Determinism is bugging me big time :-(

[elman]

elman doesn´t believe in hell.

I believe in hell but I believe it means death, not life in pain.

 

[Multi-Elis]

Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell?

Why do human beings want children and have them, when using a little thinking and observation, you know that your children are going to disobey you and are probably going to reject the family values and the religion you try to instill in them, and that they are going to use up your money, sometimes squandering it. Why?

As for Hell... I'm sorry, I can't help you here since I am simply put a universalist who believes hell is a trance state of all the negative and "ego" emotions.

 

[quatona]

It seems loving to me to give someone a gift and if they use their gift in a loving way, give them another gift.

But that was not my question.

I don't see love meaning I have to give the ones who are unloving with what they have been given the same second gift I would give to the loving. The first gift of physical life has its own dead line. That is simply part of the gift.

I used to think that love was to give everyone what makes him happy, as opposed to handing out limited gifts, although the stock of love and gifts is unlimited. Well, I must have been mistaken, then.

Something else: You make use of the double meaning of life. Life, as in our physical existence (the first gift), and life, as in christianspeak, as the second gift. Now, if god would like us all to be with him in heaven, wouldn´t it be reasonable to make that first life give us an idea of the second, so that we know what it´s all about? I mean, if I want someone to buy a Mozart CD, I won´t try to convince him by playing a sample of HeavyMetal to him.

 

[quatona]

I believe in hell but I believe it means death, not life in pain.

Oh ,well, if you insist on adding confusion by redefining terms....

 

[Lugus]

I'm a Christian. Always have been. But I've always liked to think of myself as pretty free-thinking.

Lately I've been wondering, if God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.

So my question to everyone is: Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell? And do we really have a choice in whether we accept or reject God, or does it all just come down to the way He chose to create us?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me I would greatly appreciate it.

For me, the Lord’s Prayer helps to explain the nature of God. In it, Jesus prays, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” [Source: Matt 6:10, King James Version] In this prayer, Jesus acknowledges that God’s will is done in heaven. However, Jesus also indicates that God’s will is not always done on earth.

But, how can this be? Why does an all-powerful God have little control over the happenings on earth?

My interpretation is that God gave up the control of people when He gave them free will.

You can’t have it both ways. If humanity has free will, God doesn’t have complete control or knowledge of every human activity before it happens. But, if you believe that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then we have no free will.

Some might ask, “Does this mean that God doesn’t know if He or Lucifer will be victorious?” I don’t think so. From a Christian perspective, God might not know every decision that will be made by mankind but He still knows that good will eventually triumph over evil.

Another way at looking at free will versus determinism is see these as being similar to the probabilistic and the deterministic worldviews. These two ways at looking at the world also have supporters among scientists as well as philosophers.

In the deterministic worldview, the universe is like a great machine or a giant clock. Once it is set in motion, all events are predetermined. This would be a Newtonian universe.

In the probabilistic worldview, the universe is like the roll of dice or the flip of a coin. Everything is based on probabilities. This is the universe of quantum physics.

A hundred years ago, virtually every physicist accepted the deterministic view of reality. However, I suspect that most of today’s physicists have rejected this Newtonian view and now accept a probabilistic worldview.

The quandary of free will versus determinism, which is a problem for Christians and others, is also a problem for scientists in their quest for reality. I believe that the probabilistic worldview is applicable to both religion and science.

 

[BushwigBill]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I haven't visited these forums in ages and thought I'd check if someone had finally replied to this thread. Wasn't expecting a full 5 pages! I've been thinking about all this on my own for a while and have come to a conclusion of sorts.

First I'd like to quickly address the issue of faith vs reason which popped up. I think everything we believe needs to be based on reason because otherwise I could worship the invisible pixies who keep me alive by showering me with magic dust while I sleep and that would be just as viable as Christianity. My faith is based on the mountain of historical evidence for the resurrection as well as the insight evident in the teachings of Christianity. I don't think that it is a contradiction in terms to call myself a "free-thinking Christian" at all.

Next, determinism vs free will! To me the ideas of a deterministic or probabilistic world exclude free will entirely. Free will, I think, requires some sort of break in the chain of cause and effect so that rather than all decisions being entirely caused (by genetic predisposition and the experiences that shape our personalities), we can say "I made this decision because I willed it". In essence we are talking about an event which has no cause, or which is its own cause. This may seem to be a logical impossibility, but I think it is necessary if we are to be any more than puppets or machines.

Although there may be no evidence that we are free (other than perhaps the feeling of revulsion one experiences when imagining our existence as a predetermined puppet show), I think that when basing one's decisions on one's beliefs, one must first assume that such a thing as a "decision" really exists in its own right, and not just as a culmination of causes.

