Does determinism really negate free will?

[partinobodycular]

It seems as if most people believe that if reality is deterministic then there's no such thing as free will, which seems like a fairly straight forward assumption, but is it in fact true?

Does determinism mean that under the same circumstances you couldn't have made any other choice or does it simply mean that under the same circumstances you wouldn't have made any other choice? You would still have free will, it's just that given the same circumstances you would freely make the same choice, and this would hold true in every set of circumstances. So deterministic or not, you would always make the same choice.

To argue that determinism negates free will seems to suggest that there's some neurotic form of you that's never sure what it's going to do. That's totally unpredictable. Would you rather that that's the case, that your will is totally neurotic? Or would you prefer that determinism simply means that what you choose to do, would always be what you would choose to do.

So, then the question becomes even harder, how do you tell the difference between a reality in which you're forced to always make the same choice, and one in which you would always freely make the same choice, wouldn't they look the same?

 

[SelfSim]

I think this discussion could benefit from another couple of (thus far) missing distinctions:

i) A decision is made for a reason(s). Eg: An already planned strategy for achieving a consistent outcome. Determinism is relevant here(?), namely because its a reason.

ii) A choice however, is made for no reason. Eg: Vanilla ice cream or chocolate? When asked: "Why did you choose chocolate?", the answer would be a shoulder shrug, accompanied by "Well .. no reason really". Determinism is irrelevant here I think(?)

IMO - though I think the question: "Why did you choose?" produces an explanation response (including reasons), or none at all (no reasons). That's how we'd know whether either a choice, or a decision, was made.

PS: See, its important to remember that reality is (objectively) whatever we (collectively) say it means. So, what the above distinctions do, is they allow the enquirer to focus on the measurable, which is only a human person's response .. and not some believed-in human mind independent 'physical reality' (which may, or may not, exist).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It seems as if most people believe that if reality is deterministic then there's no such thing as free will, which seems like a fairly straight forward assumption, but is it in fact true?

Does determinism mean that under the same circumstances you couldn't have made any other choice or does it simply mean that under the same circumstances you wouldn't have made any other choice? You would still have free will, it's just that given the same circumstances you would freely make the same choice, and this would hold true in every set of circumstances. So deterministic or not, you would always make the same choice.

To argue that determinism negates free will seems to suggest that there's some neurotic form of you that's never sure what it's going to do. That's totally unpredictable. Would you rather that that's the case, that your will is totally neurotic? Or would you prefer that determinism simply means that what you choose to do, would always be what you would choose to do.

So, then the question becomes even harder, how do you tell the difference between a reality in which you're forced to always make the same choice, and one in which you would always freely make the same choice, wouldn't they look the same?

"Pick a card. Any card." Determinism or free will?

 

[Chesterton]

Does determinism mean that under the same circumstances you couldn't have made any other choice or does it simply mean that under the same circumstances you wouldn't have made any other choice?

It means the former, that you couldn't have made any other choice. Determinism negates free will.

 

[Neogaia777]

"Pick a card. Any card." Determinism or free will?

Determinism, always.

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

It seems as if most people believe that if reality is deterministic then there's no such thing as free will, which seems like a fairly straight forward assumption, but is it in fact true?

Libertarian freewill is what’s meant by “freewill,” and libertarian freewill is the ability to do otherwise in any given situation.

You would still have free will, it's just that given the same circumstances you would freely make the same choice, and this would hold true in every set of circumstances.

That wouldn’t be the ability to do otherwise, and as a consequence wouldn’t be freewill. The fairly straightforward assumption is in fact true, determinism and freewill are like oil and water.

Only by playing definitional twister with the meaning of “freewill” can determinists make freewill and determinism appear compatible.

Does determinism mean that under the same circumstances you couldn't have made any other choice or does it simply mean that under the same circumstances you wouldn't have made any other choice?

Couldn’t is hard determinism and wouldn’t is soft determinism, they are both determinism however.

Freedom however is the ability to do other than what you did in any situation, that’s why we have feelings like regret, because, despite sinning or doing wrong by someone, we could have chosen to do something else.

So, then the question becomes even harder, how do you tell the difference between a reality in which you're forced to always make the same choice, and one in which you would always freely make the same choice, wouldn't they look the same?

The experience of freewill doesn’t exist by necessity, rather it’s something God has designed humanity to go through on the daily. Unless God is some kind of divine trickster, I see no reason to believe that God is “forcing” people to do things from behind the scenes, all the while causing us to feel that’s not the case.

Side note. Christian determinists like Lutherans and Calvinists don’t believe God is forcing anyone to do anything, instead he’s supposed to “change” the humans will so that they “freely” believe in and love God.

That’s not free in any common definition, but it’s their way of negating (or obfuscating) the problem of freedom and determinism being incompatible.

If you have never seen it, @partinobodycular, I recommend watching “What’s wrong with Calvinism?” A lecture by Christian philosopher Dr. Jerry Walls. It’s available on YouTube.

 

[SkyWriting]

It means the former, that you couldn't have made any other choice. Determinism negates free will.

It doesn't negate free will. It just changes the conversation about free will.
"I posted this because God had this in His plans."
It adds meaning to events and helps to suppress ones ego.

 

[Cormack]

It doesn't negate free will. It just changes the conversation about free will.

It does change the conversation, but that change often shows up as determinists redefining freewill into “doing what you want to do,” not the ability to do otherwise.

That’s why people need to clarify, because determinists are (often inadvertently) obfuscating and rendering sensible conversation impossible.

Determinists have to come to terms with the fact that their philosophy is both unbiblical and (more importantly) unliveable. They have to live in this world of contrived mystery and nonsensical definitions because their own senses don’t affirm the things they are saying.

Determinists are picking their philosophy over Gods created order, their own intuition and the churches lived experience in the Holy Spirit.

