The Modal Fallacy and the Problem of Free Will

[Radagast]

Well, if you feel that we should let others discuss on our behalfs (and just refer to their works)

My point is that if you want to comment on "the Christian perspective" you should realise that there's more than one such perspective, and you should take the Christian perspectives from what theologians have actually written.

Of course, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you; perhaps you get your jollies by tying some poorly educated Christian teenager up in logical knots because he or she can't spot the weakness in your argument.

 

[quatona]

My point is that if you want to comment on "the Christian perspective" you should realise that there's more than one such perspective, and you should take the Christian perspectives from what theologians have actually written.

You seem to be assuming that I am not aware of the fact that there are several different "Christian perspectives". You won´t expect me to address all of them at the same time, will you?

Of course, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you;

Yes, probably.

perhaps you get your jollies by tying some poorly educated Christian teenager up in logical knots because he or she can't spot the weakness in your argument.

I see what you are doing there.
Let me try it, too:
Perhaps you are a mass murderer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please go away and read the links, or read a book on the topic. Then you might have something useful to contribute.

I'm asking you to explain it in your own words. Why so reluctant to do so?

If you were serious about wanting discussion, you would have replied in detail to the excellent post by elopez. And you would listen, instead of telling us "what Christians say."

I didn't see it necessary to reply to his post as well as I can only repeat myself. My argument applies to his word salad as well.

His entire argument rests upon the concept of the one with the foreknowledge being a factor in your decision making process. As seen in his conclusion:

Consequently, divine foreknowledge does not conflict with the compatibilist type of free will defined above. Foreknowledge is not an internal or external factor that prevents or forces us to act. I understand that would be highly contended, yet reflect on that claim. Foreknowledge is knowledge of our desires; they dot form our desires.

I already handled this by including 3 simple words next to my point about our lives being predetermined: "(by whatever process)".

It doesn't matter one bit WHAT predetermines our decisions. It doesn't have to be a god. It can be simply determinism by physical laws. It can be an invisible alien using mindcontrol. It can be anything you want it to be. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

And that point is simple: accurate foreknowledge of what seems trivial decision making can only mean that one objectively was never free to choose whatever one wanted. You may think you are choosing freely, but it's impossible to be the case...

If you are truelly free in your decision making, then it would be impossible to know before hand with certainty what you will decide.

For the third time, I'ld like to ask you to explain to me how that last statement is not true.

If god's foreknowledge says that you will order a steak at the restaurant tomorrow... would it be possible for you to order a pizza instead? Would you be "free" to order anything but steak?

I have no idea what you mean. Christians have been discussing the "free will" issue for about 2,000 years. There are a number of standard perspectives on "free will" (Calvinist, Thomist, Molinist, etc), which in turn have been widely used in other theological discussions. If you have specific criticisms of any of those, please elucidate.

I'm only replying to the things being said in this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it's more that lengthy discussions by people ignorant of the topic should be restricted to places where there's free beer.

Well.... there goes 95% of the christian posters in the science subforums...

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point is that if you want to comment on "the Christian perspective" you should realise that there's more than one such perspective, and you should take the Christian perspectives from what theologians have actually written.

I comment from my perspective. Which is kind of the point of discussion. I don't let theologians decide what my opinions are.

 

[talquin]

That depends on how, in formal terms, you define "could." Different Christian philosophers would give you different answers.

Would you be able to explain which law of physics made you choose to read this post and please explain the purpose of such law making you choose to read this post. I assume that, like the mechanism of thirst whose purpose is to fill our bodies with fluids so that we may survive, there must be also be a biological meaning to you choosing to read this post.

You're clearly not listening to anyone here; several of us have pointed out that certain kinds of free will are compatible with foreknowledge.

Please go away and read a book or something. The whole question is more complex than you realise.

Go back and read my OP. If you want to play word games to dismiss my position, please do so. But changing the name of something doesn't actually change what it is.

One more time: for the purposes of this discussion, free will means the ability to freely choose between one or more choices. E.g. up until the time a person chooses A out of an A/B choice, he could still have chosen B.