One could also look at this from a moral perspective. If we have no free will, no one can be held accountable for their actions. So there is no morality and we should do as we please without feeling guilty as none of our actions have any real meaning. It seems practical to me that we should rather live as if this is not the case, and if it turns out to be the case then it won't matter that we made the wrong call as we really had no choice in the matter anyway!

Another offshoot of this topic has been the question of whether a loving God can send people to hell. Universal reconciliation (the belief that we will all be reconciled to God eventually) is an interesting solution to this but to me it seems to defy free will (that is, it implies that no one will have the option of refusing reconciliation). I recently read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis which has some really brilliant ideas about what Heaven and Hell may be like. He suggests that there may be a way for lost souls to get out of Hell and into Heaven even after death and judgment as long as they are willing to leave behind their Hellish mindsets (i.e. there is no "cut-off point" for our free will). It's all just creative speculation but it's a fascinating read!

Anyway, thanks again for your replies and God bless you every one!

 

[Washington]

In essence we are talking about an event which has no cause, or which is its own cause. This may seem to be a logical impossibility, but I think it is necessary if we are to be any more than puppets or machines.
Although there may be no evidence that we are free (other than perhaps the feeling of revulsion one experiences when imagining our existence as a predetermined puppet show), I think that when basing one's decisions on one's beliefs, one must first assume that such a thing as a "decision" really exists in its own right, and not just as a culmination of causes.

LOL. So much for all that brave talk about "everything we believe needs to be based on reason."

This is sooo typical of the religious mind-set: "I know it doesn't make sense, but I need it to be this way. " My condolences for your loss of reason.

 

[WorldIsMine]

He knew from the beginning that giving us the ability to love required that we also have the ability to not love

I am neither a theologian nor a Christian so I'll confine my arguments to the logical status of this particular statement. From a determinist point of view, it is utter nonsense. One does not have the capacity to love or not love, one loves or does not love and - as the case may be - the disposition is absolute. Likewise, a rock does not have a 'choice' to be in Maine or Texas, it is simply where it is. It does not 'require' the other option, since the other option is deterministically impossible.
This justificational attempt to reconcile 'justice' and an omniscient god falls flat because it fails to take into account what a deterministic reality is. There is no choice, for god or anyone else.

 

[BushwigBill]

LOL. So much for all that brave talk about "everything we believe needs to be based on reason."

This is sooo typical of the religious mind-set: "I know it doesn't make sense, but I need it to be this way. " My condolences for your loss of reason.

I don't think I have a "religious mindset", whatever you suppose that to mean. I'm just looking for the truth like everyone else. There is no need to be condescending.

I am not saying that I "need" to believe in anything. I am merely suggesting that in choosing what to believe, one must assume that choice exists, otherwise you aren't "choosing" to believe anything. In order for this to be possible, it seems to me that there must be such thing as an event without a cause.

I do not derive any emotional comfort from this belief (is that what a "religious mindset" involves?). It just seems logical.

 

[quatona]

I am not saying that I "need" to believe in anything. I am merely suggesting that in choosing what to believe, one must assume that choice exists, otherwise you aren't "choosing" to believe anything. In order for this to be possible, it seems to me that there must be such thing as an event without a cause.

I´m still not sure I understand your argument. To me it sounds like "If we couldn´t choose we couldn´t choose. Therefore we choose."
What am I missing?

 

[BushwigBill]

I´m still not sure I understand your argument. To me it sounds like "If we couldn´t choose we couldn´t choose. Therefore we choose."
What am I missing?

Maybe more like: If we have no free will, whatever conclusions we come to are predetermined and essentially meaningless anyway, so it would be practical to assume that we do have free will (whether this is the case or not).

 

[quatona]

Maybe more like: If we have no free will, whatever conclusions we come to are predetermined

Agreed. Predetermined or random. "Freewill" isn´t even a reasonable third option.

and essentially meaningless anyway,

Could you explain how you get from "predetermined" to "essentially meaningless"?

so it would be practical to assume that we do have free will (whether this is the case or not).

Practical in which respect and in regards to which purpose?

 

[BushwigBill]

Agreed. Predetermined or random. "Freewill" isn´t even a reasonable third option.

Could you explain how you get from "predetermined" to "essentially meaningless"?

Practical in which respect and in regards to which purpose?

Well if you go with predetermined or random, the bottom line is that we really have no control over anything we think or do. It just happens. I would say that makes our thoughts and actions meaningless although I suppose that's a subjective term. To me it seems silly to base your actions on the belief that you have no control over your actions. I can't imagine that to be beneficial in regards to any purpose.

