Does naturalism imply determinism?

[muichimotsu]

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".

If you couldn't deliberate, then you'd have all your actions already decided. Being subject to a mechanism does not necessarily follow to you being a machine.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Your first statement makes sense, but then you start going into more theological pseudophilosophy and sophistry.

This just seems like your god programmed humans and they just think they're choosing, in which case this is a tyrannical entity by your own admission, though you don't realize it because you think slavery is freedom by a twisted notion of ethics

 

[quatona]

If you couldn't deliberate, then you'd have all your actions already decided.

And if I can deliberate that doesn´t mean my actions aren´t determined.

Being subject to a mechanism does not necessarily follow to you being a machine.

Yes, but I didn´t say we were machines (and I have problems following your implication that everything that´s not a machine has "freewill"/"genuine choice"). I said that our deliberations (and consequently our actions) are determined.

 

[muichimotsu]

Our deliberation as a mechanism may be determined, but we are still able to deliberate. There is at least a measure of free will involved, even if it isn't in a way that we'd be free from causal determinism. We don't want to create a contradiction in our metaphysics

 

[quatona]

Our deliberation as a mechanism may be determined, but we are still able to deliberate. There is at least a measure of free will involved, even if it isn't in a way that we'd be free from causal determinism.

So in which way would our will be free when our deliberations are determined?

We don't want to create a contradiction in our metaphysics

That´s why I keep asking you the question that I have been asking all the time.

 

[muichimotsu]

The deliberations are not absolutely determined, but factor in that we have multiple impulses that conflict in one way or another. There is a nurture factor competing with the nature factor, if you will. And our deliberations are not predetermined beyond what our impulses are limited to, which can be multifaceted. The fact that we are not compelled by necessity to choose only one course of action suggests that there is a measure of freedom in our volition and not mere mechanical slavery.

 

[quatona]

The deliberations are not absolutely determined, but factor in that we have multiple impulses that conflict in one way or another. There is a nurture factor competing with the nature factor, if you will. And our deliberations are not predetermined beyond what our impulses are limited to, which can be multifaceted.

Of course the determining factors are countless and multifaceted. As are the factors that led to the universe being the way it is and developing the way it does.

The fact that we are not compelled by necessity to choose only one course of action suggests that there is a measure of freedom in our volition

The fact that the determining factors are countless and multifaceted isn´t an argument against the sum of them is determining our "choices" and consequently our actions. Now, you may postulate that our volition is free of whatever - but your argument doesn´t support that it is free from being determined.

 

[muichimotsu]

Determined in the same way that a computer has constraints, to use an analogy of sorts. Or a piece of blank paper has borders. But the potential of what can be done with the computer or what can be written on the paper is fairly diverse. We're free in that the constraints aren't massive. The outside factors beyond our minds are not determining us, they cause the randomness.

 

[bricklayer]

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?

God works all things together for the good of those he has love Him and calls according to His purpose, but not so much for the rest of you. I can see your point.

A famous sculptor was asked how he made such realistic sculptures. He answered that he started with a marble monolith and then chipped away the unneeded pieces. So you see, a thing is defined as much by what it is not as by what it is. God is not wicked, and He is aware it; and now, so are we.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God works all things together for the good of those he has love Him and calls according to His purpose, but not so much for the rest of you. I can see your point.

A famous sculptor was asked how he made such realistic sculptures. He answered that he started with a marble monolith and then chipped away the unneeded pieces. So you see, a thing is defined as much by what it is not as by what it is. God is not wicked, and He is aware it; and now, so are we.

I disagree. Ultimately, if God is the originator of wicked ideas, such as the Holocaust, then he is indeed wicked. If we condemn Hitler for the Holocaust, what must we make of the one who gave him the idea?

If your religious beliefs require you to believe that the Holocaust is a good and God-ordained thing, why doesn't that raise questions as to the veracity of your religion? If you end up concluding, "The Holocaust wasn't bad", that's basically the litmus test for an error in your logic.

If God is so wicked as to cause the Holocaust, why trust that he's working for the good of those who love him? If he's willing to go to such ghastly lengths, it's conceivable that he would also lie. So, why worship him? Why trust that it's all for the greater good?

