Getting Beyond The Freewill/Determinism Impasse

[Philosoph]

I think it goes without saying that the Freewill/Determinism debate is a major topic in the Church. Some theologians on the side of determinism have gone so far as to say that anyone who doesn't believe that God actively controls every molecule on earth is a practical atheist. The problem that I think exists in this debate is that both sides "proof-text" in defence of their position, which should leave the lay person wondering how it is that the bible can express two diametrically opposed views. The solution to the problem as I see is simply to accept that we won't come to a solution by "proof-texting" and then begin to seek out another platform on which to wage this debate. That platform is to simply debate things using reason/logic.

So the question is, are there logical reasons for supporting determinism or freewill? (Note: I intend not to insult or offend anyone when I say this, but please try to refrain from proof-texting in this thread. Thank you, God bless)

 

[EvolvEarth]

Free will doesn't exist because we aren't free from our genes and environment. Determinism only exists on the macroscopic scale of the universe just like how the law of conservation only exists in the macroscopic scale of the universe; however, indeterminism is prevailant in the quantum level of the universe. The microscopic universe is indeterministic because there doesn't need to be a cause for many events. In the macroscopic universe, each event had a precedent cause.

 

[Lifesaver]

I think the human experience is en evidence (though not a conclusive one) towards free will. We always feel like we are choosing.

Okay, that doesn't prove anything at all. But it does shift the burden of proof to determinists, because their claim is so contrary to human common sense.

 

[Philosoph]

I agree that because human experience seems to indicate that we have a choice the burden of proof is shifted to the determinist, but ultimately if if they are right all I can say is "so what!" If I don't at least "appear" to make some choices, like to eat, drink water, work to earn money, then I'm gonna die. I think about the extreme skepticism that David Hume espoused. He even admitted that in spite of evidence to the contrary of his skepticism, he couldn't live that way, or else he'd never do anything. So maybe in some grand sense, that is totally unreachable to all of us, we don't have a choice. But, the last time I went to the fridge I could have sworn that I chose Coke over milk.

Also, in respect to the Theologial determinists, the issue of responsibility comes up. If I don't have a choice in what I do, how can God say i'm responsible. A typical answer is to say that God can do whatever he wants which is problematic for reasons that I don't think I need to go into here. For God to punish someone for something they do is as absurd as me throwing a hammer through a window and then getting mad at the hammer. It doesn't make sense. I think that human responsibility is a strong case against determinism.

 

[Vegan Charity]

So the question is, are there logical reasons for supporting determinism or freewill? (Note: I intend not to insult or offend anyone when I say this, but please try to refrain from proof-texting in this thread. Thank you, God bless)

You can support Freewill and Determinism at the same time, this concept is called Compatiblism.

From Wikipedia - Compatibilism:

Compatibilism, also known as "soft determinism" and most famously championed by Hume, is a theory which holds that free will and determinism are compatible. According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. Alternately, Hume maintains that free acts are not uncaused (or mysteriously self-caused as Kant would have it) but caused in the right way, i.e., by our choices as determined by our beliefs and desires, by our characters. While a decision making process exists in Hume's determinism, this process is governed by the so-called causal chain of events. For example, a person may make the decision to support Wikipedia, but that decision is determined by the conditions that existed prior to the decision being made.

My basic defintion of Freewill: The ability to choose at your own accord.

To simplify what is written above:
If you are able to make choices at your own accord, then you have freewill. At the same time, those choices will be directly influenced by conditions existing prior to your choice, thus Determinism. It appears Freewill and Determinism are compatible.

Note: Determinism is not the same as Fatalism.

 

[Philosoph]

I don't know any person who believes in freewill who would say that the choices we make are completely made within an "experience vacuum." Obviously someone who has been attacked by a dog is going to make decisions relating to dogs as a result of their experience, but this doesn't imply some sort of determinism ie: that the situation with dogs (namely getting attacked) was planned by God and God also planned how the person would respond to dogs in all situations following.

Note: We're talking about Theistic Determinism, not causal Determinism.

 

[dnich163]

So the question is, are there logical reasons for supporting determinism or freewill? (Note: I intend not to insult or offend anyone when I say this, but please try to refrain from proof-texting in this thread. Thank you, God bless)

This question really relates to whether we as humans are beyond the power of God in a sense; can we do something that thwarts the eternal plan of God, thereby rendering God to being a powerless bystander and having an input into creation.

Has God created a world and then given free rein to us humans to destroy or pervert what he has created?

I see no contradiction (as I understand the term) in determinism and free will being able to co-exist in separate beings or entities.

I would explain God as being outside of time; or perhaps time being inside God. With God there is no time; no now or tomorrow or yesterday...he just is.

