Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

April 17, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Sometimes a statement comes along that is so pristine in its lack of coherence, so mind-boggling in its pure, immaculate and flawless freedom from logic, that I just have to stop and call special attention to it. Eigenstate has favored us with such a statement:

If I stipulate for the purposes of argument here that there is no choice and the world is rigidly deterministic, “moral” and “social” are just as meaningful and carry the same semantic freight as if it were otherwise. Empathy in a completely deterministic universe is just as much a moral dynamic as a empathy in universe with “libertarian free will”, allowing for the moment that that concept is not logically incoherent.

Second quote of the day from eigenstate (he’s on a roll):

There’s no contradiction between “choice” and “wholly upwardly determined”

Comments

stenosemella
We all agree that stock markets crash as the result of decisions made by humans. If God knows for certain that the stock market will crash , he must also know what decisions these same humans will make. Therefore, there must be no free will in these decisions.
No. God's foreknowledge about human decisions does not cause human decisions. To foreknow or to anticipate is not to cause. Indeed, strictly speaking, God doesn't foreknow at all. He is outside of time. He just knows. To know is not to cause.StephenB_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

PS: A reflection on Boethius' response . . . a high official who, on his report, was awaiting unjust execution on a false charge and wrote The Consolation of Philosophy under that circumstance: https://daveduncombe.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/boethius-on-divine-foreknowledge-and-human-freedom/ ; a useful current reflection i/l/o the cross-time and current discussion (one needs not endorse every jot and tittle to say that . . . ) is here: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol20/foreknowledge_cook.pdfkairosfocus_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

stenosemella:
If God knows for certain that the stock market will crash , he must also know what decisions these same humans will make. Therefore, there must be no free will in these decisions.
Cart before the horse, joined to a category confusion. Responsible freedom means that we act in the present in ways that could have been otherwise . . . I need not be typing this now or at all, and I need not have chosen your case to respond to (but I think it captures the matter and gives opportunity) . . . but in so choosing, can influence the future. For instance, on long track record I think it highly unlikely that evolutionary materialist scientism advocates, fellow travellers and enablers (for motives of their own) will yield to correction, but 99% of the 50,000 visitors here per month do not comment. Many of these, I am convinced, will be far more open to hear. They may fear the sort of churlish attack dog mentality of too many Internet trolls (there are hate sites out there that target UD and there is cyberstalking etc) but they are noting duly who makes good sense. God, per ethical theism, on considerations of being and moral government -- the IS and the OUGHT -- is understood to be inherently good, necessary, maximally great and worthy of service by our freely doing the good. That freedom is the root of ability to love (a programmed robot cannot genuinely love), think rationally (one must choose to accept and follow evident truth and cogent inference), & act based on wise and good choice, all of which help build the future. Responsible freedom makes good sense on its own; and here I am rendering reasonable service. Now, too, that great I AM, the root of being, who is and was and is to come, is everywhere and every-when. In him, we live and move and have our being "as some of your poets have said." He upholds all things by the reasonable word of his power. Just so, we, with the gift of mind may explore and apply the rational principles that undergird the cosmos . . . Science, Technology, Engineeering, Medicine, Arts & Mathematics. That last being purely abstract and yet discovering deep principles and relationships that shape reality, such as that 2 + 3 = 5 is a necessary truth of any possible world and that 0 = 1 + e^pi*i; even as Euler has so delighted us with. That he is everywhere and every-when, a necessary being (and, a serious candidate to be such is either incoherently impossible as a square circle is, or else is actual!), the root of being means that he actively enables us to choose and act freely and responsibly, but both knows the fact of which way we actually do go, and is able to act directly and indirectly as Supreme Governor to influence to the ultimate good. Including, to so act and influence as to turn back the tide of chaotic evil again and again by acting redemptively and reformingly. On the gospel, most powerfully in Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, the prophesied Messiah, Spirit-Anointed to save, heal and deliver by means of suffering the worst cruelty of the vicious and the cowardly acting in their perceived interests to get rid of "trouble" by means of injustice. But, that was Friday -- Sunday was a-coming! As in, redemptive, reforming, resurrection power:
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs . . .
To know and to influence is not equal to, to force and to program. That, is a category confusion. God, supremely IS, supremely IS GOOD, supremely knows, supremely loves, has endowed us with being, with hearts with minds, with hands and feet. He calls us to responsible freedom under the moral government of the good. And, as supreme governor, in the end he will ensure that good will prevail. But in no wise does that undermine responsible freedom; indeed, such freedom to choose and contribute to the future is a key part of our purpose. So, let us have done with trying to deny, distort, undermine or dismiss responsible freedom. KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "No. God knows if the stock market will crash. That doesn’t mean that He caused it to happen. One has nothing to do with the other." We all agree that stock markets crash as the result of decisions made by humans. If God knows for certain that the stock market will crash , he must also know what decisions these same humans will make. Therefore, there must be no free will in these decisions.stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

