Presuppositions and Free Will

[paultrr]

Interesting enough there is something in this free will debate that relates to Christian differences of opinion on salvation. By the book, I would to some Christians be considered a fallen saint. To some Christians I would be considered a backsliden one. Both of these views stem out of the old Calvin/Arminian debate. John Calavin did not see it as possible for believers to fall from grace. Once saved, always saved. Jacob Arminius held to it being possible to fall from grace. The only clear message from the Bible is that its belief worked by the Holy Spirit that makes it possible to be under grace in the first place. The Bible goes on to mention that if it is possible to fall from grace that those who do have known the truth and rejected it. It basically states in Hebrews that it would be impossible to renew such a one. So even there just how free is man's will in the first place?

 

Before you who do believe answer that question and think about where you stand on that subject remember, only those who have the spirit of God within them can understand the scriptures. I myself can clearly, inspite of the fact that I no longer accept them, decern the truth of what they are saying. That would imply that my eyes have at least at one time been opened and changed by God's spirit if one is honest to God's word. But by definition I am no longer a believer. nor do I even believe the Bible is God's word or that there is a God out there. If I believe in anything its nature itself anymore. That implies at least the exercize of what Christians define as free will. Having known what Christian's define as the truth, having gone further and really looked at the evidence out of Science I made the choice to not believe anymore. No one to my knowledge predestined me to this choice. I made it on my own based upon logic and reason alone inspite of the fact that I have seen belief work. Its the source of belief's power that I now question. I think there is a natural explination for that power. It's the power of the human mind to begin with. That mind is something we have just begun to discover how it really works. It has the ability to dream, imagine, and look beyond.

[Biochemist]

...Basically, either the God you serve is correct or Science is correct. One cannot serve God and the world at the same time. You cannot have it both ways....

Paultrr-In the middle of a long list of thoughtful (and valid) points, you squoze this pair of nonsequiturs. It is true one cannot serve God and "the world" at once. But I think it is absolutely untrue that you cannot trust in science and concurrently believe in God. All truth is God's truth, and that includes all of science. It, of course, does not mean that we can "prove" God's existence, but it does mean that God is consistent with science.

 

I am a little saddened, given your deep history on Biblical issues, that you never came to this conclusion yourself. I honestly think it advantages you in both worlds (spirituality and science) to believe in both. It certainly has advantaged me.

 

I would love the chance to spend an hour with you on this topic.

[paultrr]

I would love the chance to spend an hour with you on this topic.

 

Reason and logic dictate my science. As for belief's what I do have in that way is based upon personal experience and life in general. There really is no arguing when it comes to personal experience. Everyone's experiences and situation is different. That's what makes us individuals in part in the first place. Its a hallmark of the human equation that if ten people witness something one is libel to get 10 different accounts of that siuation. Even when it comes to the Bible and what certain passages mean generally everyone sees something a bit different. One might even go so far as to conclude that if there was some God at work in this universe that God would personally relate to every individual in different ways.

 

While one can argue about say the validity of near death experiences as was raised in another tread one thing about all of them stands out. People's individual beliefs tend to color what they do see. Catholics often report seeing Saint Peter and the gates or boundry of heaven. Few Protestants report the same. People of other religions report differing visions of the beyond. All of these reports cannot all be correct unless what they are seeing is simply what they expect to see or there is more truth than can be contained in anyone religious book. Either way something is messing from the general picture that most of the American religious tend to have in mind. I'm reminded of the verse that says, "Now we see through a glass darkly. But then face to face we shall know." I personally think the taost had it right in that the truth that is known is not the truth that is. Life is more than the sum of its parts. Even with the sum of the parts there is mystery beyond that yet to be discovered. The same applies to science itself. We always stand on the brink of new discovery and keep on asking the big Why questions.

[C1ay]

Supposing for a moment that determinism is correct and people cannot make choices of their own free will there are some corollaries that come to mind:

 

Men cannot choose to cheat on their wives, they are destined to do so.

Men cannot choose to rob the bank, they are destined to do so.

Theists cannot choose to believe, they are destined to do so.

Atheists cannot choose not to believe, they are destined to do so.

Children cannot choose to skip school, they are destined to do so.

Pedophiles cannot choose to abuse children, they are destined to do so.

And on and on and on ad infinitum.

