Free will revisited

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

No way. It would only prove that there was an agent, which was responsible as a causative agent, nothing more. “Its” or “his” continued existence is not a corollary of this alleged fact. The concept of “necessary” existence does not come into the picture at all.

yes, i’m afraid it does.

Hitetlen:

It is another possible hypothesis that the universe keeps on expanding-collapsing in a cyclical fashion. This hypothesis cannot be substantiated (according to our current level of knowledge, of course), since nothing could survive the collapsing period.

nope - the oscillating cosmological model has been shown to be unviable not only by the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, but by (a) requiring unknown physics to get the recurring expansion cycles, (b) the universe lacks the mean mass density to halt this expansive phase, (c) since entropy is preserved from cycle to cycle in the model, and each successive universal radius increases, there is entailed an initial singularity in the indefinite past.

Hitetlen:

Indeed, but don’t the proponents try to establish the existence of that particular God? A generic “run-of-the-mill” god would not be a good substitute, would it?

the point of the cosmological argument is to demonstrate the existence of a personal divine being. that’s it. the rest of the work is done by historical and theological evidence.

“Direct” as opposed to “circumstantial” evidence.

right, but what does that mean? what’s the definition of epsitemic “directness”? what methods of fact-gathering are disqualified as circumstantial?

Hitetlen:

For sure, with the provision that we always keep the possibility open that the circumstantial evidence can be misleading and we are always ready for correction if it is proven incorrect.

don’t look now, but you just described all of science.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Nope, testimonial evidence in and by itself just does not cut it. If the testimonials can be affirmed by personally conducting the necessary experiment, the testimonials lose their significance.

the repeatability of experimental testimony is irrelevant unless you do it. the fact of the matter is that every single one of your beliefs, say, about quantum mechanics or cosmology is accepted on the basis of testimonial evidence which neither you nor anyone else bothers to verify for themselves. because it would be utterly impracticable to do so.

but our beliefs are no less reasonable for all that.

Hitetlen:

If they cannot be confirmed they remain unsupported assertions, not to be taken seriously.

sort of like all of history?

 

[RobNY]

Hitetlen:

Yes, some apologists try to whitewash the hostility of religion toward reason. So what is new? Admittedly Luther was not a Catholic, but his famous utterances show this: “Faith must trample all reason underfoot” and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”.

This is not the Catholic position though. The mark of the scholastic era is fides et ratio. When Luther denigrates reason he is straying from his Catholic beginnings. Do your best to show the hostility of Catholicism towards reason. We, after all, are Catholic apologists. If religion in general is antagonistic to reason it doesn’t make a whit of a difference; it’s Catholicism you’ll have to focus on for your purposes here.

You are right, I misquoted Tertullian’s phrase, here is the original:

Tertullian (*de Carne Christi *5): ‘Natus est Dei Filius: non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est Dei Filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile.’,

but the intent is clear: "some stories are so incerdible, that their improbability is actually evidence in their favor, because no one would “invent” them. And of course this reasoning is absurd.

In which case he merely used shoddy reasoning. He wouldn’t be the first or the last person to do it. You and I have both done it here at Catholic.com,I know. Shoddy reasoning is not evidence of hostility to reason.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

ok: the universe is like a brick wall, and just as “every brick in the wall is stone; therefore the wall is stone” is sound reasoning, so is “everything in the universe is caused; therefore the universe is caused”.

And I should accept this: why? Just because you say so? What is the compelling reason to accept that the universe is a brick wall? And besides bricks are not made of stone, they are made of clay…

But seriously, the whole concept of causality applies within the universe, just like time does. To ask for an outside causative agent is just as nonsensical than to ask: “what happened before the Big Bang?” or to ask: “what is north from the North Pole?”
john doran:

look, i know you think it’s the fallacy of composition, but it seems as though you’re drawing that conclusion as a matter of formal entailment, i.e. it’s fallacious because every argument of that form is fallacious (just as denying the antecedent is formally fallacious). but, again, this just isn’t true.

every part of the balloon is blue. Therefore the balloon is blue.

So you have an example where the composite argument is fine, if you overlook the fact that the inside of the balloon also contains air, which is NOT blue. What of it? Some composites inherit the attributes of their components, others do not.
john doran:

you are under an obligation to prove that the argument makes the compositional fallacy, since not all compositional arguments are fallacious.