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic or anything, I'm genuinely just trying to fathom how you could believe in, and worship, and trust, and call 'good', a being that would allow and instigate something like the Holocaust .

 

[bricklayer]

I disagree. Ultimately, if God is the originator of wicked ideas, such as the Holocaust, then he is indeed wicked. If we condemn Hitler for the Holocaust, what must we make of the one who gave him the idea?

If your religious beliefs require you to believe that the Holocaust is a good and God-ordained thing, why doesn't that raise questions as to the veracity of your religion? If you end up concluding, "The Holocaust wasn't bad", that's basically the litmus test for an error in your logic.

If God is so wicked as to cause the Holocaust, why trust that he's working for the good of those who love him? If he's willing to go to such ghastly lengths, it's conceivable that he would also lie. So, why worship him? Why trust that it's all for the greater good?

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic or anything, I'm genuinely just trying to fathom how you could believe in, and worship, and trust, and call 'good', a being that would allow and instigate something like the Holocaust .

A potter may be a fair man, but the relationship between the potter and the clay is inherently unfair. Is it really so unfair as to be unjust that a potter would make some items for noble use and some for ignoble use from the same lump of clay? We are infinitely more like the lump of clay than we are God. It is not fair, but neither is it unjust.

God's revelation of what He is not is no good measure of what He is.
The only question remaining is whether we are examples of God's mercy with the objects of His grace
or are we examples of God's patience with the objects of His wrath.

I can sympathize with your perspective; it really does not work out well for you.
It is not fair, but neither is it unjust.

We all play our part in God's revelation of His glory. Some are being fashioned into the image of Jesus Christ; others are chipped away. Like I wrote in my above post, a thing is defined as much by what it is not as it is by what it is.

I merit God's favor no more than any other lump of clay; however, I have found favor in God. I sincerely hope that you do also. It must be tough to understand as much as you do and still be dead.

 

[quatona]

A potter may be a fair man, but the relationship between the potter and the clay is inherently unfair.

Weird analogy.
1. The potter didn´t create the clay,
2. the potter didn´t create the universe,
3. clay is not a conscious being.

 

[bricklayer]

Weird analogy.
1. The potter didn´t create the clay,
2. the potter didn´t create the universe,
3. clay is not a conscious being.

It is a biblical analogy. I did not coin it.
Both the potter and the clay are finite. The difference between them is finite. The difference between finites is always finite.
The difference between the Creator and the creature is infinite. The difference between a finite and an infinite is always infinite.

A thing is defined as much by what it is not as it is by what it is. Creation is the revelation of God. He is revealed as much by what by what He is not like as He is by what He is like.

 

[quatona]

It is a biblical analogy. I did not coin it.

So what?

Both the potter and the clay are finite. The difference between them is finite. The difference between finites is always finite.
The difference between the Creator and the creature is infinite. The difference between a finite and an infinite is always infinite.

More reasons why the analogy is poor. Exactly my point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A potter may be a fair man, but the relationship between the potter and the clay is inherently unfair. Is it really so unfair as to be unjust that a potter would make some items for noble use and some for ignoble use from the same lump of clay? We are infinitely more like the lump of clay than we are God. It is not fair, but neither is it unjust.

I've always found the potter-and-clay analogy to be very poor. There are several fundamental differences between God and a potter:

• The potter is a being of limited means, constrained to only manipulate what already exists. The potter didn't make the clay, so can't be held responsible for its properties.
• By contrast, God is infinite in capacity, and is not limited to mere manipulation. He did make humans, so can be held responsible for our properties - that we can suffer is down to him, right or wrong.

Likewise between clay and humans:

• The clay is inert, is not concious, has no free will, and has no capacity to suffer.
• By contrast, humans are concious, sentient, sapient, moral agents with free will and the capacity to suffer.

The potter is not responsible for what the clay is, and is limited in what he can do with the clay; God is responsible for what humans are, and is unlimited in what he can do with us, or to us, or for us. Thus, the relationship between God and humans, and potter and clay, is very different indeed.