Early Christian history isn’t deterministic, Augustinianism however is, users shouldn’t be trying to become Augustine however, they should try and become more like Jesus.

 

[SkyWriting]

It does change the conversation, but that change often shows up as determinists redefining freewill into “doing what you want to do,” not the ability to do otherwise.

That’s why people need to clarify, because determinists are (often inadvertently) obfuscating and rendering sensible conversation impossible.

As I always explain, it is impossible to reconcile the two explanations.
The human mind cannot grasp the concept of God having knowledge of the future
and free will.

 

[Cormack]

As I always explain, it is impossible to reconcile the two explanations.
The human mind cannot grasp the concept of God having knowledge of the future
and free will.

That’s something you’re asserting, but not arguing for or demonstrating. It seems as though your view does in fact clear away the mystery, it just does so in favour of soft determinism.

To pre determine just means to determine beforehand, for example, God insisting everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. That’s a decree or determination made by God beforehand, that’s pre destination, the destination is pre decided by God.

Everyone on the Jesus bus is bound to destination heaven.

If however you mean how can God have exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events but not be the determiner of those future events, that’s easy. I know the boiling point of water, but I’m not responsible for every boiling kettle, those are decided by freewill choices.

In short, knowledge isn’t causative.

For other options, I’d recommend reading up on Dynamic omniscience, if you need an answer to determinism and freewill that’s not grounded in playing terminological peekaboo with the concept of freewill.

It adds meaning to events and helps to suppress ones ego.

I’m not sure it’s an ego suppressor, not after having conversed and worshipped with determinists for over a decade. Maybe it’s something else within the culture that produces pride in those communities (not the determinism specifically.)

Again, if you haven’t already, I’d be pleased if you’d watch “What’s wrong with Calvinism?” by Dr. Jerry Walls. It’s educational even if you aren’t a full blown five point Calvinists, just so long as you’re some form of determinist trying to enlist freewill.

 

[SkyWriting]

That’s something you’re asserting, but not arguing for or demonstrating. It seems as though your view does in fact clear away the mystery, it just does so in favour of soft determinism.

To pre determine just means to determine beforehand, for example, God insisting everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. That’s a decree or determination made by God beforehand, that’s pre destination, the destination is pre decided by God.

Everyone on the Jesus bus is bound to destination heaven.

If however you mean how can God have exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events but not be the determiner of those future events, that’s easy. I know the boiling point of water, but I’m not responsible for every boiling kettle, those are decided by freewill choices.

In short, knowledge isn’t causative.

For other options, I’d recommend reading up on Dynamic omniscience, if you need an answer to determinism and freewill that’s not grounded in playing terminological peekaboo with the concept of freewill.



I’m not sure it’s an ego suppressor, not after having conversed and worshipped with determinists for over a decade. Maybe it’s something else within the culture that produces pride in those communities (not the determinism specifically.)

Again, if you haven’t already, I’d be pleased if you’d watch “What’s wrong with Calvinism?” by Dr. Jerry Walls. It’s educational even if you aren’t a full blown five point Calvinists, just so long as you’re some form of determinist trying to enlist freewill.

As I said, it's impossible to reconcile the two facts,
people have free will,
and God already planned out and knows the results.

There is no point in trying to make sense of the two facts.
It's not humanly possible.

 

[SelfSim]

What a pile of twisted contortionism ..

 

[SkyWriting]

What a pile of twisted contortionism ..

That's what I said. It's not possible for humans to conceive it. Thanks for backing my claim!

 

[Cormack]

As I said, it's impossible to reconcile the two facts,
people have free will,
and God already planned and knows the results.

People have reconciled that problem. If you believe in compatiblism, then you too have reconciled the two facts. Have you heard of “compatiblism” before?

What you and I couldn’t reconcile is libertarian freewill and determinism, and we can’t do that because they are contradictory terms. It would be silly to try and reconcile contradictory terms because then we would end up holding nonsensical beliefs.

 

[SkyWriting]

People have reconciled that problem.

I said it's not possible. Humans have no framework for knowing the future.

Just look at every single "time travel" movie. They constantly invent new methods for dealing with the idea that different actions have different results and knowledge of the future will change the outcomes.

It's impossible to reconcile.

 

[enoob57]

There are so many issues with tulip .... would you like to discuss them?

 

[Cormack]

As I said, it's impossible to reconcile the two facts,
people have free will,

And those two facts are freewill and Gods exhaustive foreknowledge of future events, right?

1. Determinists have reconciled that issue by redefining freewill.

2. Ordinary Christians have solved the problem by upholding the original meaning to freewill and rejecting the notion that Gods foreknowledge causes things.

Have you heard of compatiblism? If you have and you’re a believer in that view, then you too have reconciled freedom and determinism (determinism supppsedly found in Gods foreknowledge.)

Based upon our conversation, you’re in group one and aren’t really pushing the freewill determinism problem into mystery. You have an answer.

Once more, the only “mystery” here isn’t really a mystery, it’s a contradiction. Libertarian freewill isn’t compatible with determinism because they’re contradictory terms.

Mysteries aren’t contradictions, they’re mysterious. Mystery, paradox and contradiction are three different types of a thing.

Freewill proper can’t be reconciled with determinism. The “conversation changer” you mentioned seems to be just a way to back door freewill into the determinists viewpoint, that’s called compatiblism.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are so many issues with tulip .... would you like to discuss them?

Could anybody really understand tulip?

 

[Cormack]

There are so many issues with tulip .... would you like to discuss them?

Could you specify who you’re writing to, @enoob57? I mentioned Calvinism, so I suspect it might be me.

 

[Cormack]

Could anybody really understand tulip?

Yes. It’s a thoroughly explained view.