 

This implies that no one can be at fault for any act as it was their uncontrollable destiny to commit that act. Doesn't that imply that accountability for acts over which you have no control is kind of unfair since you couldn't choose not to commit the act in the first place? Does anyone really think they could make an argument in this vein that would hold up in a court of law?

[maddog]

You have two variant situations. Its like arguing about why a mile is longer than a foot.

Both of these are measurements are of distance (same measurement).

Yet "Determinism" and "Free Will" are not the same/similar in any way. They also

are not the opposite. Determinism in Kant's time was "Mechanistic". Like the

workings of a Clock. Based upon the notion derived from Newtonian Mechanics.

"Free Will" is some notion derived from the ability to make a choice. I can make

choices. As Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". He is declaring his existance

by his very ability to think about it (thinking). Unless you are going to force

Newtonian Mechanics to the actions in the mind (I'd like to see that), I don't see

how you can make such a flippant comment and not generate more controversy.

Though as C1ay said, [parphrased] "Determists" attempting to convert the "Free

Willers" to Determinism using arguements along lines of "Free Will". Hmmm.

 

You ignore QM because you don't understand it. You then declare Newton to be

the end all (except for maybe Aristotle). I just laugh. :xx:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Supposing for a moment that determinism is correct and people cannot make choices of their own free will there are some corollaries that come to mind:

... [ref: see post #72]

This implies that no one can be at fault for any act as it was their uncontrollable destiny to commit that act. Doesn't that imply that accountability for acts over which you have no control is kind of unfair since you couldn't choose not to commit the act in the first place? Does anyone really think they could make an argument in this vein that would hold up in a court of law?

Yes, I like that. Basically with this vein of logic. No one could held accountable nor

responsible for anything they did, since they were "pre-destined" to do so (or not).

Try using that defense when a cop has just pulled you over for speeding and is about

ask you, "Do you know why I stopped you ?" I would like to hear how that goes. :xx:

 

Maddog

[C1ay]

Yes, I like that. Basically with this vein of logic. No one could held accountable nor

responsible for anything they did, since they were "pre-destined" to do so (or not).

Try using that defense when a cop has just pulled you over for speeding and is about

ask you, "Do you know why I stopped you ?" I would like to hear how that goes. :xx:

 

Maddog

Doesn't determinism just negate the whole premise of using punishment as a deterrent for future acts anyhow? I mean if you couldn't choose not to commit the crime in the first place, how is punishment going to keep you from making the same choice to commit a similar crime in the future?

[Biochemist]

... Basically with this vein of logic. No one could held accountable nor

responsible for anything they did, since they were "pre-destined" to do so (or not).

...

This is exactly the argument that some philosophers use to suggest that morality is impossible in the absence of free will.

[Biochemist]

...Unless you are going to force Newtonian Mechanics to the actions in the mind (I'd like to see that), I don't see how you can make such a flippant comment and not generate more controversy....

Contemporary Determinists (and there are some on this site) see free will as illusory because they do regard the actions of the mind as similar to Newtonian mechanics.

[Biochemist]

Doesn't determinism just negate the whole premise of using punishment as a deterrent for future acts anyhow? I mean if you couldn't choose not to commit the crime in the first place, how is punishment going to keep you from making the same choice to commit a similar crime in the future?

Maybe not. A Determinist mght suggest that the punishment is a causal event that will change a future behavior. The more fundamental question, however, is related to intent. Why would anyone want to bother to alter future behavior, since right/wrong and moral/immoral are as illusory as free will?

[Fishteacher73]

Both of these are measurements are of distance (same measurement).

Yet "Determinism" and "Free Will" are not the same/similar in any way. They also

are not the opposite. Determinism in Kant's time was "Mechanistic". Like the

workings of a Clock. Based upon the notion derived from Newtonian Mechanics.

"Free Will" is some notion derived from the ability to make a choice. I can make

choices. As Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". He is declaring his existance

by his very ability to think about it (thinking). Unless you are going to force

Newtonian Mechanics to the actions in the mind (I'd like to see that), I don't see

how you can make such a flippant comment and not generate more controversy.

Though as C1ay said, [parphrased] "Determists" attempting to convert the "Free

Willers" to Determinism using arguements along lines of "Free Will". Hmmm.