Since it just states that the universe is contingent, but does not prove it: it is at best unsupported.
john doran:

the interpretations of quantum mechanics that posit acausal events are far, far less certain than the principle of causality. and since there are other interpretations of the data that do not involve such a radical departure from common sense (i.e. hidden variables theories), there is no good reason to doubt the causal principle based on some recondite philosophy of science.

Indeed they are as of yet. But they should raise a red flag and compel us to be cautious.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

right, but what does that mean? what’s the definition of epsitemic “directness”? what methods of fact-gathering are disqualified as circumstantial?

That would bring us to a really different ballgame; to the problem of when does something qualify as knowledge? It is a very interesting subject, and worthy of pursuit. Maybe you could start a new thread. This one has deteriorated enough.
john doran:

don’t look now, but you just described all of science.

In a sense, yes, but you should not overlook the self-correcting aspect of science: everything can be questioned, and hypotheses discarded whenever they fall short of being explanatory. That is not the same as hearsay “evidence”, not by a long shot.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

And I should accept this: why? Just because you say so? What is the compelling reason to accept that the universe is a brick wall? And besides bricks are not made of stone, they are made of clay…

what reason do you have not to accept it? if everything that exists in the universe is caused, and the universe just is all the things that exist in it, then the universe needs a cause.

just like PLP in his thread on this topic, you seem to be attributing some kind of independent existence to “the universe” as some kind of mereological whole that is more than the sum of its constituent membership…

but whatever - can you show me why the brick wall argument doesn’t fall afoul of the compositional fallacy? can you prove it?

Hitetlen:

But seriously, the whole concept of causality applies within the universe, just like time does. To ask for an outside causative agent is just as nonsensical than to ask: “what happened before the Big Bang?” or to ask: “what is north from the North Pole?”

that’s not the question that the cosmological argument tries to answer. it just answers the question “what caused the existence of the universe?”.

as far as the question of causal and temporal priority goes, you (seem to) assume that causal priority entails causal priority. which it doesn’t.

Hitetlen:

So you have an example where the composite argument is fine, if you overlook the fact that the inside of the balloon also contains air, which is NOT blue. What of it? Some composites inherit the attributes of their components, others do not.

right. and the example of the causation of the universe is one of the examples that works.

Hitetlen:

Since it just states that the universe is contingent, but does not prove it: it is at best unsupported.

and you just state that it isn’t, but do not prove it: which is at best unsupported…

Hitetlen:

Indeed they are as of yet. But they should raise a red flag and compel us to be cautious.

ok. but caution doesn’t imply skepticism.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

the repeatability of experimental testimony is irrelevant unless you do it. the fact of the matter is that every single one of your beliefs, say, about quantum mechanics or cosmology is accepted on the basis of testimonial evidence which neither you nor anyone else bothers to verify for themselves. because it would be utterly impracticable to do so.

but our beliefs are no less reasonable for all that.

Heck, no. Just because we do not have time to personally repeat every experiment that does not detract from the possibility to do them. That is not irrelevant at all. The epistemological shortcut of relying on others’ testimony is only reliable because other scientists keep on doing the legwork for us, and try to their best to discredit any half-baked idea others come up with.

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion: in science people constantly try to poke holes into other scientists’ theories and accepting testimonials is just a convenient shortcut (but not a substitute) for actually doing those experiments, while religion does not offer any repeatable experiments, it relies ONLY on alleged experts’ testimonies.

In other words: religion is an authoritarian system, and science is a competitive one. Religious authorities are declared by fiat, scientific authorities must prove themselves every day.
john doran:

sort of like all of history?

Yes, sort of like that. History is at best descriptive, and definitely not a “science”.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

In a sense, yes, but you should not overlook the self-correcting aspect of science: everything can be questioned, and hypotheses discarded whenever they fall short of being explanatory. That is not the same as hearsay “evidence”, not by a long shot.

sure it is - once you find (direct?) evidence that is of greater warrant than some other piece of (putatively circumstantial) evidence with which it conflicts, you abandon the belief with less warrant…

how else would it work?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Enemies? I am not hostile to the “true faith”

I’m sure you understand what I mean when I say that ”atheism is an enemy of the True Faith”. I’m not talking about you (a single atheist) but about atheism as an ideology against God. There you have from Marx and communism to Hitler and Nazism, from Freud to Nietzsche, from materialism to relativism, etc, etc, etc…. As you see an ideology with many faces, but one core idea: man is god.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Heck, no. Just because we do not have time to personally repeat every experiment that does not detract from the possibility to do them. That is not irrelevant at all. The epistemological shortcut of relying on others’ testimony is only reliable because other scientists keep on doing the legwork for us, and try to their best to discredit any half-baked idea others come up with.

you appear to be eliding a principled position with a practical one: is scientific testimony reliable in principle because experimental repetition is possible? or is it pragmatically reliable because there are a lot of people doing it, thereby decreasing the chance of error?

if the first, then i’d love to hear how you arrive at that conclusion. if the second, i would (a) disagree, and (b) love to hear how you arrive at that conclusion.

