Refuting “Three Arguments Against Determinism”
ORIGINAL: https://reknew.org/2018/10/three-arguments-against-determinism/
ARGUMENT:
The Incoherence of Ordained Morality.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
The connection between moral responsibility and free will is both deeply intuitive and logically necessary.
This is an emotional argument.
- Denying this connection results in logical incoherence.
Incoherence refers to the quality of not making logical sense or of not being logically connected. This statement is illogical.
- The author uses the example of a Calvinist belief: God can ordain evil actions without becoming morally compromised, while the agents performing those actions become morally evil. The author argues this belief is beyond counter-intuitive; it’s incoherent, as it lacks grounding in our experienced reality.
Experienced Reality is not what we base our beliefs on:
The Bible teaches that faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen [Hebrews 11:1]
We must continually and rigorously test our beliefs against the only standard that counts — the Bible… Human nature is lazy and often relies on human reasoning, the word of others, or tradition rather than studying the Bible and believing what it says. We must discern what is good from evil and judge our beliefs against unambiguous scriptures. The Bible is the basis for reality, and what God says becomes reality [Psalm 33:6, 9]…
- The author challenges anyone to provide an analogy that can give meaning to the concept of an agent being morally responsible for what God ordained them to do.
Heres A Go At It:
In the grand tapestry of existence, consider that every thread has been preordained by a master weaver, akin to God in this metaphor. Every colour, every twist and turn of the thread, every intersecting point with other threads has been meticulously planned out. The weaver decides where each thread starts and ends, painting a magnificent picture of the universe’s deterministic blueprint.
Now, envision each thread as an individual, or an ‘agent’ in the context of your question. The thread’s path is predestined by the weaver, symbolizing the deterministic view that every action, every decision, is the result of an unbroken chain of causality.
However, within this deterministic framework, the thread can exhibit unique characteristics. The texture, the vibrancy of the colour, the strength of the thread — these attributes contribute to the overall beauty and integrity of the tapestry. Even though the path of the thread is predetermined, the way it presents itself within the tapestry is up to the thread itself.
In terms of moral responsibility, the thread has the duty to maintain its strength, its vibrancy, and its texture. Despite the predetermined path, the thread itself must ensure that it does not fray or fade, as that would affect the tapestry as a whole.
This metaphor illustrates the deterministic view of moral responsibility — while every action might be the result of preordained causality, individuals still have a duty to maintain their integrity and contribute positively to the grand design.
- The author further explores this argument in their response to Paul Helseth in “Four Views of Divine Providence”.
Slightly a strawman argument book:
Paul Kjoss Helseth’s view in “Four Views on Divine Providence,” advocating for God causing all things, might be seen as an extreme interpretation of divine sovereignty that doesn’t fully reckon with the nuanced understanding of God’s providence and man’s responsibility as found in Reformed theology.
While Calvinism indeed emphasizes God’s sovereignty, it also illustrates the distinction between God’s decrees and human agency. The Westminster Confession of Faith, a key Reformed document, affirms that God “freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass,” but also that God has done so “in such a way that thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures” (III.I and III.II).
Helseth’s view appears to blur this distinction by asserting that God directly causes all things, which could be construed as making God the author of sin. From a Calvinistic standpoint, God ordains all things that come to pass, but he doesn’t directly cause all things, particularly sin. Sin is the result of human transgression, and while it falls within God’s sovereign decree, God is not its author.
Reformed theology upholds the doctrine of concurrence, which maintains that God’s sovereignty works in conjunction with human actions, rather than nullifying them. This means humans are still morally responsible for their actions, even as God sovereignly achieves his purposes through them.
From a Calvinistic Reformed perspective, Helseth’s view may be seen as lacking the necessary nuance to uphold the biblical tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility without compromising the character of God or the moral accountability of human agents.
ARGUMENT # 2
Determinism is Self-Refuting.
SUMMARY:
If free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, a person’s belief in this concept is also predetermined.
Yes, is there a problem?
- The notion of a belief being “true” or “false” becomes problematic when it is viewed as a predetermined event, not a reasoned conclusion… Analogously, natural events like snowfall are predetermined by preexisting conditions, but we don’t categorize them as “true” or “false”.
the comparison between a belief and a natural event {example} :snowfall is a category error, leading to a misinterpretation of the concept of determinism.
Here’s how:
Different Nature of Events: Beliefs and natural events, {such as snowfall}, are fundamentally different.
Beliefs are cognitive processes subject to evaluation based on their correspondence to reality (truth or falsity). In contrast, natural events like snowfall are physical phenomena, not cognitive ones. They are not true or false; they simply occur.