 

[Washington]

Well if you go with predetermined or random, the bottom line is that we really have no control over anything we think or do. It just happens. I would say that makes our thoughts and actions meaningless although I suppose that's a subjective term.

I think quatona is looking for is an explanation as to the way in which our thoughts and actions are meaningless. Why, just because our actions are determined, are they therefore meaningless ? Or, to put it another way; why, if our actions are NOT determined, do they therefore acquire meaning? Our weather is not a random condition, but arises because of many atmospheric determinants, and I think you would agree that just because it is determined it doesn't loose its meaningfulness.

To me it seems silly to base your actions on the belief that you have no control over your actions.

And I don't believe anyone has said we do. For the most part those of us who are determinists don't act as if our thoughts and actions are determined. This is not a matter purposeful self deception, but an inherent self deception we've been conditioned to operate under. I readily blame the guy for tailgating me on the freeway just as if he could choose to do differently, and all because that's the way I've been emotionally conditioned. It isn't logical to do so, but it's something, just like all my other responses, that has been determined. I can no more not automatically respond irrationally---failing to take into account the driver could not help tailgating---then I can freely choose to do anything else.

 

[Triad]

Lately I've been wondering, if God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.

This is a theological question raised from a philosophical perspective. Let's look at the construction of it... You're saying if God knows everything, He must have known that Lucifer would rebel against Him. Now let's ask ourselves: How would God know such a thing? The answer is He would only know it because it happened, but don't let the past tense form fool you. The fact that it occurs in a time scale which God is not bound by doesn't mean that God knew about it before it happened. To God, it already did happen. But the happening relies on our actually doing it. We should be using God's frame of reference to address this question instead of the human frame of reference.

Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell?

He knows by creating people that invariably some will go to hell, but He doesn't know which ones before they're created. The term 'before' is a little tricky. God knows because they're created. If they hadn't been created, there would have been nothing for Him to know about it. The creation part was an essential component of His knowledge about it. He couldn't know about something that didn't exist. That's antithetical.

We know going into a war that there will be casualties. But in a necessary war, the benefits outweigh the negatives. It's better that all people were given the opportunity to receive eternal glory even though some fail, rather than none given the opportunity at all. That would be punishing the righteous for the failings of the unrighteous. How fair is that?

Also, hell isn't necessarily an awful place, but can be a place of unrealized potential. Thus the term 'damned', meaning no more progression.

Likewise, the term 'create' in the Biblical sense is considered in some circles to mean 'organize', rather than pull out of thin air.

And do we really have a choice in whether we accept or reject God, or does it all just come down to the way He chose to create us?

The whole fact that God doesn't force us all to follow in His path gives us a good indication that there's an agent of decision making involved at the lower levels. I see no justification for why a God would force some people to heaven but not others. A more reasonable approach which follows in with His attributes is that He allows people to be themselves, and provides everyone the tools to be their best selves. Some accept it, and some reject it.

 

[quatona]

Well if you go with predetermined or random, the bottom line is that we really have no control over anything we think or do. It just happens. I would say that makes our thoughts and actions meaningless although I suppose that's a subjective term.

Well, I personally am convinced that all my actions are determined - and they seem to be anything but meaningless to me.

To me it seems silly to base your actions on the belief that you have no control over your actions.

It´s your prerogative to refuse to hold notions that you don´t like, but calling them "silly" goes a step further. On top of it, "it seems silly to" does not qualify as a good argument. Particularly when you have already - although half-heartedly - agreed that the opposite is a logical impossibility.
What exactly would be silly about it? In what would the silliness consist, in what would it result, how would it manifest - in your opinion?
What is silly about preferring a logically consistent option over one that comes not only with a lack of proper definition and substantion, but also with severe logical problems?

I can't imagine that to be beneficial in regards to any purpose.

How about not leaving all the work to me, but do your part yourself?
However, I like the pragmatic approach you have in your philosophy.
What would be an example for a purpose in regards to which the assumption "freewill" would be beneficial, but the idea of determinism isn´t?
Personally, my life quality has dramatically improved since I let go questionable concept like "freewill".

 

[BushwigBill]

Welcome to the party Triad but I think you are diving in a little late. Also you are implying that God can only see certainties and not possibilities, which I think would limit His omniscience immensely. Surely He would have complete knowledge of the effects of His actions on the universe in advance?

Washington, I think we are going to run into trouble in attempting to define the term "meaning". Any suggestions on where we might start? To me it seems intuitive that determined actions are not meaningful but I grant that this may be entirely subjective.

