Why must determinism be wrong?

[Giants]

Hello Giants,

when you say you are willing to concede beauty is subjective only because you don’t see a downside, doesn’t this suggest that you are not willing to concede other things are subjective because you see the downside?

Only if you ignore that I explained why I think morality and truth have an objective basis. And it has nothing to do with there being a downside to the alternative.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Let’s avoid the term " antecedent causes " since that is playing into the hands of the determinists. The only " causality " Christians should be talking about is efficient, material, formal, and final ( with " moving " being a variation of " efficient. " ).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Take a look at the sourses I gave the O.P.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

You can’t do it for obvious reasons. Natural phenomena do not have an intellect and free will by which to make decisions. You are beating a dead horse. Natural events, processes are determined by God to accomplish his purposes. Nothing in creation escapes his Divine Determination, except the free decisions of man.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

For natural phenomena and events see S.T. Part 1, Ques 103-105

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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…

And of course the religious camp, in general, disagree with you for reasons stated many times in this forum. I think if you read St. Thomas, which you steadfastly refuse to do, you may change your mind. You seem to have an unnatural fear of the Supernatural. What’s to fear?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And it follows, if Jesus Christ ever does return to Earth, as foretold in biblical prophecy, Christianity will stand revealed as a scientific discipline. This knowledge will simply be added to our growing understanding of the Universe and of Reality. Yes.

We certainly are far afield. You do seem to have an unreasonable fear of God. What’s to fear? In your spare time why don’t you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it won’t bite you and I think you will find it enlightening. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Giants]

We certainly are far afield. You do seem to have an unreasonable fear of God. What’s to fear? In your spare time why don’t you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it won’t bite you and I think you will find it enlightening. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I can’t be afraid of a God that I don’t believe exists.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Generally, whilst it’s probably true that most people, in general, just like the idea that they are the absolutely free authors of their own decisions and actions, I would be more inclined to argue (predictably, perhaps) that serious theistic believers also believe in free will because it is their only possible (if highly dubious) avenue of escape from the philosophical problem of evil - a problem that does not exist for atheists. Calvinists never seemed to have any philosophical problem with the notion of being God’s playthings, even if on a personal, emotional level, the idea depressed many of them to suicide. And as Shakespeare wrote, “Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they play with us for their sport”. Abhorrent as the idea may be, there has been ample evidence of its truth, if one assumes God/gods exist…

Sorry to see you becoming so irrational all of a sudden.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

These things are, very generally, true - but there are still plenty of atheists (like Daniel Dennett, and pretty much all the existentialists) who take free will seriously; just as there are religious believers - like Calvinists - who believe in predestination, which effectively cancels out free will.

Actually, whilst it’s probably true that most people, in general, just like the idea that they are the absolutely free authors of their own decisions and actions, I would be more inclined to argue (predictably, perhaps) that serious theistic believers also believe in free will because it is their only possible (if highly dubious) avenue of escape from the philosophical problem of evil - a problem that does not exist for atheists. Calvinists never seemed to have any philosophical problem with the notion of being God’s playthings, even if on a personal, emotional level, the idea depressed many of them to suicide. And as Shakespeare wrote, “Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they play with us for their sport”. Abhorrent as the idea may be, there has been ample evidence of its truth, if one assumes God/gods exist…

And of course you couldn’t be more wrong. Sorry you think that way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sair

Christ nowhere says anything about predestination. If anything, the Gospels labor the idea that we have to **choose **

 

[Kilbourne]

Thanks Linus, I will check it out.
Kilbourne

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Giants

**I can’t be afraid of a God that I don’t believe exists. **

But as you admitted earlier, possibly does exist.

 

[Giants]

Giants

**I can’t be afraid of a God that I don’t believe exists. **

But as you admitted earlier, possibly does exist.

I don’t believe there’s an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn living in my attic. But I can’t absolutely prove there isn’t one there. So it’s still just this side of possible that one exists.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Giants

**I don’t believe there’s an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn living in my attic. But I can’t absolutely prove there isn’t one there. So it’s still just this side of possible that one exists. **

Have you gone into the attic to make sure?

The fallacy of this analogy is that it is scientifically possible to empirically prove or disprove the existence of a flying unicorn in your attic.

It is not possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

[Giants]

The fallacy of this analogy is that it is scientifically possible to empirically prove or disprove the existence of a flying unicorn in your attic.

It is not possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God.

How would one go about scientifically proving or disproving the existence of an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Giants

**How would one go about scientifically proving or disproving the existence of an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn? **

That would be up to science to figure out. If it can figure out that the universe began with a burst of light (already revealed three thousand years earlier in Genesis “Let there be light!”) surely it can detect an invisible and intangible flying unicorn … if one exist.

 

[abucs]

Hello Giants,

One difference between the invisible, intangible unicorn or giraffe or washing machine or left ski boot etc and God is that all creation is said to have proceeded and be sustained by God for a purpose. This is a completely different relationship to Creation than an invisible anything contained within Creation. Because of this difference in relationship we can look to Creation to see if it suggests the ‘footprints’ of God. We cannot do that with an arbitrarily defined unicorn whose definition contains no relationship with Creation.

I have a few longish posts to detail my thinking in what we have been discussing. I apologise for the length and accept that you will have different views.

