless life.

 

[davidv]

Well, If you believe that you’re are in control, then why do you have to ask God for help in order to stop sinning? Somebody’s who’s in control shouldn’t have to plead with God. If you’re in control, just do it.

Why must it be either/or and not both/and?

 

[hangnail]

He didn’t predestine that you would sin. But did He know you would sin and despite His extended hand of grace? He predestined all because He created all, we are predestined to conform to the image of His Son, and according to scripture. He creates without consultation and He doesn’t save without submission to cooperation.
Peace

I don’t want to get into a Bible debate.

 

[hangnail]

Agreed, we will have to agree to disagree

Good, so we both agree to disagree.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re the one who is making an argument of incredulity. You cannot believe that the only two logical possibilities are determinism or indeterminism. Unfortunately for you, they are.

Again, this is a meaningless distinction.

Logically, the two options for an outcome are either determined or undetermined, but that leaves completely open the question of “Determined by what, exactly?” Your insistence that if the outcome is “determined” that must imply that the conditions for the outcome being determined must themselves be determined is a perfect example of the retrospective determinism fallacy.

 

[hangnail]

How do you reconcile your perspective with Jesus’ words in John 8?.

Do you ever commit sin? If you do, then according to Jesus you are not free but a slave…a slave to sin. Right?

That being said, I’m not trying to reconcile my argument with the teachings of Jesus. I’m simply making a logical argument in a philosophical forum.

 

[davidv]

Do you ever commit sin? If you do, then according to Jesus you are not free but a slave…a slave to sin. Right?

That being said, I’m not trying to reconcile my argument with the teachings of Jesus. I’m simply making a logical argument in a philosophical forum.

After reviewing your posts on this thread I have concluded the you have yet to make a logical argument.

Your OP was a bare assertion. The only defense of this assertion was made using a false dicotomy.

Not very logical.

 

[hangnail]

Of course, you are free to believe you are correct

I believe I am. And no one here has furnished me with a counterargument that would me to believe otherwise.

Truth doesn’t “cause” anyone to believe it to be “true.” The choice is yours. You can decide it isn’t (denial) or you can decide to pursue the truth further. Where you cut off pursuit of the truth and “decide” what is or is not completely true is your choice.

There are variety of factors (both external and internal) which determine our beliefs. But every belief we hold was ultimately formed by a completely deterministic process or a partially indeterministic one. I believe this to be true because logic tells me that it is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, If you believe that you’re are in control, then why do you have to ask God for help in order to stop sinning? Somebody’s who’s in control shouldn’t have to plead with God. If you’re truly in control, then you should be able to live a sinless life.

Ah, yes. But it seems you have already articulated the fact that if a person is totally in control then the outcome must be ‘determined’ by them so they would not be acting free of determination, either, since they themselves were the determining cause.

Seems as if you have all bases covered and admit no possible resolution. You have tied reason in knots by making your position unfalsifiable.

In fact, however, if God providing grace is possible, then that is the solution to your not having complete control, nor the “determining” say, since it opens the potential to be free from yourself, as conditioned agent, from being the inevitable determiner.

Your free choice, in other words, is to avail yourself of grace by a simple free choice which means the choice was not determined by your will, nor anything integral to you, nor from any inevitable external forces, but simply by the possibility existing to choose dynamically, despite all determiners, by God underwriting your freedom to choose.

Of course, you will want to insist that because you made the choice, you were determined to make it by some factor or other - but that would be, again, a fallacy. Read my lips: retrospective determinism.

 

[hangnail]

What if the scope of determinism is limited? What if our choice to act morally or not, is not fixed by the conditions present at the time?
How can God, who is all good, cause evil? God’s will for us is to do good. Yet we can choose otherwise. This is contrary to your OP.

Our choice to do “good” (or whatever our choice may be) was either completely predetermined or (at least) partially the result of chance. It’s that simple.

 

[hangnail]

Actually, what I want to dispense with is the idea that all outcomes are necessarily causal in the “determinate” sense that you insist that they must be to be meaningful. The reason I doubt that to be true is precisely because such a view of effects or outcomes renders them, effectively meaningless and insignificant because everything simply reduces to brute fact.

My position is that the ground of existence is not brute determinate fact, at all, but the Eternally Alive and Active Creator who is Infinitely Fecund Being. Our possibility for freedom follows from the Actus Purus of God, not the determinate nature of an inert and essentially fixed causal order.

Determinnism is determinism, whether it is the determinism of atheistic materialism or the determinism of theistic immaterialism. The end result is the same. What ever will be, will be, que sera, sera.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I believe I am. And no one here has furnished me with a counterargument that would me to believe otherwise.

Of course, but that is because counterarguments are not causally efficacious, now are they?

It is not as if a counterargument would trigger an immediate and complete change in your belief. There is a willful component that leaves the nature of that change open to question, despite your black and white view that beliefs are ‘caused.’

Do you want us to believe that beliefs are causally determined? Then admit you are wrong and we will, paradoxically, accept that you are right by your admission that you are wrong.

How’s that?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17306