 

You ignore QM because you don't understand it. You then declare Newton to be

the end all (except for maybe Aristotle). I just laugh. :xx:

 

Maddog

 

I think I think therefore I think I am... You seem dead set on declaring me ignorant of QM when I all I assert is that the theory still has some holes in it and this is where the "random" nature arises. Granted I am not a theoretyical physicist, but I have a general understanding of the concepts.

 

I have not once claimed Newton, you have brought him up more than I.

 

The only arguments that you have brought up are the "uncertaincty" invovlved with QM, and yet to show how this propogates beyond the quantum realm. The other point you make is that you think you have free-will. That has no merit in a scientific discussion either. Yet somehow it is me that is stuck in pre-historic notions. You might as well accuse me of thinking leaches are good medicine (oh, wait, they do. Modern medicine has realized that both leaches and maggots can be helpful.).

[Fishteacher73]

Maybe not. A Determinist mght suggest that the punishment is a causal event that will change a future behavior. The more fundamental question, however, is related to intent. Why would anyone want to bother to alter future behavior, since right/wrong and moral/immoral are as illusory as free will?

 

 

Punishment can alter the factors involved in a future situation. Morality is an evolved construct to allow us to live as social animals. All social animals have a heirarchy and a set of aproved behavior (morality if you will). Humans work out better as a species as a social animal and it helps the individual (and/or progeny) to help the society/colony/troup/pod/ect.

[Biochemist]

Punishment can alter the factors involved in a future situation. Morality is an evolved construct to allow us to live as social animals. All social animals have a heirarchy and a set of aproved behavior (morality if you will). Humans work out better as a species as a social animal and it helps the individual (and/or progeny) to help the society/colony/troup/pod/ect.

Thanks, Fst, for reframing the argument. I understand your point, but I would still argue that the set of behaviors you describe is not really "morality" in the sense that we use the word in normal usage. The framework you described is a set of socially advantageous behaviors.

 

I don't mean to get too semantic, but the notion of "right" and "wrong" is as much an illusion as free will (to a Determinist) in this context. Agreed?

[bumab]

The real trick is this: sure, punishment can act as a causal event in a deterent fashion for future crimes. But, if we are to be good determinists, then we need to realize that our choice to punish was also pre-destined. If it's right to punish, or wrong- those terms do presuppose free will, because they presuppose morality. So we can't say punishment is ok in a deterministic universe because it's a causal event without realizing our choice to believe that was ALSO a determined action and belief.

[Fishteacher73]

In a biological sense right and wrong would be advantageous and disadvatageous.

 

There is no moral quandry when a new silverback takes lead of a troup of gorillias and kills all the young. This allows his energy to be spent in protecting and raising his progeny, not his predecessor's.

 

So yes, just as free-will is a mental construct of humans, so is right and wrong.

[Fishteacher73]

The real trick is this: sure, punishment can act as a causal event in a deterent fashion for future crimes. But, if we are to be good determinists, then we need to realize that our choice to punish was also pre-destined. If it's right to punish, or wrong- those terms do presuppose free will, because they presuppose morality. So we can't say punishment is ok in a deterministic universe because it's a causal event without realizing our choice to believe that was ALSO a determined action and belief.

 

One could look at this as Le'Chatlier's Principle. A system does not choose to react to a stress. The biology/chemistry/physics of the system following the input reacts in a standard way to retain equilibrium.

 

The belief of a free-will and the existence of a free-will are two different things. The belief in non-existent things can have an effect. (I will refrain from using a god example, some debate that concept, so I'll use an example I hope we all agree on, Santa Clause). I think we can all agree that Santa Clause does not exist. Yet the beliefe in Santa Clause gets all kinds of rection around Christmas. Kids act right; Parents max out credit cards... Something that does not exist yet some believe in, has caused a reation.

 

This is just how the illusion and belief in a free-will can be a causal agent in a deterministic view.

[C1ay]

Punishment can alter the factors involved in a future situation. Morality is an evolved construct to allow us to live as social animals. All social animals have a heirarchy and a set of aproved behavior (morality if you will). Humans work out better as a species as a social animal and it helps the individual (and/or progeny) to help the society/colony/troup/pod/ect.

Yes but, did the bank robber rob the bank in the first place as a result of determinism or a choice of free will? In short, was the bank robbery the fault of the bank robber or not?

 

If it is the fault of the bank robber then it implies that he used free will. If it is not the fault of the bank robber but the result of determinism, does he deserve to be punished?