If there is an omniscient God with demonstrated knowledge of the future then that future is already determined; it will happen whatever we decide so there is no free will. If Christians want their God they must surrender their belief in free will.
No. God knows if the stock market will crash. That doesn't mean that He caused it to happen. One has nothing to do with the other.StephenB_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

SEVERSKY wrote: "If there is an omniscient God with demonstrated knowledge of the future then that future is already determined; it will happen whatever we decide so there is no free will. If Christians want their God they must surrender their belief in free will." Wrong. Part of the problem in these debates is that they tend to be dominated by science geeks, and science geeks think that because they got high grades in math or physics or biology that they are smart in everything, and can reason on any subject better than anyone. Seversky, being another science geek, thinks he can wander into fields like theology and philosophy, about which he knows nothing, and make quick inferences, and by his sheer logical genius utterly dismiss, in one short paragraph, all the thousands of pages which have been written on the complex subject of divine foreknowledge by learned people like Aquinas, Boethius, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Ockham, Scotus, etc. There is no point in my writing a long post trying to set him straight, since he either does not read my posts at all, or reads them but willfully refuses to respond to them. He has refused to respond to the past 4 or 5 replies I have posted to him in the past couple of months. I just wanted to point out that Seversky is wrong. People who actually want to know something about the subject of foreknowledge will go to the primary sources -- the authors I have indicated above -- and study them. Others, too lazy to read long, hard books, will take the easy route, and try to find summaries on unreliable sites like Wikipedia. Still others, even lazier, will simply take the word of an incompetent like Seversky.Timaeus_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Seversky, Okay these are just my thoughts based on my ideas and my theory. My theories main argument is that possibilities exist in a kind of prephysical state, all this time stuff is an offshoot or consequence of the theory if it were true. so with that in mind let's look at your problems. "The first is that we have examples from the Bible where God or Jesus make definite not probabilistic predictions. For example, when Jesus tells Peter that he – Peter – will deny knowing him – Jesus – three times before the cock crows that is a definite “You will”. It’s not conditional. And, as we know from the Bible, that’s exactly what happened. Peter acted just as predicted". Well this one could simply be a case of just knowing someone so well that they could predict their behavior, that's the simple explanation I suppose but a very strong one. One of the things I see in your example is that Peter despite the prophesy, still had the choice of saying yes when asked if he knew Jesus, this is important I feel. As for the timing of the events, I would say that perhaps all the possible outcomes would of played out before the cock crows three times anyway. One further thing is that even if some things are preordained, doesn't mean everything else has to be. like my map example, God could put road blocks or signs to try to get you to go in a certain direction. However I do think that given certain circumstances some things are inevitable and that makes them predictable. "The second problem is we have a parochial view of time. We assume that this present moment is the most important because that is the only one we experience. Sure, we know about history and that there were people, now long dead, who lived it. But they’re historical figures, not us. Our perspective on past and future is fixed in this present. Yet we can assume the same was true for George Washington, for example, when he became the first President of the United States in 1789. He would have looked forward to a bright future for the newly-independent country but he did not – and could not – have foreseen all the events that happened between then and now. For him that period was a complete mystery. Yet, here we are now with a detailed knowledge of what happened. If we turn around and look forward in time, perhaps, a couple of hundred years from now, some of our descendants are studying all the events that happened between 2015 and 2215. Again, they have a detailed knowledge of what is a complete mystery to us. So which is right? You have the same period of time that from one perspective does not exist or is at least unknown and from another perspective has certainly existed and is known in detail. If there is no way to distinguish or privilege one “present” over any other, if they are all equally valid then then one conclusion is that all times exist at once. You can think of it as a bit like traveling across a landscape in three dimensions where we can see where we’ve been but virtually nothing of where we are heading, although why this should be is a mystery in itself. One good side of such a view is that if it is possible to travel back in time then, in principle, you could go back and actually meet George Washington or be again with a family member or a pet who passed years ago. They’re all still there right where – when – you left them. The down side is that, if all times already exist, it is all already determined and it is hard to see how there can be free will at all". Okay first of all time doesn't exist as you suppose, time is just our perception of things moving positions. only the present actually exists, the concept of a past is how we rationalize our movements. time is an abstract concept, animals do not have a perception of a 100 years ago or the history of their kinds. only us humans think we have a past because we record the things we do. The future doesn't exist either, what really exists is possibilities. as we change positions in space we are creating new possibility spaces from old actualised possibility spaces. Going back to my map example. It is not an example of time it is an example of possibilities, for us it takes "time" to get wherever we go, but in reality its just objects in a possibility space moving positions and making new possibities in the process. I'm writing this at half one in the morning on a phone so I apologize if what I wrote makes no sense. I know what I mean in my own head lol.logically_speaking_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

