In the second instance, the person wants no Dixon #2 pencil.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free Will
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Careful how you word your response. I did not say 'determinism has not been shown to be the unequivocal operative behind events,' because fundamentally science has demonstrated that 'determinism has been shown to be the unequivocal operative behind events,' Being operative behind all events does not preclude the possibility that a degree of free will may exist within determinism as the different schools of compatibilism propose. Of course,any freedom of decisions that are possibly exist could only function within the constraints of Natural Laws and deterministic chains of cause and effect.
It is very possible human choices may be possible within a limited range of possible outcomes determined and limited by the factors of determinism
Not logically, though. Logically, we can only want what it is possible to want.
Earthling
David Henson
What I can tell from this list of slogans possessing very little meaning, is that determinism is a philosophy, not a science.
Skwim
Veteran Member
.
Your "mechanistically deterministic" aside---whatever "mechanistically" is supposed to mean---if it isn't conclusive then it has to be inconclusive, which means, " it was insufficiently definite." So, in your view, determinism is equivocal: uncertain.
In the end, like it or not, free will comes out as nothing more than an illusion. One, unfortunately, that is demanded and reinforced by almost all religions.
.
Then what did you mean when you said, "The current knowledge of humanity does not conclusively determine that human nature of choices is mechanistically deterministic,"?
Your "mechanistically deterministic" aside---whatever "mechanistically" is supposed to mean---if it isn't conclusive then it has to be inconclusive, which means, " it was insufficiently definite." So, in your view, determinism is equivocal: uncertain.
I agree; although, there are those who contend that it is not at work at some subatomic (quantum) level; quantum indeterminacy.
So they contend, and none of which is persuasive. In my opinion, compatibilism is nothing more than grasping at the last straws of hope in an attempt to save one's sense of freedom, and in many cases, one's religion. In all the variations I've seen, in thoughtful people it amounts to cherry picking and/or turning a blind eye. In those less thoughtful it amounts to a knee jerk pronouncement.
Okay, but that doesn't imbue them with any validity. True choices and choosing simply don't exist, which, naturally, includes decisions.
What possibility? How do choices arise without cause? How could there be an equal chance that either A or B occurs? (An unequal chance implies that some deterministic factor is at play). The causal events leading up to the "A or B" event HAVE to lead to one and not the other. To lead "to the other" REQUIRES that something different within the causal chain be different. But because there wasn't anything different, only one, and not the other, HAD to occur. So, NO choice and No choosing, Decisions are all foregone determined events.
In the end, like it or not, free will comes out as nothing more than an illusion. One, unfortunately, that is demanded and reinforced by almost all religions.
.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Mechanistically determined is your view of determinism with no room for the possibility of Free Will, and as described in the previous post I do not believe this is the case. It is the view that humans are mechanistically determined like programmed computers,
I do not believe that Quantum indeterminacy has no relevance in this question. There is no reason that anything on the Quantum level has any influence on human will.
In my opinion?!?!?!? That will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's for maybe $2.00,.
The various views of Compatibilism is not a 'last straw' for anything. It is a view based on science by professional s with more credentials than either of us. Just the fact that there is not agreement among the professionals is a sign that your aggressive one sided argument is flawed.
We are not addressing religious beliefs here. There is a trend in your modus operendi of aggressive one sided assault instead of a reasonable dialogue makes it difficult to communicate in a coherent way.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Based on science you say. Just what science is this? And in as much as you're familiar with these scientists, what are their credentials?
What professionals are you talking about? And no agreement about what? Are you expecting that my "argument" should have two sides? Usually in an "argument" people pick only one side. What other side do you feel I should take?
In any case, please tell me how my argument is flawed. I truly want to know.
Right. Religious beliefs only enter the picture as motivation, and have no bearing on the substantive aspects of the issue. .
My apologies then. Please show me where I have gone astray in my contentions. It would probably help if you took them one at a time . . . or however you choose to correct me.
I await the discussion.
.
.
Last edited:
Based on science you say. Just what science is this? And in as much as you're familiar with these scientists, what are their credentials?
What professionals are you talking about? And no agreement about what? Are you expecting my argument should have two sides? Usually in an argument people pick only one side. What other side do you feel I should take?
In any case, please tell me how my argument is flawed. I truly want to know.
Right, Religious beliefs only enter the picture as motivation, and have no bearing on the substantive aspects of the issue. .
My apologies then. Please show me where I have gone astray in my contentions. And it would probably help if you took them one at a time, or however you choose to correct me.
I await the discussion.
How is your argument flawed?
It is a dogmatic one sided argument that does not reflect the diverse views without a consensus of the professionals in the fields related to the topic. Opinions are more salt on wounds than meaningful in discussion.