 

[JohnLocke]

One more time:

"Prediction does not equal causation."

Knowledge and prediction are independent of causation. I can calculate the relative position of Mars on a particular date and time. Apparently amazingly for you, Mars will occupy that particular position on that particular date and time whether I have calculated it or not. To put more colloquially, I cannot by refusing to calculate/predict the position of the Mars "freeze the heavens" and prevent the coming of night and day etc.

Pollsters make predictions on the outcome of various elections. Some of them have historically been very accurate. Does the use of polling prevent the individual voter from voting for the candidate of his/her individual choice? Of course not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

One more time:

"Prediction does not equal causation."

Knowledge and prediction are independent of causation. I can calculate the relative position of Mars on a particular date and time. Apparently amazingly for you, Mars will occupy that particular position on that particular date and time whether I have calculated it or not. To put more colloquially, I cannot by refusing to calculate/predict the position of the Mars "freeze the heavens" and prevent the coming of night and day etc.

Pollsters make predictions on the outcome of various elections. Some of them have historically been very accurate. Does the use of polling prevent the individual voter from voting for the candidate of his/her individual choice? Of course not.

Fair enough, but doesn't work with the concept of a deity that has a "plan".

 

[DogmaHunter]

One more time:

"Prediction does not equal causation."

Knowledge and prediction are independent of causation. I can calculate the relative position of Mars on a particular date and time. Apparently amazingly for you, Mars will occupy that particular position on that particular date and time whether I have calculated it or not. To put more colloquially, I cannot by refusing to calculate/predict the position of the Mars "freeze the heavens" and prevent the coming of night and day etc.

Pollsters make predictions on the outcome of various elections. Some of them have historically been very accurate. Does the use of polling prevent the individual voter from voting for the candidate of his/her individual choice? Of course not.

Who are you replying to?
In any case... Your analogy is inappropriate.

You can calculate the orbits of celestial bodies precisely because the laws of physics are deterministic. Drop a ball and the laws of motions/gravity make it possible to calculate very exactly at what speed it will hit the ground in a specific location.

But falling objects don't have free will and are rather ruled by the deterministic laws of physics.

If you can also "calculate" what kind of soup I will decide to make tomorrow, then by extension it means that there is some deterministic process that "forces" me to choose that kind of soup - regardless of me being aware of it or not. Regardless of you being able to influence that process or not.

It can only be known accuratly if the choice is predetermined and thus really not a choice at all, but rather an objective compulsion (again: regardless of being aware of the compulsion or not).

I'll present you with the same question I asked others (without receiving answers)...

If the "accurate foreknowledge" is that I will prepare a steak tomorrow... How could I objectively have the "freedom" to choose to make a burger instead?

 

[durangodawood]

....Knowledge and prediction are independent of causation. I can calculate the relative position of Mars on a particular date and time. Apparently amazingly for you, Mars will occupy that particular position on that particular date and time whether I have calculated it or not. To put more colloquially, I cannot by refusing to calculate/predict the position of the Mars "freeze the heavens" and prevent the coming of night and day etc....

Only because Mars does not have a choice to do anything different.

 

[elopez]

His entire argument rests upon the concept of the one with the foreknowledge being a factor in your decision making process. As seen in his conclusion:

I'd have to say then you didn't properly grasp my argument, as you even said, it doesn't matter what determines the future. So, my argument couldn't rest on that concept, instead it is heavily reliant on the matter of PAP and that concept being false.

I already handled this by including 3 simple words next to my point about our lives being predetermined: "(by whatever process)".

It doesn't matter one bit WHAT predetermines our decisions. It doesn't have to be a god. It can be simply determinism by physical laws. It can be an invisible alien using mindcontrol. It can be anything you want it to be. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

This is where I'd have to disagree with you. I would say it doesn't matter what determines the universe, to an extent, as in a deterministic factor such as a physical law like the wind blowing something over is not the same deterministic factor that would be in the form of mind control. So it's irrelevant to a point, but relevant in a difference like that. Foreknowledge is not even the same thing as mind control. You cannot conflate the two or other deterministic factors.