logically_speaking @ 19
Seversky, I have a theory about reality that I call possibility spaces. One of the entailments of my theory explains how we have free will while God can still know the future without any conflict. Basically God sees ALL possibilities. Now imagine a road map, God sees all possible routes from a birds eye view as it were from A to Z. Meanwhile we are living in the map. God may only care about (and predict) the final destination, the journey is upto you. Interestingly God could do things such as put signs along the route or put road blocks in the way, without directly affecting your free will To help you get to the destination.
Velikovskys put forward a similar argument in another thread and it is a clever argument but I see two problems. The first is that we have examples from the Bible where God or Jesus make definite not probabilistic predictions. For example, when Jesus tells Peter that he - Peter - will deny knowing him - Jesus - three times before the cock crows that is a definite “You will”. It’s not conditional. And, as we know from the Bible, that’s exactly what happened. Peter acted just as predicted. The second problem is we have a parochial view of time. We assume that this present moment is the most important because that is the only one we experience. Sure, we know about history and that there were people, now long dead, who lived it. But they’re historical figures, not us. Our perspective on past and future is fixed in this present. Yet we can assume the same was true for George Washington, for example, when he became the first President of the United States in 1789. He would have looked forward to a bright future for the newly-independent country but he did not - and could not - have foreseen all the events that happened between then and now. For him that period was a complete mystery. Yet, here we are now with a detailed knowledge of what happened. If we turn around and look forward in time, perhaps, a couple of hundred years from now, some of our descendants are studying all the events that happened between 2015 and 2215. Again, they have a detailed knowledge of what is a complete mystery to us. So which is right? You have the same period of time that from one perspective does not exist or is at least unknown and from another perspective has certainly existed and is known in detail. If there is no way to distinguish or privilege one “present” over any other, if they are all equally valid then then one conclusion is that all times exist at once. You can think of it as a bit like traveling across a landscape in three dimensions where we can see where we’ve been but virtually nothing of where we are heading, although why this should be is a mystery in itself. One good side of such a view is that if it is possible to travel back in time then, in principle, you could go back and actually meet George Washington or be again with a family member or a pet who passed years ago. They’re all still there right where - when - you left them. The down side is that, if all times already exist, it is all already determined and it is hard to see how there can be free will at all.Seversky_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Alicia Renard said:
You either tolerate the fact that not everyone agrees with you or believes what you do or you write silly posts like the OP above.
Mr.Arrington is tolerating those views, or else nobody with those views would be posting here.William J Murray_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Seversky, I have a theory about reality that I call possibility spaces. One of the entailments of my theory explains how we have free will while God can still know the future without any conflict. Basically God sees ALL possibilities. Now imagine a road map, God sees all possible routes from a birds eye view as it were from A to Z. Meanwhile we are living in the map. God may only care about (and predict) the final destination, the journey is upto you. Interestingly God could do things such as put signs along the route or put road blocks in the way, without directly affecting your free will To help you get to the destination.logically_speaking_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