I proposed that a degree of Free Will is possible based on the present evidence and research on the professional level. Libertarian Free Will asserted by some religious beliefs is off the table as far as evidence has determined.
simply because someone wants, desires, something impossible doesn't mean they can have free will to be everything at one moment. that is the Absolute's free will
Skwim
Veteran Member
In as much as you're unable to identify any of these professionals, or even the science upon which they base their "consensus," NOR have I ever heard of such a significant consensus, I suspect there is none. However, If I'm wrong, feel free to enlighten me.
Fine. I'm more than willing to consider the evidence, just present it.
.
I judged correctly dialogue with you is shrouded in the rejection of science with a religious agenda.
The foundation of determinism is in science all the way up to the nature of being human. Your reference to philosophy is a dodge,because of your rejection of science.
The question of the degree of Free Will is not resolved yet, but the fact that determinism dominates the natural world and the nature of being human is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh boy! Just present it! How trite! You could easily do this yourself. I do not like to spoon feed,
I will give you some references,but you have ignored the bottom line. The question is unresolved. You maybe pleased some that propose compatibilism like Dennett allow very little room for Free Will.
Compatibilism is only one view that allows human Free Will to be compatible with determinism.
Compatibilism - Bibliography - PhilPapers - Great beginning
"Compatibilist views of free will hold that free will is compatible with causal determinism. Classical compatibilists argued that determinism does not entail that agents lack alternative possibilities. They often advanced conditional accounts of alternatives (eg, the agent can do otherwise if, were she to want to do otherwise, she would). In more recent times, compatibilists have often denied that we need a power to do otherwise for freedom. Most contemporary compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with but does not require determinism. So-called Hobartian compatibilists hold that determinism is required for free will."
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - McKenna 2008 - is excellent. Though he is not (quite) a compatibilist himself, Fischer 2007 is a thorough articulation and defense, as is Haji 2002.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/books/scandal/Dennett.pdf
Earthling
David Henson
No, I think you made the mistake of confusing philosophical concepts with science. I wasn't rejecting science. The empty phrase you posited had nothing to do with science or with biblical teachings regarding free will nor, arguably, I suppose, even theological doctrine of those things.
Libertarian Free will is a metaphysical concept, Hard Determinism is about cause. Event and Agent causation, reductionism . . . I don't think that the biblical concept of free will is represented by these philosophical and metaphysical excursions. The biblical concept of free will is a great deal more simple than that. It's simply being able to do what you want within reason. God doesn't predetermine who is granted everlasting life, for example. Since everlasting life is a undeserved kindness granted by our creator it's accurate to say God doesn't predetermine, but he does determine. Big difference.
Skwim
Veteran Member
That's it!! You can't even articulate the evidence in your own words? All you can do is point to sources that favor your position? But I'm really not surprised you're unable to make the case yourself. I presented an argument, and rather than address its points all you could do is complain that it didn't fit what you claimed should be my "argument's" proper form (a ludicrous ploy to be sure), and allude to others who defend compatibilism. Being my first clue that you were unable defend compatibilism---I'd bet good money that you, like a lot of compatibilists, have never read a thing against the concept---I decided to give you as much chance as I could to redeem yourself. But alas, you cannot.
What is apparent is that, although you confuse its venue, philosophy, with science, you do recognize the logic of determinism (and good for you
) your personal needs appear to have driven you seek escape by adopting compatibilism. But this isn't an unusual stratagem at all. A lot of people who are uneasy with the fact of determinism latch onto compatibilism to sooth its unnerving implications. So, although I can't blame you for your "choice," your inability to defend it is rather disappointing.I leave you in the comfort of your compatibilism.
Have a good day.
.
Last edited:
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Not really.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The Absolute doesn't have free will. It really doesn't exist outside of delusion.
Perhaps our disagreement lies in what is impossible and what you feel is impossible.
That's it!! You can't even articulate the evidence in your own words? All you can do is point to sources that favor your position? But I'm really not surprised you're unable to make the case yourself. I presented an argument, and rather than address its points all you could do is complain that it didn't fit what you claimed should be my "argument's" proper form (a ludicrous ploy to be sure), and allude to others who defend compatibilism. Being my first clue that you were unable defend compatibilism---I'd bet good money that you, like a lot of compatibilists, have never read a thing against the concept---I decided to give you as much chance as I could to redeem yourself. But alas, you cannot.
What is apparent is that, although you confuse its venue, philosophy, with science, you do recognize the logic of determinism (and good for you
I leave you in the comfort of your compatibilism.
Have a good day.
.
I guess I have to give up that you are a literate fellow and can read the well referenced sources for yourself. No you did not present a coherent argument for mechanistic determinism without free will with explanations, references, and articulate explanations. All you have done is aggressively and repeatedly assert your view is absolutely true. Sounds familiar like the modus operandi of Fundi Christians concerning science, and we are dealing with science.
The sources I cited did give explanations and referenced other more technical references, and you simply choose the 'stone wall' and break off dialogue. By the way you have failed to cite any competent sources to support your aggressive one-sided personal view.