Skwim
Veteran Member
No I don't.
Randomness in the sense that an event could arise uncaused, no.
It's strictly deterministic, which would include all the operating mechanisms of nature.
.
Last edited:
-
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 Vs Determinism
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
.
If we have self-determination, i.e. a degree of control over our own lives, then why would we not hold practical responsibility for our own actions, even if we’re not ultimately responsible?
So you endorse the doctrine of necessity? The state of things existing at any time, together with certain immutable laws, completely determine the state of things at any other time?
I guess I have trouble explaining some features of the universe in a strictly mechanistic theory. Growth, increasing complexity, variety and diversity of life, origin of natural laws, the mind and consciousness... it just doesn’t seem to work like a machine or clock.
I can’t help but see chance and spontaneity playing a part. Going down the rabbit hole of reality, it seems to have alternating layers of causality and chaos.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Self-determination, "the process by which a person controls their own life" would only be applicable under the principle of free will, which I reject. So the term is meaningless. People don't have self-determination any more than they have the ability to freely choose. People do what they do because they can't do any differently.
As a philosophical concept, I've always regarded it as identical to determinism. So, in answer to your question, I have to say, yes. The only caveat would be that the state of things existing at any time could not determine the state of things in the past.
So where does your difficulty in explaining lie? If nothing else, put the operation, whatever it is, in context that requires an explanation of "How?" How did X arise? If X arose "because . . . ," then that cause operates as the reason for X. And, of course, that cause had to have something that caused it as well, and so on back down the line of cause and effect. If X arose without cause then it had to have arisen utterly randomly. And so far nothing in our universe has been determined to have arisen utterly randomly: i.e. totally uncaused.
But wouldn't those instances of chances and spontaneity require a cause? Or do you see them arising for absolutely no reason whatsoever?
Okay, but it's no reason to dismiss determinism.
When I first discovered the truth of determinism it was a bit unsettling, particularly when all its ramifications started popping up, but try as I could, I refused to dismiss it because of those ramifications. Like it or not, there was no compelling rational to dismiss it, least of which was any personal dislike or unease.
.
I guess I was confusing fatalism with determinism. Our choices are caused, but also have meaningful consequences that change the future. I agree that we shouldn’t bear ultimate responsibility in a retributive blame-and-shame game.
I’m just not convinced that practical responsibility and self-determination are incompatible with determinism. Think of it as a deterministic process in which one has a degree of control over one’s own life. The pragmatic and social advantages are difficult to deny.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Actually, fatalism is nothing more than a conclusion about determinism, so they're really quite closely related.
Looks like you're on the right track.
That we do things like laying blame and giving praise, when philosophically we know neither are deserved, are two of those illusions we can't seem to avoid. We are caused to live around the assumptive truth their of illusional natures despite knowing, on reflection, they're false. Personally, I live my life in this illusion, not able to help but act as if my will is free. I cannot do otherwise. It's what I am caused to do.
.
I’d argue that fatalism and determinism are distinct concepts, and that the difference matters.
That we do things like laying blame and giving praise, when philosophically we know neither are deserved, are two of those illusions we can't seem to avoid. We are caused to live around the assumptive truth their of illusional natures despite knowing, on reflection, they're false. Personally, I live my life in this illusion, not able to help but act as if my will is free. I cannot do otherwise. It's what I am caused to do.
.
I think that we can live beyond them with mental training. They can be avoided with mindfulness.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I'm all ears
Under fatalism, we have one true ‘fate’ that will occur regardless of what we think, feel, or do. The future state is inevitable and we are merely passive victims or observers. Our actions have no meaningful effect. Such belief encourages a passive and submissive attitude of resignation. We’re powerless.
Within basic determinism, our choices have causes and meaningful consequences. We’re active participants in the process of causality. What we think, feel, and do have an effect upon the future. The act of deliberation is worthwhile.
I believe I am fated to establish free will.
Skwim
Veteran Member
In a sense, yes we are.
Oh, but they do. Just ask the guy who's been stabbed in the stomach.
So it might be concluded, but still one that needs evidence. What ya got?
In a sense, yes.
Seems you're still not grasping determinism. Determinism has no room for choices. On does not freely pick up A instead of B. One is made to (caused) to pick up A instead of B
Determinism not only governs physical acts but mental ones as well. What you think and feel are just as determined---outside any ability to control---as is what one physically does. It's the reason so many people reject determinism. It negates free will.
.
Can free will have a limited existence in a determined universe? If determinism is the overall condition, is there room for free choice within that?
Oh, I grasp it well enough now. I just don’t share a cognitive dissonance in my sense of identity as an active participant in the process of causality. You may understand determinism on an intellectual level, but not quite on an experiential one.
Yes, our choices are caused and they have consequences, but that’s who we are. I am who I am because of who I was, and because of who I want to become.
Hello Dan,
Welcome to the conversation.
Both belief in fate and free will are extreme views that dance around a truth that is accurate and precise.
Welcome to the conversation.
Both belief in fate and free will are extreme views that dance around a truth that is accurate and precise.
I knew it!
We still make choices. They’re not ‘free’ in any absolute or metaphysical sense, but coherent with our characters. We’re active participants in the process of causality. Any other explanation involves a cognitive dissonance or psychological evasion tactic.
I don't know that attempts to find explanations are cognitive dissonance or evasions. Though I do wonder about declarations of absolutes.
I am also skeptical of dogmatic absolutes. Explanations should be accurate and reliable in describing our experiences of reality.
To admit otherwise is to believe that one’s identity is somehow outside of the chain of causality rather than being an active participant. It’s like a solder being practically responsible for particular acts even though ultimate responsibility rests up the chain of command.