If there is an omniscient God with demonstrated knowledge of the future then that future is already determined; it will happen whatever we decide so there is no free will. If Christians want their God they must surrender their belief in free will.Seversky_{April 18, 2015
April
04
Apr
18
18
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

What additional evidence could possibly be required to demonstrate that there does in fact exist a God of IDiots?Mung_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Neil
Without determinism, it becomes an open question about human cognition.
Without determinism, you have free will, which means there is no conflict to be solved by compatibiism. Compatibilism comes into play only on the assumption of determinism.StephenB_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Neil
Compatibilism simply defines free will as the ability to choose as one pleases.
Can you do as you don't please? Can you say no to what pleases you and go another direction?StephenB_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

RDW: In other words, people can do what they want to do. But they have no control over what they want to do.
This is a common criticism of compatibilism. But I think that "they have no control over" part comes from determinism, which I do not assume. Without determinism, it becomes an open question about human cognition.Neil Rickert_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

@Neil Rickert #11 "Compatibilism simply defines free will as the ability to choose as one pleases." Here's the problem with that version of compatibilism, as stated by Schopenhauer: "I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so." On the Freedom of the Will, 1839 In other words, people can do what they want to do. But they have no control over what they want to do. Thus that compatibilism is just an illusion of free will--it is not really free will.RalphDavidWestfall_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: But what do you mean exactly? That events are not fully determined by laws?
Scientific laws are human inventions that allow us to better predict and control. Events were happening long before those laws were invented. The laws define and determine our theoretical models of nature. There's no guarantee of how well our models fit.Neil Rickert_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Compatibilism disavows self determination and reduces the individual to the status of nature’s plaything.
No. Determinism implies something along those line. Compatibilism simply defines free will as the ability to choose as one pleases.Neil Rickert_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Neil Rickert writes:
When people have what they call “logical disagreements”, they are usually disagreeing over premises, not over the logic.
Disagree over the use of "usually"! ;) Exactly! Barry presupposes his particular god exists. Anyone who disagrees must be "sending hay north" or whatever. Folks, You either tolerate the fact that not everyone agrees with you or believes what you do or you write silly posts like the OP above.Alicia Renard_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
Self-determination means being able to act according to ones nature without external coercion.
I think it can also mean self directed. However, if you like, I will change the word self-determined to "self directed" so that there will be no confusion. In any case, everything I said which follows is, I think, a fair account of what the ordinary person means by free will. Ordinary people are not compabilists, nor are judges, prosecutors, and juries.StephenB_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB: The ordinary meaning of free will indicates a measure of self determination. Self-determination means being able to act according to ones nature without external coercion. If we find a gene which explains why someone prefers chocolate, the person will still say they are choosing chocolate by their own free will.Zachriel_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Neil
The compatibilist and incompatibilist versions of free will differ in what they mean by choice. And the compatibilist version seems a better fit for the ordinary meaning of choosing.