 

[abucs]

As far as the reality of consciousness. I do believe consciousness is a fundamental reality because the study of physics tells me that it is written into the laws of our universe. This also makes fundamental consciousness incompatible with the materialistic philosophy of it being an accidental outcome of material development. This is why I rejected atheism and had another closer look at religion/Christianity.
The materialistic philosophy being incompatible with scientific evidence is one thing, the intellectual outcome of those that hold a materialistic philosophy is another. I maintain consciousness is an illusion under materialistic philosophy. When people are deconstructed to be fundamentally nothing more than bunches of atoms it has not been beneficial for society to put it mildly.

To put it in its most crudest form – the woman begging for her life at the end of my gun can be understood as simply an innate bunch of atoms acting in such a way that gives itself the greatest chance of survival so that it can reproduce itself. These tears, screams and begging is simply the outworking of an evolutionary path where this reaction has been learned and has survived because it has the best chance to illicit an automatic reaction from me and thus continue to exist. Both her actions and my actions are fixed. Neither of us have free will. The atoms that make both of us will obey physical law and the outcome is simply science. There is in effect, no ‘me’ or ‘her’ here. Only the illusion that we are here.

This learned illusion we call consciousness is itself nothing more than an evolutionary path that has survived because it also gives the best chance of reproduction.

From a materialistic philosophy, have I said anything incorrectly? I don’t believe so. If we are just evolutionary re-arranged atoms and law you can understand someone who takes that to heart might want to get rid of some of these rearranged atoms. It is not wrong. There is no wrong. Ideas of wrongness are also the result of evolutionary paths that give the best chance of reproduction. My wrong may be different to your wrong. And remember neither wrong is a result of free choice. We are the outworking of these forces, no more. If we are anything else but matter obeying necessary scientific laws then there is more to reality than matter and laws. The intangible if you like, beyond matter and scientific law. That unicorn (or variant) comes back into play.

If we think we experience pain, or red, or embarrassment or people with free choice (including ourselves) we are mistaken if materialist philosophy is correct. Red exists nowhere else except as a construction in our minds that has aided reproduction. There is no redness in the elections that enter the eye. The brain constructs redness.
Similarly brains that have constructed pain have been successful in reproducing themselves. Pain exists nowhere else except as a construct of the brain. For those unlucky enough to suffer from sciatica where the nerves in the spine are pressing against hard tissue it feels like the legs are hurting. There is nothing wrong with the leg. It is the nerves rubbing up against the back which send a ‘false’ signal. But the pain is as ‘real’ as any other pain and this ‘realness’ is shown to be an illusion, a construction of the mind. So what we think of as real breaks down when we investigate more closely. Similarly when we prick our finger. An electronic pulse runs from our finger to the brain. But it is not in the brain that we feel hurting. The brain projects the pain back to the finger so it appears to us the finger has pain. This is also evolutionary. Pain exists nowhere except as a construction of our mind. Embarrassment also is seen as an evolutionary construct of the mind that has had survival value. Embarrassment exists nowhere else except for the mind.

Of course we have spoken about free will as an evolutionary illusion and so too is consciousness. We have consciousness because it has survival value and it is rational in the materialistic philosophy to accept that those organisms in our evolutionary part of the tree that do not have consciousness are not as fit for survival. In materialistic philosophy what we experience; red, pain, embarrassment, free choice, consciousness do not really exist. Even the value they have is what we have put on them, again as a result of atoms reacting with atoms in ways that have produced survival.

Now we might think that consciousness is a wonder, but it can be nothing more than atoms reacting with atoms rearranged through the sieve of evolution. It is an illusion to think it is anything else. Consciousness is no more real than redness. It is an illusion following materialistic philosophy.

By the way, as an aside, in the ‘Gospel’ of Thomas some interesting words are attributed to Jesus – “If flesh should come from spirit, that is a wonder. But if spirit should come from flesh, that is a wonder of wonders.”

 

[abucs]

Going back to truth as a construction of the mind and the retort 2 + 2 = 4 being true. This is a different category from the truth of morals and beauty but let’s have a stab at it. Mathematics is a human construction. We do not see negative numbers or square roots or cosine angle values or limiting series of progression anywhere except where we impose it as a representation of nature. These are things that we have constructed to represent aspects of our natural world. 2 + 2 = 4 is also a construction.
One orange plus another orange gives us two oranges. OK it works for oranges.
Does one sound wave plus another sound wave gives us two sound waves? Some would argue we still have one wave.
Does one matter particle plus one anti-matter particle give us two particles? Some would argue it gives us nothing.
If one quantum particle has two probabilities does it take one probability and remain one particle. Some would say it splits into two particles and creates a parallel universe. (Yeah, I think that’s **** too but many scientists construct their mathematics using this ‘truth’)
In a void where there is no existence of anything does 1 + 1 = 2. Some would say that in that reality 1 + 1 = 2 would simply be a given definition like blue tie = red shirt. It has no real truth except that what we would give to it.
If we put one drop of water on another drop of water do we now have 2 drops of water?
To be sure what we call mathematics underlines our Creation and is magnificently breathtaking in its scope but in what sense is it true apart from being a definition of man responding to our environment?