Why must determinism be wrong?

[Kilbourne]

I am looking for a metaphysical explanation of the falsity of causal determinism, the idea that each and every happening is fully determined.

 

[Sair]

I am looking for a metaphysical explanation of the falsity of causal determinism, the idea that each and every happening is fully determined.

I don’t think I can furnish you with a metaphysical explanation, since I think that at best, metaphysics tries to impose some kind of structure upon what is - for all we are able to discern - a natural, physical system, one of which we presently have an imperfect understanding; therefore we are not in a position to impose a further layer of order or understanding upon it.

I also don’t think there is any presently credible explanation of the falsity (if that is even an appropriate term) of causal determinism, except to say that determinism as such is more immediate than many who fear determinism imagine - every state of affairs is caused by its immediately prior state of affairs (with the possibility of randomness thrown in on occasion). That much seems like mere common sense. But to suppose that all occurrences, from the dawn of time until the end of time, are ‘predetermined’, in the manner of Calvinist predestination, say, is to include a designing intelligence for which there is no unequivocal evidence in the world we inhabit.

 

[runningdude]

The church teaches that we have free will. Free will precludes our actions being necessitated by previous actions, and are instead freely chosen. Therefore determinism is false.

 

[Kilbourne]

I don’t think I can furnish you with a metaphysical explanation, since I think that at best, metaphysics tries to impose some kind of structure upon what is - for all we are able to discern - a natural, physical system, one of which we presently have an imperfect understanding; therefore we are not in a position to impose a further layer of order or understanding upon it.

So are you denying the possibility of a metaphysical explanation just with respect to determinism, or do you deny that any metaphysical proposition can be true?

 

[Kilbourne]

The church teaches that we have free will. Free will precludes our actions being necessitated by previous actions, and are instead freely chosen. Therefore determinism is false.

Hi RD, I am looking for a more expanded discussion than just ree will and determinism. I am asking whether it can be reasonably demonstrated that all events/happenings must have some freedom, or whether all events are completely determined by their antecedent causes.

 

[Giants]

Hi RD, I am looking for a more expanded discussion than just ree will and determinism. I am asking whether it can be reasonably demonstrated that all events/happenings must have some freedom, or whether all events are completely determined by their antecedent causes.

I don’t think that free will can be successfully argued for, either neuro-scientifically or philosophically.

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Giants,

Let’s first settle the philosophical argument for any freedom at all, let alone free will.

I would like to try and argue that all events/happenings are not completely determined. And I would like to do so from some reasonable first principles.

 

[Kilbourne]

We first must establish that it is possible to formulate any metaphysical propositions (universally true, common to all being, necessary, etc.) at all. Perhaps Sair thinks this is not possible.

But to hold that metaphysical propositions are not possible is to believe in philosophical relativism, and we know that relativism in all its forms is self-refuting. To say that it is necessarily true that all propositions are contingent (could be true or could be false) is itself an absolute or necessary statement. So we know from the get-go that metaphysical propositions are possible.

 

[LordVoldemort]

Determinism is a metaphysical philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen. “There are many determinisms, depending upon what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event.” Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse motives and considerations, some of which overlap. They can be understood in relation to their historical significance and alternative theories. Some forms of determinism can be tested empirically with ideas stemming from physics and the philosophy of physics. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will.

Determinism often is taken to mean simply causal determinism, which in physics is the idea known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. Other debates often concern the scope of determined systems, with some maintaining that the entire universe (or multiverse) is a single determinate system and others identifying other more limited determinate systems. Within numerous historical debates, many varieties and philosophical positions on the subject of determinism exist. This includes debates concerning human action and free will, where opinions might be sorted as compatibilistic and incompatibilistic.

Determinism should not be confused with self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible – only prediction in theory.

 

[abucs]

I think with determinism we have to differentiate between determinism relative to us and absolute determinism.

For example, from quantum physics there seems to be a law where we are not allowed to know both the precise position and momentum of any particle. This is not just a restriction on our technological abilities but written into the rules of physics which is very interesting. The question remains though does a particle have both an exact position and momentum and if so does somebody (perhaps God outside of our reality) have access to its values.