Hitetlen:

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion: in science people constantly try to poke holes into other scientists’ theories and accepting testimonials is just a convenient shortcut (but not a substitute) for actually doing those experiments, while religion does not offer any repeatable experiments, it relies ONLY on alleged experts’ testimonies.

well, for one thing, we’re not talking about religion - we’re talking about philosophy, which proceeds in precisely the same manner as science, but simply concerns different subject matter.

what’s more, i don’t have to rely on anyone’s philosophical testimony: i can just read the arguments myself and verify the reasoning. which is what i do.

Hitetlen:

In other words: religion is an authoritarian system, and science is a competitive one. Religious authorities are declared by fiat, scientific authorities must prove themselves every day.

this is a horrific oversimplification.

even ignoring the religion, you might find it interesting to do even some cursory reading in the history of science and scientific progress and the significant roles things like politics, personality, and power played and continue to play therein…

Hitetlen:

Yes, sort of like that. History is at best descriptive, and definitely not a “science”.

so you don’t have any historical beliefs?

 

[Strider]

Hitetlen:

That would also be a valid concern, but I am asking something different. The question is why can’t we freely change our mind whether we wish to be with God, once we gain actual proof of his existence?

I held off posting on this thread because I figured it would degenerate into a “my physics is better than your physics,” debate. I am going to try to back all the way up to the OP and propose an analogy that doesn’t involve arcane physics theories and guesses.
Here goes:
Life is like a 1,500 meter run. This one is for the gold medal in the Olympics. The favored runner hasn’t lost a race in two years. No one is even expected to challenge him.
At the end of the race, an obscure runner has come from nowhere and won the race.
“But,” the favorite argues, "I used a bad strategy. I sprinted too early and, besides, at 750 meters the two runners in front of me fell and I had to deviate from my preferred line.
“I demand that we extend the race another 250 meters.”
The Olympic judge asks, “How far did you run?”
“1,500 meters,” the runner replies.
“What is the distance of the race you entered?” the judge asks.
“1,500 meters, but that’s not…”
“The race was run it’s complete distance,” the judge says. “No one intentionally impeded you or violated the rules,” he says, handing the runner the book, thick with rules for running the Olympic 1,500 run. “You know these rules as well as anyone. The race is comomplete. You lost. There is no appeal.”
We do really have the reqired knowledge we need to make the decisions and commitments to reach Eternal Life. They’re contained in the Catholic Church. And more importantly, we have all been redeemed. The grace (you could call it the ability to know and the desire to follow the rules) is available, free for the accepting.
You just don’t accept it.
At the instant of death, the race is over. You’ve either won or lost.
The one place my analogy falls apart is that we can ALL win. But we have to win here.

 

[Hitetlen]

Strider:

I held off posting on this thread because I figured it would degenerate into a “my physics is better than your physics,” debate. I am going to try to back all the way up to the OP and propose an analogy that doesn’t involve arcane physics theories and guesses.
Here goes:
Life is like a 1,500 meter run. This one is for the gold medal in the Olympics. The favored runner hasn’t lost a race in two years. No one is even expected to challenge him.
At the end of the race, an obscure runner has come from nowhere and won the race.
“But,” the favorite argues, "I used a bad strategy. I sprinted too early and, besides, at 750 meters the two runners in front of me fell and I had to deviate from my preferred line.
“I demand that we extend the race another 250 meters.”
The Olympic judge asks, “How far did you run?”
“1,500 meters,” the runner replies.
“What is the distance of the race you entered?” the judge asks.
“1,500 meters, but that’s not…”
“The race was run it’s complete distance,” the judge says. “No one intentionally impeded you or violated the rules,” he says, handing the runner the book, thick with rules for running the Olympic 1,500 run. “You know these rules as well as anyone. The race is comomplete. You lost. There is no appeal.”
We do really have the reqired knowledge we need to make the decisions and commitments to reach Eternal Life. They’re contained in the Catholic Church. And more importantly, we have all been redeemed. The grace (you could call it the ability to know and the desire to follow the rules) is available, free for the accepting.
You just don’t accept it.
At the instant of death, the race is over. You’ve either won or lost.
The one place my analogy falls apart is that we can ALL win. But we have to win here.

