Probability Argument Against Determinism

[Chesterton]

I've read this several times, and it makes no sense at all.

And you haven't replied to any of the clearly stated objections to your "argument." To pick just one: why would a freely chosen or randomly chosen belief be more reliable than one which was determined by the facts? This seems to be one of the key claims in your "argument."

My two cents on that objection: it's not necessarily that a freely chosen belief would be more reliable, but that a freely chosen belief is the only chance a belief would have to be reliable. A free choice would involve reasoning, a physically determined determination allows no room for reason. Reason is an illusion in a determined universe.

 

[Radagast]

Your criticism is a red herring.

Since you refuse to respond to criticisms of your argument, I consider this thread pointless.

Which it probably was from the start.

 

[Radagast]

My two cents on that objection: it's not necessarily that a freely chosen belief would be more reliable, but that a freely chosen belief is the only chance a belief would have to be reliable. A free choice would involve reasoning, a physically determined determination allows no room for reason. Reason is an illusion in a determined universe.

You're also confusing "determined" with "physically determined."

To me, a belief determined by facts and the laws of logic is more likely to be reliable than one which is the result of a random process, or one which was chosen in a completely "free" way.

But it's way past time to say goodbye to this pointless thread.

 

[Ariston]

I've read this several times, and it makes no sense at all.

And you haven't replied to any of the clearly stated objections to your "argument." To pick just one: why would a freely chosen or randomly chosen belief be more reliable than one which was determined by the facts? This seems to be one of the key claims in your "argument."

Also, you seem to misunderstand what determinism is. In particular, you seem to have it confused with materialism. Some Christians hold to a form of determinism. You haven't defined exactly what you mean by "free will," either.

Your "objection" is a red herring. If you want to argue that libertarianism does no better, I encourage you to make the argument but that is independent of this argument. I am not sure what a freely chosen or randomly chosen belief would be. If you could define that, I might be able to answer. This argument about the justification of believing in determinism holds since mental determinism is what is in question. Materialism is irrelevant to my argument. So what if some Christians hold to materialism. What does that have to do with anything? Also, free will has nothing to do with my argument and so doesn't have to be defined. This argument is squarely in a deterministic paradigm and thus free will is not at issue.

 

[Ariston]

My two cents on that objection: it's not necessarily that a freely chosen belief would be more reliable, but that a freely chosen belief is the only chance a belief would have to be reliable. A free choice would involve reasoning, a physically determined determination allows no room for reason. Reason is an illusion in a determined universe.

That is one way of stating it. Well put.

 

[Ariston]

You're also confusing "determined" with "physically determined."

To me, a belief determined by facts and the laws of logic is more likely to be reliable than one which is the result of a random process, or one which was chosen in a completely "free" way.

But it's way past time to say goodbye to this pointless thread.

Why would you think that?

 

[Ariston]

It appears to me that determinism has less to do with philosophy and more to do with dogma on this thread. I still did not get any objections against the actual argument. However, there was one very interesting question raised: How best does the libertarian justify libertarianism? If it is properly basic, it would need no justification to be justifiably believed. Even though I think this is true, its not satisfactory. Any thoughts from those who are "free thinkers?"

 

[Chesterton]

Liberty is simply a gift. We are our own agents - little gods.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Gen 1:27

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? John 10:34

 

[Ariston]

Liberty is simply a gift. We are our own agents - little gods.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Gen 1:27

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? John 10:34

I agree. That is partly how we have to look at it. And, it is one thing if we do, another thing how we do, another thing how we justify that belief, and another thing how we explain it to others.

I think we do. I think we could only have it if we either develop or are endowed with a spirit/soul. I think we are justified in believing it since it is obvious that we are agents of consciousness and can verify this by acting when we want to act. You do not need any arguments for something obvious. There is mental and physical correlation between thoughts and events. The free volition is directly validated both mentally and empirically since we bring about the action that we intend when we want to bring it out (and if and only if we want to bring it about). This is most obvious in moral issues: when we act in a particular way because we ought to or ought not to when there is an inclination to act contrary. That restrain or action contrary to the disposition is where we become aware of our responsibility and hence moral autonomy. Since the determinist presupposes his own experience of free will false, it may not be possible to convince them. I also think you are right to point out the Biblical claims. Besides it being part of our immediate experience, the Biblical commands presuppose that we can (ought implies can) and if we are going to be held accountable for our words and deeds in judgement, this is only sensible if we could have done otherwise. So theologically its the best position too and since we both think Christianity true, that lends considerable weight as well.

 

[quatona]

Let me google that for you

For your information:
Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ariston]

I agree. That is partly how we have to look at it. And, it is one thing if we do, another thing how we do, another thing how we justify that belief, and another thing how we explain it to others.