The same question can be applied to determinism in general.

There are lots of quantum physics experiments which guide our thinking on possible metaphysical explanations.

One of my favourites is the Bell Inequality. Following on from the preceeding post it would appear this experiment would negate even the possibility of a theoretical prediction of a particular result and thus negate determinism (relative to us) and some of us also believes it negates locality. That is that it appears local conditions cause outcomes but they really don’t. The question then arises why should it look like it does. As a past computer programmer it looks very much like a designed reality to me.

upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf
phy.bris.ac.uk/people/Popescu_S/papers/Sandu-11.pdf
philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/philphys/WuthrichAdrian2012Man_LocRealBell.pdf
logica.ugent.be/philosophica/fulltexts/53-7.pdf

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What strikes me as odd about this question of determinism is the fact that most liberals (especially the atheists among them) clamor to be free, but they don’t really believe in free will. It is the conservatives who believe in free will, because it seems irrational that every action of every person is predetermined to the degree that no one can really be responsible for his actions. Therefore, according to the determinist there is no need to praise or blame, reward or punish, rebel or submit, without understanding that all of these actions are illusions of freedom and are really no more than automatic reflexes.

 

[abucs]

Very interesting point Charlemagne II.

I guess the line to be intelligent and choose atheism is self contradictory when free choice and thus intelligence are negated by atheism?

 

[Giants]

Very interesting point Charlemagne II.

I guess the line to be intelligent and choose atheism is self contradictory when free choice and thus intelligence are negated by atheism?

No. The fact that our actions are causally determined does not negate the need to reward and punish people as necessary. Praiseworthy and blameworthy actions are themselves partially determined by antecedent influences like blame or praise for earlier actions.

A grizzly bear is not morally responsible for attacking and trying to eat you, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t lock the bear up, or even kill it, to keep it from trying to kill and eat other people. Likewise, tornadoes and hurricanes are blameless weather events that kill and destroy indiscriminately - but we’d lock them up too, if we could.

Atheists and liberals do often strive for freedom. This does not, however, mean that we succumb to wish-thinking - believing that we have free will when the evidence and arguments point the other way. Wanting something to be true is not sufficient reason to believe that it is true.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Giants

**Atheists and liberals do often strive for freedom. This does not, however, mean that we succumb to wish-thinking - believing that we have free will when the evidence and arguments point the other way. Wanting something to be true is not sufficient reason to believe that it is true. **

Having been a* bona fide* atheist myself, I can tell you that wanting God to be false is not sufficient reason to believe that He is false. Atheism is not something you have to believe, for the simple reason no one is coercing you to believe it. It is something you have chosen, when you had something so much better to choose and threw it away.

 

[Giants]

Giants

**Atheists and liberals do often strive for freedom. This does not, however, mean that we succumb to wish-thinking - believing that we have free will when the evidence and arguments point the other way. Wanting something to be true is not sufficient reason to believe that it is true. **

Having been a* bona fide* atheist myself, I can tell you that wanting God to be false is not sufficient reason to believe that He is false. Atheism is not something you have to believe, for the simple reason no one is coercing you to believe it. It is something you have chosen, when you had something so much better to choose and threw it away.

Having free will isn’t defined as having more than one option to choose between. It’s having the ability to author the choice you ultimately make. And I’m not in control of whether I’m an atheist or not. I was brought up to believe that a certain standard of evidence needs to be met in order to accept a truth claim. I didn’t choose the experiences that led me to having that standard. And I’m not responsible for the fact that all God-claims fail to meet that standard.

 

[abucs]

Hello Giants.

Perhaps not all of your comments were directed to me?

I do think there is a lack of intellectual thoroughness in the atheist position of ‘no free will’.

I think taken to its conclusion, which has shown to have happened in the 20th century, not just free will, but beauty, morality and lastly (and most importantly) truth are explained away and eventually attacked.

I think a lot of atheists take their moral culture unwittingly from the underlying Christian culture (in the west). When an atheist ideology rules, and these values are undermined i think a lot of good atheists cannot really intellectually defend moral positions they should want to take.