My objection goes to the highlighted text. Maybe you find it sufficient, but I do not. Therefore you cannot assert that everyone has sufficient information. But at least you answered the original question, and for that I am grateful.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

History is at best descriptive, and definitely not a “science”.

You simply magnify science and scientific knowledge. All scientific knowledge was, is and will be provisional. Scientific knowledge is only one among other types of human knowledge, and certainly, not the most relevant.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

svoboda:

If this is the case, then it means that the all-knowing and supposedly all-good Creator created most of us (are you familiar with the wide-way/narrow-way verses from the bible?) knowing that we’d end up in hell. Why not create only those he knows in advance will freely choose heaven?

This is not a prediction of the population of hell, as you have implied. For example, Fr. Hans Von Balthazar contends that we can have a hope that all men are saved and will attain eternal life. Thus, it may very well be that God’s grace can and does overcome even the most stubborn of men.

In addition, God is supposed to be all-just, but is it justice to condemn to hell people who commit finite offenses. Infinite punishment for finite sin is not just.

Says who? You? Do you have a nicly bound objective dictionary of what is just and what is not, or are you just making that up? Is your version of justice based upon your feelings? Prove to me that everlasting punishment is not just for those who act mercilessly on earth.

In human justice systems, there are crimes that are commensurate with life-long (name removed by moderator)risonment, even if the crime only took but a second to commit. Yet, there are other crimes that warrant temporary punishment, even if they have been committed over a long period of time.

I think your personal view of justice is not commensurate with mine. Nonetheless, you seem to be operating from the position that there is an objective criteria for justice. I’m just curious from where it derives. I too believe there’s an objective criteria for justice, but that criteria comes from the revelation of the one true God. What is your criteria, and why is it objective in your view? Or is it completely subjective?

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

You simply magnify science and scientific knowledge. All scientific knowledge was, is and will be provisional.

Agreed, at least for the natural sciences, though not for the exact ones. The theorem of Pythagoras (for example) was proven thousands of years ago, and the proof will never be overridden, no matter what directions mathematics may take.

doomhammer:

Scientific knowledge is only one among other types of human knowledge, and certainly, not the most relevant.

That is simply your opinion, I happen to differ. Indeed science is amoral, its results can be used in beneficial and harmful manner, depending on the user. But our life has been made better by the fruits of science. Faith never cures the illnesses of life, though maybe it makes the misfortunes more endurable for the believers. I never needed it. If cancer will ever be defeated, it will happen because thousands of people research it, not because someone prays for it to disappear.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

…As you can see, the preponderance of usage pertains to the meaning “clemency” and “leniency”, so my interpretation is hardly “narrow”.

Yes, it is narrow, as it ony accounts for some connotations, not all. So you are defining what connotations we must accept in our theology and which connotation we are to reject. Sorry, but it is our theology, and the Catholic Church was teaching its doctrines before the word “mercy” had the connotations you insist upon.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am aware of this line of reasoning. You call it convincing, I do not.

That’s fine. You are convinced your own brilliance. I am not. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on many number of things.

You have made claims regarding “the theology” that are false, and have then attempted to build a polemic based upon false premises. I recommend you go back to the drawing board and do a better job studying “the theology” you are attempted to refute.

As for the universe being especially “friendly” to life, that is simply a joke.

Where was that claimed? Dr. Penzias said “…required to permit life” but said nothing about “friendly” to life. Now you’re just grasping at straws, it appears. Or simply being argumentative for its own sake.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Agreed, at least for the natural sciences, though not for the exact ones. The theorem of Pythagoras (for example) was proven thousands of years ago, and the proof will never be overridden, no matter what directions mathematics may take.
That is simply your opinion, I happen to differ. Indeed science is amoral, its results can be used in beneficial and harmful manner, depending on the user. But our life has been made better by the fruits of science. Faith never cures the illnesses of life, though maybe it makes the misfortunes more endurable for the believers. I never needed it. If cancer will ever be defeated, it will happen because thousands of people research it, not because someone prays for it to disappear.

Put all the science you want, death will never be defeated. Put all the fruits of science together, human heart will never be satisfied. Put all theorems together, nobody is going to die reciting Pythagoras’ theorem, but the Paternoster…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having wandered off topic, this thread is now closed.