I think we do. I think we could only have it if we either develop or are endowed with a spirit/soul. I think we are justified in believing it since it is obvious that we are agents of consciousness and can verify this by acting when we want to act. You do not need any arguments for something obvious. There is mental and physical correlation between thoughts and events. The free volition is directly validated both mentally and empirically since we bring about the action that we intend when we want to bring it out (and if and only if we want to bring it about). This is most obvious in moral issues: when we act in a particular way because we ought to or ought not to when there is an inclination to act contrary. That restrain or action contrary to the disposition is where we become aware of our responsibility and hence moral autonomy. Since the determinist presupposes his own experience of free will false, it may not be possible to convince them. I also think you are right to point out the Biblical claims. Besides it being part of our immediate experience, the Biblical commands presuppose that we can (ought implies can) and if we are going to be held accountable for our words and deeds in judgement, this is only sensible if we could have done otherwise. So theologically its the best position too and since we both think Christianity true, that lends considerable weight as well.

Free will is necessary to justify the existence of moral evil. If free will does not exist, moral evil does not exist. Moral evil does exist therefore free will exists.

1. If moral evil exists, free will exists.
2. Moral evil exists.
3. Therefore free will exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_evil

 

[Ariston]

Someone asks earlier whether there was evidence that Luther was a determinist. At at least one period he asserted determinism prior to grace enabling right action stating,

“...I have wrongly said that free will before grace exists in name only. I should have said frankly: 'free will is a fiction, a name without a correspondent in reality.' Because no one indeed has power freely to think of good or evil...all things happen by absolute necessity.”

 

[Ariston]

My two cents on that objection: it's not necessarily that a freely chosen belief would be more reliable, but that a freely chosen belief is the only chance a belief would have to be reliable. A free choice would involve reasoning, a physically determined determination allows no room for reason. Reason is an illusion in a determined universe.

We can actually make an argument from this point (if we accept the legitimacy of my argument and the illusion of reason in a determined universe which is wholly valid in my view).

1. If we are justified in holding that some reasoned beliefs are reliable, free will exists.
2. We are justified in holding that some reasoned beliefs are reliable.
3. Therefore free will exists.

 

[quatona]

For the (accuracy of the) results of your thinking it makes no difference whether you are determined to think reasonably or have "freely chosen" to think reasonably.

 

[quatona]

...same goes for "unreasonably", in the given case.

 

[Ariston]

For the (accuracy of the) results of your thinking it makes no difference whether you are determined to think reasonably or have "freely chosen" to think reasonably.

I disagree and I think my argument demonstrates why your faith in your cognitive faculties is almost certainly dubious if you hold mental determinism (and thus your belief in mental determinism). Since you do not think they are altogether dubious, you should give up determinism.

 

[Ariston]

For the (accuracy of the) results of your thinking it makes no difference whether you are determined to think reasonably or have "freely chosen" to think reasonably.

Lewis tried to make this point more radically in applying it to atheism generally. But it may help demonstrate my point by looking at his:


“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

- C.S. Lewis

I do not know if you believe in God but everything applies to the determinist after line one supplementing "determinism" for "atheism" and omitting the last line.

 

[quatona]

I disagree and I think my argument demonstrates why your faith in your cognitive faculties is almost certainly dubious if you hold mental determinism (and thus your belief in mental determinism).

If it were the case that you can freely choose your thoughts, the argument as you presented it would make a strong case against the notion that freely chosen thoughts are more likely to be accurate.

 

[quatona]

Lewis tried to make this point more radically in applying it to atheism, generally. But it may help demonstrate my point by looking at his:


“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

- C.S. Lewis

I do not know if you believe in God but everything applies to the determinist after line one supplementing "determinism" for "atheism."[/quote]
Let´s put aside the question whether C.S.Lewis argument as it reads is sound or not. At least there is a discernible attempt at a logical progression.
However, if we replace "determinism" for "atheism" it ceases to make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Ariston]

Lewis tried to make this point more radically in applying it to atheism, generally. But it may help demonstrate my point by looking at his:


“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

- C.S. Lewis

I do not know if you believe in God but everything applies to the determinist after line one supplementing "determinism" for "atheism."

Let´s put aside the question whether C.S.Lewis argument as it reads is sound or not. At least there is a discernible attempt at a logical progression.
However, if we replace "determinism" for "atheism" it ceases to make any sense whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

Lewis' argument depended on determinism because he thought (and he was right in my view), that any coherent atheist would be a determinist. So determinism is innate to his argument. In other words, Lewis is making the same point as me only extending it to naturalism.