And that point is simple: accurate foreknowledge of what seems trivial decision making can only mean that one objectively was never free to choose whatever one wanted. You may think you are choosing freely, but it's impossible to be the case...

If you are truelly free in your decision making, then it would be impossible to know before hand with certainty what you will decide.

For the third time, I'ld like to ask you to explain to me how that last statement is not true.

If god's foreknowledge says that you will order a steak at the restaurant tomorrow... would it be possible for you to order a pizza instead?

The statement doesn't seem true as it's really more than likely circular reasoning. For example, how is it impossible to be the case that one is frfree in said circumstance?

As I said on my earlier post to which you said you ultimately addressed yet didn't even come close to touching, this argument is all about the issue of PAP and whether or not it's true.. As I also said and explained PAP is indeed false, or at least doesn't seem relevant to moral accountability and thus not relevant to free will.

So to answer the same old regurgitated question asked with different subjects, no, I cannot order differently. I don't need to order different to be free, all that matters is that I comprehend my order and decision to order the steak, and that no one or thing forces or prevents me from ordering the steak.

 

[elopez]

Please go back and read my original post. For the purposes of this discussion, "free will" means to freely make choices. This means up until the time Fred chooses A out of an A/B choice, he still could have chosen B. That ability of humans is incompatible with a god who has infallible knowledge of all yet to occur events.

I don't need to go back and read anything. Maybe you should take another glance at mine. Free will as you define it is too vague to even discuss. I'm saying that ability isn't needed for free will.

 

[Smidlee]

Fair enough, but doesn't work with the concept of a deity that has a "plan".

Why not? Let say I have a foreknowledge of someone's character couldn't I use that foreknowledge to assign him for a job or role and at the same time he did it on his own free will.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't need to go back and read anything. Maybe you should take another glance at mine. Free will as you define it is too vague to even discuss. I'm saying that ability isn't needed for free will.

So where is the freedom in "free will"?

 

[talquin]

One more time:

"Prediction does not equal causation."

Knowledge and prediction are independent of causation. I can calculate the relative position of Mars on a particular date and time. Apparently amazingly for you, Mars will occupy that particular position on that particular date and time whether I have calculated it or not. To put more colloquially, I cannot by refusing to calculate/predict the position of the Mars "freeze the heavens" and prevent the coming of night and day etc.

Pollsters make predictions on the outcome of various elections. Some of them have historically been very accurate. Does the use of polling prevent the individual voter from voting for the candidate of his/her individual choice? Of course not.

If prediction doesn't equal causation, how does that refute my assertion that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made free choices?

 

[talquin]

I don't need to go back and read anything. Maybe you should take another glance at mine. Free will as you define it is too vague to even discuss. I'm saying that ability isn't needed for free will.

For the purposes of demonstrating that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made choices, the definition I give for free will is irrelevant. Just ask yourself what a yet to be made choice is.

 

[talquin]

Why not? Let say I have a foreknowledge of someone's character couldn't I use that foreknowledge to assign him for a job or role and at the same time he did it on his own free will.

Let's say your foreknowledge of Fred's character tells you Fred will select A rather than B. Fred then freely chooses B. What does that say about your foreknowledge?

 

[Radagast]

For the purposes of demonstrating that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made choices, the definition I give for free will is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. The stunning insight you've been offering us is that a vague (but definitely incompatibilist) definition of free will is incompatible with foreknowledge. We've known about that for centuries.

However, compatibilist definitions of free will (as explained by elopez) are compatible with foreknowledge. For most of us Christians (and for most atheists, for that matter), compatibilist definitions of free will are the best ones.

There are hundreds of definitions of "free will," but the SEP defines free will as "the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility." This is entirely compatible with foreknowledge.

 

[elopez]

So where is the freedom in "free will"?

I've answered this. Freedom in this sense is to understand our reasons for acting, and that no one or thing forces or prevents us from that action we desire.

 

[durangodawood]

I've answered this. Freedom in this sense is to understand our reasons for acting, and that no one or thing forces or prevents us from that action we desire.

So we could be a self-aware computer program written to perform only one single action, and we have free will as long as no one obstructs us from that action?