V
Veritas6
Guest
Do you think our rationality ends the causality? I really don’t know what to think of the Sorites Paradox, I’m not sure how much our genetic and bodily causes influence or “control” our actions.
- Status
W
whatistrue
Guest
Depends on what you mean by causality. If you mean a series of events that are directly and immutably controlled by the preceding event then I wouldn’t say rationality necessarily ends it, but free will does. Genetics, environment, body functions etc. undeniably influence us, but I absolutely reject the idea that they control us enough to destroy our free will. As far as the Sorites Paradox, I don’t think much of it at all In this case because it depends on vague predicates and vagueness in this sort of discussion is useless. In my opinion; take that for what it’s worth.
V
Veritas6
Guest
I agree that they don’t ultimately control us, but do you think this argument makes the assumption of jumping over or ignoring our rationality? Even if our brain states are constantly being “dictated” by biology and the environment?:
“ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are ‘outside of the person’, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.
The ‘hard incompatibilist’ such as myself says that a person’s brain state at any given moment outputs a person’s wants and desires, and that very brain state is dictated entirely by the person’s biology (no one controls their genes) and environment (and that environment is filled with other people and things that influence those brain states all the time).
Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.“
W
whatistrue
Guest
By “this argument” do you mean the one following that is in quotes? I think the main issue here is that you keep coming back to rationality (ability to think), where in my view the discussion is more about free will (ability to choose). To choose you must be able to think
And this is the argument I reject. I am not my genetics or my environment. Influence yes; dictate or control no. Emphatically no.
V
Veritas6
Guest
I mean the one in the quotes. What I meant was using our rationality to weigh options and choose the best one. I agree that free will means the ability to choose.
The objector wrongly asserts we are our genetics and environment, thus we have no control. But if we were to grant this false premise, what do you think of this other argument about: “If things are not ultimately up to us, who or what then are they up to?”
“Even if we asserted a god or some sort of deity here, such would have the very same problem. Things could not be ultimately up to such a being, as it would have no say over its own starting existence or configuration, and if it never ‘began’ it would have no say over its eternal configuration (the way that god or deity eternally is or was)…
Such a god would know everything that it would do at any moment (or non-moment) and could never do anything outside of what it knows it will do for certain. This means it couldn’t be omnipotent, meaning all-powerful, as it wouldn’t have the power to do anything but what it already knows it will do.” (Emphasis mine)
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
I will grant some premises with which I disagree for the sake of discussion. This is not one of them.
V
Veritas6
Guest
Sure we probably don’t need to. What do you think of his formulation of this argument?
W
whatistrue
Guest
I don’t think much of it at all. It is not rigorous or well grounded. It makes gratuitous assertions about the limitations of a being that has not previously (within the argument) been shown to have any specific properties or even existence. Need I go on?
V
Veritas6
Guest
Yeah sure I can see that, the assertion is pretty weak and unspecific. Thanks for your help.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I don’t know about Dennett, but the Catholic notion of free will is ancient. I find it silly to accuse it of “redefining” the debate.
V
Veritas6
Guest
I definitely agree with you, but is there a good argument that our genetics/environment don’t control our actions? Is it based on the assumptions science tries to make with physical systems? Or that the mind is separate from the physical brain, thus the intellect isn’t compelled completely by our past? Thanks for your help.
W
whatistrue
Guest
If they did control us to the extent posited by some, then it seems to me that identical (monozygotic) twins in the same household would always end up essentially the same as far as behavior, attitudes, academic achievement, etc. and I don’t believe that this is the case.
V
Veritas6
Guest
That’s a great point. I think people can reasonably conclude there can’t be free will in a strictly physical casual universe. The problem of course is proving how mental abstraction arises from flesh and electricity. If the mind is not fundamentally physical, it won’t follow that is it inevitably controlled by physical forces.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I am not entirely convinced even of that. I don’t know enough about the subject at the deep levels required for this sort of thing, but when you are talking about something as physically complicated as a brain, chaos theory has a lot to say about how it appears to function from the outside. Then given some of the sizes of structures involved I wonder what part quantum effects might play.
V
Veritas6
Guest
What do you make of this argument to “prove” the idea of God is incoherent?:
“The fact that the Universe behaves as God commanded is a fact about the Universe! That is to say, it is a natural fact, just as e=mC2 is a natural fact: i.e., the universe is this way, rather than some other way.
And – this is the central point – God could not, by his command, make the universe obey his command! He could, of course, command the universe to follow his command. But his command would have no effect unless the universe was such as to obey his command.
Suppose that a God exists who has no power over the universe. That is, the universe does not do as he commands (wills, orders, etc.). Now, suppose this God commands the universe to do as he commands.
When he issues this command to the universe, what happens? Absolutely nothing! For God cannot, by his command, make the universe obey those very same commands. To do so would require that the universe obey his commands – which, ex hypothesi, it does not do. So, if the universe does obey God’s commands, its doing so must be a fact about the universe. And this fact must be independent of, not a result of, God’s commands. The logical relation is necessary: but it does not follow that any such being actually exists.
For the same argument would apply to SuperGod: His power to affect the universe would likewise be a fact of nature. And so his acts would be natural.
It follows that any being whatever that is capable of acting must be natural: hence, a part of nature, and a product of nature, just as you and I are.”
“The fact that the Universe behaves as God commanded is a fact about the Universe! That is to say, it is a natural fact, just as e=mC2 is a natural fact: i.e., the universe is this way, rather than some other way.
And – this is the central point – God could not, by his command, make the universe obey his command! He could, of course, command the universe to follow his command. But his command would have no effect unless the universe was such as to obey his command.
Suppose that a God exists who has no power over the universe. That is, the universe does not do as he commands (wills, orders, etc.). Now, suppose this God commands the universe to do as he commands.
When he issues this command to the universe, what happens? Absolutely nothing! For God cannot, by his command, make the universe obey those very same commands. To do so would require that the universe obey his commands – which, ex hypothesi, it does not do. So, if the universe does obey God’s commands, its doing so must be a fact about the universe. And this fact must be independent of, not a result of, God’s commands. The logical relation is necessary: but it does not follow that any such being actually exists.
For the same argument would apply to SuperGod: His power to affect the universe would likewise be a fact of nature. And so his acts would be natural.
It follows that any being whatever that is capable of acting must be natural: hence, a part of nature, and a product of nature, just as you and I are.”
A
AlNg
Guest
Not sure about that at least according to Sister Ilia Delio, roman Catholic nun who holds a chair in theology at Villanova University. Previously she was hired by Georgetown University as Director of Catholic Studies and Visiting Professor. She is the author of 20 books, with one of the latest being:
Birth of a Dancing Star: My Journey From Cradle Catholic to Cyborg Christian
Ilia Delio (2019). According to the former director of Catholic Studies, she says that God becomes God through humans, so that according to this teaching, God does need humans to become God. And this was supposedly the teaching of the Jesuit priest T. de Chardin.
- Status