As for your second point, I'm interested to know where you think the notion of free will that you've been conditioned to believe might have originated in a world where no such thing exists. I understand how society might pass that sort of thing down from one generation to the next, but how might this state of affairs come about?

Quatona, if you find the word "silly" offensive I'll be sure to omit it from future posts

At no point have I agreed, even half-heartedly, that free will is "not a reasonable third option". Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my last post.

Yes, I'm not a fan of total pragmatism but I think that if you believe something you need to be making a constant effort to live by it.

Now excuse me if I start to rant a little, but you asked for an example (which you may come to regret ). If I were to start believing in determinism, for a start I would skip the funeral I plan on attending tomorrow. A friend of mine recently lost her brother and I didn't know him but I was planning on going to the service to show some support for her. But if I wasn't accountable for my actions, I wouldn't feel obliged to go, and she would probably be sad not to see me after I said I'd be there, but that wouldn't matter to me, because all that sadness was always going to happen anyway, and after all it's all just neurotransmitters and electrons bouncing around in her brain, and who ever felt sorry for an electron? Not I!

So I'd continue to do as I pleased with no thought for anyone but myself, and eventually I'd have no friends and I'd be rather miserable, but then I'd tell myself that I was always going to be miserable anyway, and that misery was just chemicals and electrons. Occasionally I might derive some pleasure from the limited and temporary spoils of my selfishness, but then I'd force myself to remember that pleasure is just as much an illusion as pain. Eventually I don't think there would be any pleasure or pain or anything, at which point I suppose I might just accept my role as a completely passive observer and cease to see the point in doing anything.

I think maybe that's what I'm getting at when I talk about something being "meaningless": If everything is predetermined, what's the point in doing anything? Are we making our decisions or just watching them happen? The opinions and actions of a spectator have no bearing on a game, so why not live as if you're a player, just in case you are?

Thoughts?

 

[Washington]

Washington, I think we are going to run into trouble in attempting to define the term "meaning". Any suggestions on where we might start? To me it seems intuitive that determined actions are not meaningful but I grant that this may be entirely subjective.

I'll go along with Merriam-Webster:

Meaning:
3: significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>

Meaningful:
1 a: having a meaning or purpose b: full of meaning : significant <a meaningful life>
2: having an assigned function in a language system <meaningful propositions>
​

As for your second point, I'm interested to know where you think the notion of free will that you've been conditioned to believe might have originated in a world where no such thing exists.

Never gave it a thought, but off the top of my head, I imagine it's because we seldom consider the roots of any thoughts and actions, and only trace them back to the most immediate cause: the individual, and then stop there. And this is far more expedient than bothering to go any further. Once the most immediate cause has been established, for practical purposes there is little need to go on. Any action directed toward the cause is seldom enhanced by delving into further causes. So, if nothing else, as a practical matter I think we've developed a filtering mechanism of cause/effect that tends to regard one's acts as a product of oneself. Stopping there, we call this cause "the will," and because we prefer to ignore the determinants of the will, we choose to hide the fact behind the notion of "free." To say the will is not free is to admit there's more behind the curtain that needs to be considered, and how much easier it is to declare that we've identified the culprit and call off the chase.

Then, of course, there's the religious influence that is telling the believer he has free will. And with all such pronouncements, most often they're accepted as true without question. After all, responsibility and retribution---sin and god's retaliation---pretty much fall to the wayside in the light no free will.

Off the top of my head of course.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, if you find the word "silly" offensive I'll be sure to omit it from future posts

I don´t find it particularly offensive, and I am not here to take offense anyways.
What I was trying to get across: Not liking something is one thing, dismissing it as silly is another. In case of the latter I expect rational arguments coming along with the verdict.

At no point have I agreed, even half-heartedly, that free will is "not a reasonable third option". Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my last post.

I didn´t intend to misrepresent you. I was under the impression that you admitted the logical problems coming with the concept "freewill". Sorry if that was a misunderstanding.

Yes, I'm not a fan of total pragmatism but I think that if you believe something you need to be making a constant effort to live by it.

I personally think that pragmatism is the only reasonable way to approach philosophy. If belief in god helps you towards happiness, go for it. If belief in "freewill" (whatever that might mean) floats your boat be my guest.

However, what appear to be the implications of a certain view in regards to the effort of living by it, depends more on the other paradigms you project upon it than on the view itself.

Now excuse me if I start to rant a little, but you asked for an example (which you may come to regret ). If I were to start believing in determinism, for a start I would skip the funeral I plan on attending tomorrow. A friend of mine recently lost her brother and I didn't know him but I was planning on going to the service to show some support for her. But if I wasn't accountable for my actions, I wouldn't feel obliged to go, and she would probably be sad not to see me after I said I'd be there, but that wouldn't matter to me, because all that sadness was always going to happen anyway, and after all it's all just neurotransmitters and electrons bouncing around in her brain, and who ever felt sorry for an electron? Not I!