In that case i do think it is about athiests believing things without sufficient reason who are then manipulated into supporting bad outcomes. I think it is the Christian in those circumstances whose moral actions are justified by a reasoned truth and thus are not so easily manipulated.

… And I’m not responsible for the fact that all God-claims fail to meet that standard.

According to you. Or should i more fully say from the atheist perspective… “according to the illusion of reason which is the outworking of the neural connections in your brain that you have accumulated to this point of time.”

From an objective stance why is the illusive result of your accumulated neural connections which claim certain standards have not been met better than anothers illusive view of reality from their accumulated neural connections which believe they have been met to an acceptable standard?

 

[Giants]

Hello Giants.

Perhaps not all of your comments were directed to me?

I do think there is a lack of intellectual thoroughness in the atheist position of ‘no free will’.

I think taken to its conclusion, which has shown to have happened in the 20th century, not just free will, but beauty, morality and lastly (and most importantly) truth are explained away and eventually attacked.

Not from the atheist position, no. But that is what happens when dogma is allowed to rule, as we can see from the historical record of certain religions I could name. But there’s nothing atheistic about saying you don’t believe in God, in one breath, and in the next, asserting your rights to Be God of the lives of others. That’s the biggest underlying difference between me, and say, Stalin. Stalin was a sociopath who thought he was God, and moreover, felt perfectly entitled to that opinion of himself. And our present understanding of psychology show that you don’t become a sociopath by being irreligious.

I think a lot of atheists take their moral culture unwittingly from the underlying Christian culture (in the west). When an atheist ideology rules, and these values are undermined i think a lot of good atheists cannot really intellectually defend moral positions they should want to take.

You’re more than welcome to try me on some of these moral positions you’re thinking of. In the meantime, I’d only remind you that Christian culture doesn’t extend back to the dawn of time. It didn’t invent the Golden Rule. In fact, I would argue that Christianity doesn’t hold a single patent on any universal, moral precept.

From an objective stance why is the illusive result of your accumulated neural connections which claim certain standards have not been met better than anothers illusive view of reality from their accumulated neural connections which believe they have been met to an acceptable standard?

Because my standard is more consistent. It’s at the same level for all religions, not to mention other, non-religious, but spooky truth claims. For example, I don’t consider astrology or homeopathic medicine credible either.

The Believer will often defend their faith with certain stock arguments, without acknowledging that adherents to competing faiths are making the exact same arguments for themselves. Why would a Tibetan Buddhist meditating in a cave in Nepal report the exact same sort of transcendent experience as a single mother praying in a church in Alabama?

 

[abucs]

I agree of course Christianity does not go back to ‘the dawn of time’ but surely it is evasive to ignore the role that Christianity has played in building our culture and thus on our thought patterns. I do find it common that on the one hand many atheists will say that we are the product of cultural experiences but then on the other try to downplay, ignore, suppress and even abstract themselves completely from the Christian cultural connection to our present culture and thus deny any Christian influences which have helped form themselves. A variant of this is to attack religion (Christianity) as evil, backward, intellectually simple, repressive etc with bad reasoning in order to put daylight between their created idea of Christianity and how they see themselves

Perhaps this does not refer to you, but very often those that believe we are simply cultural products are curiously extremely strident that whatever those cultural influences are, that have formed themself, they should not be deemed Christian and will throw everything including the kitchen sink at any suggestions that any part of them has been influenced by Christianity.

Very often they will look to use the state to remove any public reminders of a shared Christian culture. Such a view looks more like a rebellion from Christianity than a reasoned view.

Yes i agree with you that Stalin is one example. I am reminded of Chesterton’s quote that when a man convinces himself there is no God, the state becomes his God. I think there have been lots of characters both extreme and passive who have followed that path and many continue to do so. When the ideology is basically that the state should be the arbiter of all things in a materialistic philosophy where beauty, morals and truth are only temporary human creations then we are in trouble. A Christian can intellectually refute that trouble. I am not sure an atheist can.