I sometimes watch my little nephew playing, and I can see what he is going to do and influence it,but he doesn't think that. It's maybe a weak analogy but relevant nevertheless.

In this way while we would have free will (as we would think) the end result is already determined...we just don't know what the answer is.

I guess that is why the church many centuries ago used the term mystery to describe God.It's an accurate answer, not a cop-out.

David

 

[Philosoph]

I think that claims on God's relation to time should probably be left to another post as that is a massive topic all in its self that warrants much thought, but I think that to assume that everyone here believes the same thing in respect to God and time is unfair.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

If you are talking about the concept of free will, without god (or independent of it) you are talking about existentilism. Read up on Sarte (an atheistic existentialist, whom you should be found on the shelves of every good bookstore in the huimanities section) and Sorhen Kirkenguard (SP? an christian existentialist, his book is titled 'Fear and Trembling')

Basicly, the argument for free will (by existentialists) is that our fundemental experience of the world is that of beiing free, that we are aware of making choices, so we must be free.

If you look at science however, you will find that it is not the case that we have free will. Science pre-supposes that humanity does not have free will, in that science presupposes that we live in a casual universe, and that EVERYTHING is casued.

IN fact, A coiurt case has actuall y been won(in the US) that lessened the punishment of two people on the basis that humanity does not have free will. This was the LEo and Lobe trial, and there is an abduince of infromation out there on it, so I wont deign to repeat it here.

The scientific argument is that, humans are just like every other animal, and that if we could finf and control all the variables in a persons life, and know all their genetics and experiences, we would be able to acuratly predict everything that they would ever do. This ties in directly into the nature/nurture debate, and the best as of yet not disporved theory on the subject holds that it is a small mixture of both.

 

[Philosoft]

If you look at science however, you will find that it is not the case that we have free will. Science pre-supposes that humanity does not have free will, in that science presupposes that we live in a casual universe, and that EVERYTHING is casued.

I don't know about that. Science presupposes that every effect has a cause, but it does not ascribe the label "effect" to all things.

IN fact, A coiurt case has actuall y been won(in the US) that lessened the punishment of two people on the basis that humanity does not have free will. This was the LEo and Lobe trial, and there is an abduince of infromation out there on it, so I wont deign to repeat it here.

Can I ask you to reconsider? I can't seem to find anything at all about such a case.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,


thank you for an interesting topic.

you know.. .many people feel that karma, in both the Hindu and Buddhist sense, is deterministic to the extreme. i find this explanation of Humes to be a bit more line with some of the Buddhist schools of philosophy... how very interesting.

i'd rather avoid being to pendantic in our discussion, if at all possible

/tangent

say...does anyone have any good links to Humes' work that they may recommend? i can, of course, google for it however, i'd be interested to hear feedback from others more versed in his material.

tangent/

so.. let me say up front, my Hindu philosophy is not nearly as comprehensive as it should be for me to speak on their behalf. i stand to be corrected by a more knowledgeable Hindu should one join our thread.

i suppose that i would agree, to a limited extent, that Hindu Karma philosophy is deterministic to such a degree that it cannot be changed. now we must be clear that there are many schools of HinduISM as well as Hindu philosophy.. so naturally they won't all agree. that being said, i'll continue with my generalizations of millenia of philosophy (oh the irony and tragedy )..

Buddhist Karma, however, is different. in Buddhism karma can be changed, however, there are some aspects that have so much force that they simply cannot be avoided. in any event, i would say this is more in line with Humes thinking rather than Kant, which is why i'm interested to read further

 

[theseed]

Both sides agree that Salvation come through believing in Jesus, but they disagee on how it happens.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I don't know about that. Science presupposes that every effect has a cause, but it does not ascribe the label "effect" to all things.

I allready said this, and in a way it does. Science works with all things in terms of efficient causes, which means, everything that you do is the result of a cause, be it genetics, past experiences, ect. Science, when it looks at people and they way the work, it looks at them through a filter untill tey are nothing but effects, because that is how science works. Case studies on nature vs. nurture on monkeys are done in nearly the same way for humans.

Can I ask you to reconsider? I can't seem to find anything at all about such a case.

Actually, you can ask, but that doesn't mean I will . But serisuly, it was the trial of two men, Leopold and Lobe, who were quite wealthy and were looking to commit the "perfect" crime. The kidnaped some poor kid (I believe that they took one of their younger brother best friend) and then one of them beat him with a hammer while they were driving and killed him. They dumped the body and were able to chatch them because a very inique set of glasses that one of them wore. The case was sometime in the early 1920's, and a number of court classes study it, as well as most basic philosophy classes that deal with the issue of free will.

*edited for content on march 7th, 2004