God's revelation of what He is not is no good measure of what He is.

Perhaps, but as it's written, by their fruits ye shall know them. If God causes wicked thoughts and wicked deeds, what else can we conclude about God except that he is wicked?
The only question remaining is whether we are examples of God's mercy with the objects of His grace
or are we examples of God's patience with the objects of His wrath.[/quote]
I think the question is simpler than that: if God causes wicked thoughts and wicked deeds, by what right can he claim to be good?

I can sympathize with your perspective; it really does not work out well for you.
It is not fair, but neither is it unjust.

We all play our part in God's revelation of His glory. Some are being fashioned into the image of Jesus Christ; others are chipped away. Like I wrote in my above post, a thing is defined as much by what it is not as it is by what it is.

I merit God's favor no more than any other lump of clay; however, I have found favor in God. I sincerely hope that you do also.

If we are only playing our part, then what of free will? If we are at the mercy of God's whims, then what good does it do to worship him? If God does such wicked things to both followers and non-followers, what reason do I have to join, or convert, or find favour in God? You've painted him in a very dark light indeed.

It must be tough to understand as much as you do and still be dead.

I'm very much alive, thank you, but thank you for saying I have understanding; all too often non-Christians are automatically rejected as ignorant savages.

 

[Omnia sunt communia]

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)?

Naturalism is compatible with free will.

I assume that the world is stratified and diverse, both horizontally (different causal forces operating side by side) and vertically (i.e. the level of biology being rooted in, but not reducible to the level of chemistry).

I also assume that operations on a higher level control the conditions under which the laws of the lower level applies. Ie. social structures like the market economy conditions the use of our productive forces, eg. machine technology which in turn conditions the effects of particular laws of physics.

The fact that higher levels work back upon lower levels - society on life, life on dead matter etc. - is an important argument for why the higher level cannot be reduced to the later and that we thus must say that it is emergent from the lower level in which it is rooted.

And if our world is a world where many events and things are ruled by a multitude of principles on different levels which cannot be reduced to eachother, then a free will in terms of intentional action according to rationality is in principle possible. Because it's possible that the mind is an irreducible, causally effective structure.

I also believe that we must see our reasons as causally effective causes if we are to understand why humans weight different opinions against eachother in order to decide how to act, and to be able to separate things that we do and things that happens to us. The difference between "catching a bus" and "catching a cold".

I believe that human freedom exists in this sense. We are able to act according to reasons. But this ability must be understood as something we possess as a property of emergent mechanisms that are, at least in principle, accessible to scientific studies.

 

[Omnia sunt communia]

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?

God did not create the world like a carpenter creates a stool, or like a potter fashions a bowl for that sake. He is not a scientist intelligently designing the perfect world in order to impress someone (if so he would have been quite a failure indeed).

He is rather like an artists creating the world for the pure love of it. And because he himself is freedom that is also the essence of his creation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God did not create the world like a carpenter creates a stool, or like a potter fashions a bowl for that sake. He is not a scientist intelligently designing the perfect world in order to impress someone (if so he would have been quite a failure indeed).

He is rather like an artists creating the world for the pure love of it. And because he himself is freedom that is also the essence of his creation.

His artistic whimsy has caused horrific suffering across the globe. It reminds me of Guillermo Vargas' Exposición N° 1.

 

[pjnlsn]

It is a given that naturalism implies determinism.

It doesn't imply either actually, even if there are a lot of people who would associate the two (naturalism and determinism).

 

[pjnlsn]

God did not create the world like a carpenter creates a stool, or like a potter fashions a bowl for that sake. He is not a scientist intelligently designing the perfect world in order to impress someone (if so he would have been quite a failure indeed).

He is rather like an artists creating the world for the pure love of it. And because he himself is freedom that is also the essence of his creation.

Well, that's nice, but ultimately because you can make a conception of God which allows for the world to be the sometimes dark, grimy, unjust place that it is doesn't necessarily mean the being exists.

Although, yes, 'naturalism' is compatible with free will. However among most people 'naturalism' isn't a separate thing, most people above the age of 8 or whenever they can conceptualize the world and their environment are aware that things are physical.