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Benito Mussolini

It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity.
Benito Mussolini

Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism.
Benito Mussolini

 

[Giants]

I agree of course Christianity does not go back to ‘the dawn of time’ but surely it is evasive to ignore the role that Christianity has played in building our culture and thus on our thought patterns. I do find it common that on the one hand many atheists will say that we are the product of cultural experiences but then on the other try to downplay, ignore, suppress and even abstract themselves completely from the Christian cultural connection to our present culture and thus deny any Christian influences which have helped form themselves.

Perhaps this does not refer to you, but very often those that believe we are simply cultural products are curiously extremely strident that whatever those cultural influences are, that have formed themself, they should not be deemed Christian and will throw everything including the kitchen sink at any suggestions that any part of them has been influenced by Christianity.

I’m not precisely saying that. But I am saying that once you’ve conceded the larger point - that you’d be at pains to name a single Universal, moral precept that nobody had dreamed up prior to Christianity, then the question very nearly asks itself: What do you mean by “Christian culture” - if not the simple vehicle for transporting the universal moral precepts that it adopted from previous bygone cultures and religions? Maybe it deserves some credit for that much, but are we really to suggest that, had Christianity never gotten off the ground, that we’d be living in a society that didn’t prohibit things like murder, theft, cruelty, or lying?

Very often they will look to use the state to remove any public reminders of a shared Christian culture. Such a view looks more like a rebellion from Christianity than a reasoned view.

Frankly, I disapprove of most such efforts as wastes of time and social capital.

Yes i agree with you that Stalin is one example. I am reminded of Chesterton’s quote that when a man convinces himself there is no God, the state becomes his God. I think there have been lots of characters both extreme and passive who have followed that path and many continue to do so. When the ideology is basically that the state should be the arbiter of all things in a materialistic philosophy where beauty, morals and truth are only temporary human creations then we are in trouble. A Christian can intellectually refute that trouble. I am not sure an atheist can.

Well, I certainly can, though Chesterton was wrong. One of religions’ larger affronts to human dignity and civilization is that it presumes to do our thinking for us. A atheist who substitutes God with The State has done himself no favors, but there’s no logical progression from dismissing the rule of a God to accepting the unquestioned rule of elected (or appointed) leaders. Nor does atheism assert that morals and truth are only temporary human creations.

 

[Sair]

We first must establish that it is possible to formulate any metaphysical propositions (universally true, common to all being, necessary, etc.) at all. Perhaps Sair thinks this is not possible.

But to hold that metaphysical propositions are not possible is to believe in philosophical relativism, and we know that relativism in all its forms is self-refuting. To say that it is necessarily true that all propositions are contingent (could be true or could be false) is itself an absolute or necessary statement. So we know from the get-go that metaphysical propositions are possible.

My suspicion of metaphysics in general is largely due to the fact that there are many - primarily amongst religious believers - who will claim that some proposition or other ‘ignores’ the metaphysical; in essence, what they seem to mean is ignoring the supernatural.

I’m aware that philosophical naturalism is itself a metaphysical proposition - that is, a statement about the ultimate nature of reality. I agree that philosophical relativism is not a workable position, any more than moral relativism is so - at some point, there has to be a base line by which every other proposition is judged.

However, if we take that base line to be very general - let’s say, the idea that the whole of reality is of one nature and not another, even if we don’t yet know enough to establish precisely what that nature is - then we may have a useful starting point for discussion. My position in this regard is that we have yet to encounter any unequivocal evidence of the supernatural, therefore the working assumption (not a conclusion) is that reality is natural, physical - that all that exists is in principle susceptible to investigation and explanation in physical terms. That is the working assumption behind the methodological naturalism of science.

In light of this assumption, there is ample evidence to support the notion that physical determinism is the case. The arguments against it come (largely) from what we might call the ‘other’ metaphysical camp, the one that considers reality to inhabit two separate realms - the natural and the supernatural. It may well be the case - and there is also evidence for this - that there is randomness within nature, that is, events that simply happen, without any dependence upon prior physical conditions. Radioactive decay seems to be one of these events. Bet that as it may, as Sam Harris (amongst others) has argued, doesn’t give us anything like the classical notion of libertarian free will, since we cannot claim any control over genuinely random events.

There’s much more to be said here, of course, but I’ll go back and read a few more posts before I jump in again…