I disagree. The ordinary meaning of free will indicates a measure of self determination. Compatibilism disavows self determination and reduces the individual to the status of nature's plaything. Yes, as Barry says, free will is the ability "to have done otherwise." If not, then the words "temptation" and "motivation" are meaningless. I submit, however, that free will also means the ability to influence future events, for better or for worse. I have free will only if I can be a causal agent--only if I can "make a difference."StephenB_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Neil Rickert: Excuse me for being dumb. In your view, what determines choices? You say: "I’m not a determinist, because I don’t see persuasive evidence of determinism. The arguments that are said to support determinism seem flawed." I can agree. But what do you mean exactly? That events are not fully determined by laws? That quantum randomness contributes? That conscious choices are a factor which cannot be reduced to objective events, either lawful or random? That objective events exist which are neither lawful nor random? Could you explain better what you believe? Thank you.gpuccio_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Briefly, a compatibilist is someone who tries to avoid the logic of his premises by resorting to semantic dodges about the meaning of free will.
I keep seeing this talk about "logic of premises", but nobody ever lays out a precise list of premises and then does a clear logical inference. Human concepts, such as choice, are not precise enough to make such logical arguments. When people have what they call "logical disagreements", they are usually disagreeing over premises, not over the logic.Neil Rickert_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Could you please explain better in what sense you are a compatibilist, but not a determinist?
The compatibilist and incompatibilist versions of free will differ in what they mean by choice. And the compatibilist version seems a better fit for the ordinary meaning of choosing. I'm not a determinist, because I don't see persuasive evidence of determinism. The arguments that are said to support determinism seem flawed.Neil Rickert_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Neil Rickert: Could you please explain better in what sense you are a compatibilist, but not a determinist? Thank you.gpuccio_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Neil, Calvinists deny free will. They do not say it is compatible with predestination. They say predestination precludes it. I will grant that many Calvinists try to have it both ways through various semantic dodges, and to the extent they engage in such semantic dodges you are correct, they are just like compatibilists. Also, how can you be a compatibilist if you are not a determinist? The "compatible" in "compatibilism" means compatible with determinism. Thus, saying I am a non-determinist compatibilist is a contradiction in terms. It is saying "I believe free will is compatible with a false concept." Finally, I will repost my previous comment to MF about compatiblism: Compatiblism is not correct. Briefly, a compatibilist is someone who tries to avoid the logic of his premises by resorting to semantic dodges about the meaning of free will. The compatibilist says that free will is compatible with determinism (thus the name). Isn’t that kinda like saying my existence is compatible with my nonexistence? Yes, it is. But the compatibilist avoids this problem by re-defining “free will.” The compatibilist says that “free will” does not mean “the liberty to choose, i.e., the ability to have done otherwise;” instead, says he, it means “the absence of coercion.” In other words, he says that so long as a choice is not coerced it is completely free even if it is utterly determined. The problem with this approach is easy to see – just as we don’t get to win a game by changing the rules to suit us in the middle of the game, we don’t get to impose meaning on words to suit the conclusion we want to reach. The entire issue in the determinism/free will debate is whether we have liberty to choose defined as “the ability to have done otherwise.” Suppose I ask my friend the following question: “Do I have free will, if by ‘free will’ I mean ‘the ability to have done otherwise?’” It is obviously no answer to that question for him to say, “Yes, indeed, you have free will if by free will you mean, ‘the absence of coercion.’” I really do want to explore the question about whether I have the ability to have done otherwise, and my friend’s answer is not helpful. You might even say he dodged the question. Thus, in the end, the compatibilist answers a question no one has asked. “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, aphorism 109Barry Arrington_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

This is a fairly common view, roughly that of compatibilism. The name is intended to imply that free will is compatible with determinism. Compatibilists are not necessarily determinists, but those who are determinists will make similar statements. For the record, I'm a compatibilist (I think that's the better account of free will), but I am not a determinist. I have always been skeptical of determinism. Pretty much the same argument can be found in Christian theology, except that it is worded as an argument that predestination is compatible with free will. It appears to be a common Calvinist view.Neil Rickert_{April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply