Does naturalism imply determinism?

[quatona]

It doesn't deny determinism in causation, but it denies that free will as a property of an entity to deliberate between alternatives in a genuine fashion is incompatible with that form of determinism

What would be a "genuine fashion" of deliberating between alternatives - as opposed to a not "genuine fashion"?

 

[muichimotsu]

When you are actually considering the results of your choices and then choosing in spite of also potentially choosing the other choices. I'd argue it's based on psychology of desiring pleasure. There's a pragmatic sort of mindset we develop, trying to maximize pleasure, though also possibly having a mindset that contrasts with it in considering other kinds of benefits and therein we have a deliberating mechanism.

 

[quatona]

When you are actually considering the results of your choices and then choosing in spite of also potentially choosing the other choices.

How do we know that these other choices were actually available as a result of genuinely free deliberation?

I'd argue it's based on psychology of desiring pleasure. There's a pragmatic sort of mindset we develop, trying to maximize pleasure, though also possibly having a mindset that contrasts with it in considering other kinds of benefits and therein we have a deliberating mechanism.

I think I don´t disagree with anything you´ve said here. I just don´t know how functioning on basis of a mechanism is a token of freedom.

[On a side-note: I strongly recommend a book of the Swiss philosopher Bieri that dedicated its more than 500 pages entirely to the topic of "freewill" and "freedom" ("Das Handwerk der Freiheit" - I´m afraid it hasn´t been translated into English, though). Btw. he tends to take your position rather than mine.]

 

[keith99]

It would not be your fault. But, we could reasonably take measures to prevent your repeating your behavior. Not to punish! Not for some hypotheticial "justice"! Just to prevent, recidivism.

If one is going to excuse criminals becaseu they had no say, then the same holds for those who seek retribution or justice.

And actions being punitive do influence others, just as much as a boulder influences the path of a stream. The deterministic argument fails on so many levels.

 

[muichimotsu]

How do we know that these other choices were actually available as a result of genuinely free deliberation?

I think I don´t disagree with anything you´ve said here. I just don´t know how functioning on basis of a mechanism is a token of freedom.

[On a side-note: I strongly recommend a book of the Swiss philosopher Bieri that dedicated its more than 500 pages entirely to the topic of "freewill" and "freedom" ("Das Handwerk der Freiheit" - I´m afraid it hasn´t been translated into English, though). Btw. he tends to take your position rather than mine.]

If we assume that events happen because of prior causes, this doesn't mean that they exist because of our choices, but because of determinism that is admittedly outside of our control anyway even if we had freewill because of souls or such. Our interaction with the world and apprehension of things as having function entails that we can understand in some sense what our actions will accomplish, albeit not absolutely predictably.

Just because there is an element of determinism does not mean we are fated to something. That's the distinction to make: causal determinism and predeterminism/fatalism

 

[quatona]

If one is going to excuse criminals becaseu they had no say, then the same holds for those who seek retribution or justice.

From a deterministic pov "excuse" is not even a valid category, but apart from that I would agree in that I consider those who seek retribution or justice to be determined to do so, as well.

And actions being punitive do influence others, just as much as a boulder influences the path of a stream.

Most definitely, punitive actions are determined as well as they are co-determining factors - from the deterministic pov.

The deterministic argument fails on so many levels.

That may be the case, but I fail to see how anything you have said here was substantiating this claim. Please explain.

 

[quatona]

If we assume that events happen because of prior causes, this doesn't mean that they exist because of our choices, but because of determinism that is admittedly outside of our control anyway even if we had freewill because of souls or such.

I wouldn´t agree with that wording. Events don´t happen because of -isms. They happen due to causes.
Our so-called choices are determined (by countless factors). That´s my position.

Our interaction with the world and apprehension of things as having function entails that we can understand in some sense what our actions will accomplish, albeit not absolutely predictably.

I would agree with that (I might, though, estimate the predictability lower than you do. Particularly in view of the fact that we tend to focus on a certain outcome at a certain point in time, and ignore other outcomes).

Just because there is an element of determinism does not mean we are fated to something. That's the distinction to make: causal determinism and predeterminism/fatalism

Maybe you can elaborate on this distinction that is so important to you?

 

[muichimotsu]

I wouldn´t agree with that wording. Events don´t happen because of -isms. They happen due to causes.
Our so-called choices are determined (by countless factors). That´s my position.

causal determinism is simply a description of the state of things where events are the result of causes. Events don't result from determinism, which is plainly clear when you see that the definition in no way would align with what we're agreeing on: effects necessitate prior causes. Determined, but not limited necessarily. What we choose determines other things, but this in no way entails that our choices are absolutely constrained beyond basic limitations.

I would agree with that (I might, though, estimate the predictability lower than you do. Particularly in view of the fact that we tend to focus on a certain outcome at a certain point in time, and ignore other outcomes).

We can focus on one, but our brains have a pragmatic aspect only so much. There is probably an instinctual part of the brain focusing purely on enjoyment as opposed to practical benefits.

Maybe you can elaborate on this distinction that is so important to you?

Causal determinism acknowledges that there are physical laws that constrain us, even psychologically and neurologically, but this in no way means we have no choice in the matter and are behaving as automatons.

 

[bricklayer]

I've been wondering about this idea of naturalism, i.e., that humans are nothing more than physical beings. If our brains are just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses, does that mean our behaviors are pre-programmed? How does free will enter the picture (if at all)?

Human free will is not found in the bible. Human free will is a human verbal contrivance in defense of God against a human accusation.The accusation is that unless human beings choose from undetermined possibilities God cannot justly hold them accountable. What's more, God has men make the accusation. However, when God has men make that accusation, God never claims that human beings are ultimately in control. Quite to the contrary, the only way God answers that accusation when He has men make it is to point out man's lack of jurisdiction to make the accusation.

Is it really so unthinkable, so unfair, so unjust that the potter would make some items for noble use and some for ignoble use from the same lump of clay?
The relationship between the Creator and the creature is less fair, however you define fair, than the relationship between the potter and the clay.
No, it's not fair, but neither is it unjust.

I find the naturalist's admission to the inability to perceive the incorporeal, spiritual and eternal as a refreshing honesty. At the heart of naturalism is random spontaneity, undetermined possibility, chance. Chance is what man calls the void where the knowledge of God was. Such naturalists inspire me to gratitude for being able to perceive more than the corporeal, spatial and temporal.

 

[muichimotsu]

Human free will is not found in the bible. Human free will is a human verbal contrivance in defense of God against a human accusation.The accusation is that unless human beings choose from undetermined possibilities God cannot justly hold them accountable. What's more, God has men make the accusation. However, when God has men make that accusation, God never claims that human beings are ultimately in control. Quite to the contrary, the only way God answers that accusation when He has men make it is to point out man's lack of jurisdiction to make the accusation.

You could at least claim it's a philosophical or sophist argument, if you're going with an angle that you're actually trying to use some measure of the logic your god supposedly gave you. But you assert, without any significant argumentation beyond theological fluff, that this is just humans defending an idol.

You then undermine the whole argument by inserting your own unfounded bias about God, suggesting that this is a set up to show how great God is, which is pointless and ineffective apologetics, if there ever was an effective kind at all

Is it really so unthinkable, so unfair, so unjust that the potter would make some items for noble use and some for ignoble use from the same lump of clay?
The relationship between the Creator and the creature is less fair, however you define fair, than the relationship between the potter and the clay.
No, it's not fair, but neither is it unjust.

The potter/clay analogy doesn't work so well, since clay doesn't have any will or consciousness, far as we're aware. So the idea of making some items noble and some ignoble is a bit pointless to think about. I can't think of many clay items that are ignoble myself, if any. But if we assume that we're talking about metal and a smith, the point might be better made, I think, even if it still misses the point that metal by its nature is inanimate and only changes when outside forces act on it.

Creator and creature would be quite unjust in creating some damned and some saved from the start, if that's what you're implying. This would only support a claim that your god made me unable to perceive the spiritual, though I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. In which case, your god damned me from the start.

I find the naturalist's admission to the inability to perceive the incorporeal, spiritual and eternal as a refreshing honesty. At the heart of naturalism is random spontaneity, undetermined possibility, chance. Chance is what man calls the void where the knowledge of God was. Such naturalists inspire me to gratitude for being able to perceive more than the corporeal, spatial and temporal.

As a naturalist, I in no way admit I cannot perceive incorporeal, spiritual or eternal, but assert that they are either at present imperceptible to human technology and science or are fictions of the human mind in the latter two cases. In the same way that there are many tales spun by the human imagination, this in no way validates the religious lore because people hold it sacred.

Chance is in no way the primary aspect of a naturalist worldview, since there are demonstrable laws that keep the fabric of time and space from tearing asunder. If the world was chaos, we couldn't conceivably exist for an extended period of time unless there was an outside force acting on the universe, in which case it would only lend credence to theological speculation

You want to have a smug sense of epistemological satisfaction, be my guest, but it hardly suggests you're right, but only that you're so hard headed, no idea even penetrates your skull, let alone makes any leeway into your mind.

 

[quatona]

Causal determinism acknowledges that there are physical laws that constrain us, even psychologically and neurologically, but this in no way means we have no choice in the matter and are behaving as automatons.

We are different from automatons in that we are conscious/(self-)aware and able to premeditate (anticipate) and reconsider. Is that what you call "choice" or "freewill", or do those concepts assume there to be something beyond consciousness and (self-)awareness, e.g. a faculty in us that is not subject to causality?

 

[muichimotsu]

We are different from automatons in that we are conscious/(self-)aware and able to premeditate (anticipate) and reconsider. Is that what you call "choice" or "freewill", or do those concepts assume there to be something beyond consciousness and (self-)awareness, e.g. a faculty in us that is not subject to causality?

No, complete free will in the sense of ignoring causality would be terrible and contradictory in nature, so that should be established.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've been wondering about this idea of naturalism, i.e., that humans are nothing more than physical beings. If our brains are just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses, does that mean our behaviors are pre-programmed? How does free will enter the picture (if at all)?

Quantum mechanics. It's an idea I've been bouncing around, that choice is a useful trait that would evolve, and it would evolve by utilising the peculiarities of quantum mechanics. Particles looping around in bound states - electrons buzzing back and forth across synapses, etc - would mean that true quantum randomness would eventually occur, creating a 'proto-decision' The structure of the brain would be such that these 'proto-decisions' are guided into making actual, complex decisions (in much the same way that basic logic gates in a computer allow complex things like the Internet and video games).

 

[quatona]

No, complete free will in the sense of ignoring causality would be terrible and contradictory in nature, so that should be established.

So what is the freedom part in it all? What are we (our will) free of?

 

[muichimotsu]

Free of predeterminism in the sense that we have no concept of deliberation. Our brain being a mixed set of predictive patterns for our actions means we are able to consider that one action might benefit one set, but also another is available. We are free of being automatons.

 

[quatona]

Free of predeterminism in the sense that we have no concept of deliberation. Our brain being a mixed set of predictive patterns for our actions means we are able to consider that one action might benefit one set, but also another is available. We are free of being automatons.

That´s all a bit too circular for me.
I still don´t see how having a concept of deliberation means that you are "free of predeterminism".

 

[bricklayer]

Free of predeterminism in the sense that we have no concept of deliberation. Our brain being a mixed set of predictive patterns for our actions means we are able to consider that one action might benefit one set, but also another is available. We are free of being automatons.

We are not free from being known.
God cannot come to know our choices.
We cannot conceive of an idea that is not already eternally present in the mind of God.
One of the significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.
God does not read minds; He writes them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We are not free from being known.
God cannot come to know our choices.
We cannot conceive of an idea that is not already eternally present in the mind of God.
One of the significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.
God does not read minds; He writes them.

So Hitler's idea to eradicate the Jews, was actually God's idea?

 

[bricklayer]

So Hitler's idea to eradicate the Jews, was actually God's idea?

Yes. God is the original conceiver of all ideas. God does not commit sin, but neither does He come to know about it.
Sin itself was God's idea. This is exactly the creation God chose to create, exactly this one, sin and all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. God is the original conceiver of all ideas. God does not commit sin, but neither does He come to know about it.
Sin itself was God's idea. This is exactly the creation God chose to create, exactly this one, sin and all.

Well, that's refreshingly honest. God is the originator and original conceiver of all ideas, including genocide, rape, murder, and other such wicked things.

Given this, why would you continue to worship such a wicked being?