Well, if that is the way you are determined to behave if believing in determinism, and if this behaviour of yours wouldn´t make you happy I see why you personally don´t like the idea of determinism. However, if this behaviour wouldn´t make you happy, I would see a chance that you´d go to the funeral despite the implications you personally feel determinism has.

On another note, as long as you don´t believe in being determined, you can hardly tell what it would be like to believe you are, and what you would do. Don´t fall the mistake in imposing your current paradigms upon a view that might change or be the result of changed paradigms.

In any case I fail to see how not going to the funeral and not caring about the feelings of others necessarily or logically follows from acknowledging determinism.
As for me - my feelings are strong and meaningful to me (and the fact that I am determined to have them, doesn´t take away from that in any way) - and I am assuming it´s the same for others. I do not feel that the fact that these feelings are determined by neurotransmitters is a reason to dismiss them as meaningless. I do not seem to understand how the fact that something is caused and determined might take away from the meaning of the effect. I mean, I know what determines a car to move - that doesn´t make the car and/or driving meaningless to me. I know what causes things to fall to the earth - that doesn´t make this fact neglectible or meaningless to me.


And what is it with the term "accountable"? What exactly do you mean when saying this, and how exactly am I not "accountable" if my actions are determined?

You carry "peace, love, empathy" in your usertitle. Are you trying to tell me that these ideals would cease to be desirable once you´d have to acknowledge that everything is determined? Why?

So I'd continue to do as I pleased with no thought for anyone but myself, and eventually I'd have no friends and I'd be rather miserable, but then I'd tell myself that I was always going to be miserable anyway, and that misery was just chemicals and electrons.

Do you experience that a change in factors cause a change in the degree of your "misery"?
If so, why would you stop pursuing positive changes if having to acknowledge determinism? Why would you, out of a sudden stop pursuing happiness? How would happiness (or whatever other feeling) get less real?
If not so, and your description of being equally miserable all the time is accurate, how would acknowledging determinism possibly change anything about the degree of misery?

Occasionally I might derive some pleasure from the limited and temporary spoils of my selfishness, but then I'd force myself to remember that pleasure is just as much an illusion as pain.

Ah, you´d force yourself. Why would you force yourself to do something the effect of which you find undesirable? Do you believe that "pleasure and pain are illusions" or don´t you? If you do, how would determinism be the problem? If you don´t, why would you believe it once you were to acknowledge determinism?

Eventually I don't think there would be any pleasure or pain or anything, at which point I suppose I might just accept my role as a completely passive observer and cease to see the point in doing anything.

I´m sorry, but I have problems following this line of reasoning.
Pleasure and pain are experiences, encounters. You encounter them or you don´t. The fact that you acknowledge that they are caused and determined doesn´t take away from their effect on you. Last week I cut my thumb open, and for some strange reason my knowledge about the neurological processes that determine me to feel pain didn´t ease the pain one bit.
So what the heck are you talking about?

I think maybe that's what I'm getting at when I talk about something being "meaningless": If everything is predetermined, what's the point in doing anything?

The point is the same as it would be if everything would not be predetermined: You do that which you expect to gain the best results - in regards to whatever ideal you hold.

Are we making our decisions or just watching them happen?

Neither. There is no such thing as a decision. There are actions, and actions are caused and have effects.

The opinions and actions of a spectator have no bearing on a game, so why not live as if you're a player, just in case you are?

Well, the idea that a predetermined action is not an action but merely watching doesn´t seem to make sense to me. Thus, I fail to see how this question addresses determinism. Determinism doesn´t reduce acting to "watching".
Last time I checked the conviction that everything is determined didn´t even come with the option of not acting and becoming a mere spectator. In the game of life even sitting silently on your chair and staring at the ceiling counts as acting, after all. Every move you make and every move you don´t make have effects. That´s determinism, too.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The whole fact that God doesn't force us all to follow in His path gives us a good indication that there's an agent of decision making involved at the lower levels. I see no justification for why a God would force some people to heaven but not others. A more reasonable approach which follows in with His attributes is that He allows people to be themselves, and provides everyone the tools to be their best selves. Some accept it, and some reject it.

Am I the only one who can make neither heads nor tails of this kind of self-referential sophistry? How it reads to me: God allows me to be me, but gives me stuff that I can choose to make a better me. How many "me"s do I have? It looks like there's a "me" which is free to choose how I behave and/or believe. Is that the "meta-me"?