Determinism and Truth Value: Determinism posits that every event, including the formation of beliefs, is the inevitable result of antecedent states of affairs. However, it doesn’t dismiss the truth values of beliefs. \
A belief being predetermined does not negate its capacity to be true or false. Instead, it suggests that the process leading to the belief (whether true or false) was set by preceding conditions.
Reasoned Conclusions in Determinism: The argument assumes that predetermined events cannot be reasoned conclusions, which is not necessarily accurate in a deterministic view. Determinism would argue that reasoning itself is a series of predetermined cognitive processes leading to a conclusion (a belief). This does not automatically invalidate the truth or falsity of the conclusion.
- This argument challenges the validity of predetermined beliefs and draws into question the conceptual framework where free will is dismissed as an illusion.
Philosophical Reasoning:
Causal Determinism: The universe operates under laws of cause and effect. Every event has a cause or set of causes that inevitably lead to the event. This principle extends to our thoughts and actions, which are influenced by our genetics, environment, and past experiences.
Incompatibilism: This philosophical stance argues that free will and determinism cannot coexist. If our actions are determined by prior events, then we could not have acted differently — contradicting the traditional concept of free will.
Empirical Evidence:
Neuroscience: Studies in neuroscience provide empirical support for determinism. Neuroscientific experiments, like those by Benjamin Libet, have shown that brain activity related to decision-making can be detected before a person reports being consciously aware of making the decision. This suggests that our choices are determined by prior brain activity, rather than a conscious, free will.
Psychology and Sociology: These fields provide evidence that our behaviors and beliefs are heavily influenced by factors outside of our control, such as our upbringing, social environment, and genetic predispositions.
ARGUMENT #3
Refuting Determinism By Action.
People’s actions often reveal their true beliefs more than their words do, suggesting that our behavior is a more reliable indicator of our convictions.
Belief doesn't prove nor disprove any ideologies or truth.
- Even if individuals intellectually deny free will, the act of deliberating implies a belief in free will because it involves considering different options and making a decision.
The statement argues that the act of deliberation inherently implies a belief in free will; however, this perspective does not fully comprehend the depth and complexity.
- The process of deliberation does not necessarily equate to the existence of free will.
Deliberation: The act of deliberating, or of weighing and examining the reasons for and against a choice or measure; careful consideration; mature reflection.
Deliberation could be seen as a result of deterministic processes, such as genetic predispositions, learned behaviors, or environmental influences — all of which guide our decision-making.
2. The concept of free will is not universally defined.
In a compatibilist view, free will can coexist with determinism. Compatibilists argue that free will is not about being free from causality but about acting according to one’s own motives and desires, even if these are determined by prior events.
3. The assumed connection between deliberation and free will may be based on a misunderstanding of what it means to deny free will.
Rejecting free will doesn’t necessarily imply that one rejects the existence of conscious decision-making processes. It might mean acknowledging that these processes have causes and are not completely free from external or internal influences.
While the act of deliberation is a complex cognitive process that involves considering options and making decisions, equating it directly with a belief in free will oversimplifies the intricate and nuanced debate surrounding the concept of free will.
- Deliberation inherently assumes the possibility of different outcomes depending on the choice made, which is consistent with the concept of free will.
Deterministic factors that can influence the decision-making process encompass a wide range of variables, such as biological, psychological, and environmental factors. Here are a few examples:
Biological Factors:
These include genetic predispositions, hormonal levels, and brain structure. For example, certain genetic variations can make individuals more prone to impulsivity or risk-taking behaviors, influencing their decisions in various situations.
Psychological Factors:
These encompass learned behaviors, attitudes, and biases. For instance, an individual with a pessimistic mindset (potentially shaped by past experiences) may tend to make more conservative decisions due to a bias towards negative outcomes.
Environmental Factors:
These involve the physical and social environment in which a person lives. For example, socioeconomic status can significantly affect decision-making. Someone from a low-income background may make different financial decisions compared to someone from a high-income background due to the different resources and opportunities available to them.
Cultural Factors:
The values, norms, and beliefs of the society or culture an individual grows up in can also have a deterministic influence. For instance, in collectivist cultures, decisions may be more heavily influenced by what benefits the group rather than individual desires or needs.
Situational Factors:
The specific circumstances at the time of making a decision can also greatly influence the outcome. For example, a person might make different decisions under stress or time pressure compared to when they are relaxed and have ample time to deliberate.
All these factors can shape how individuals deliberate and what decisions they ultimately make, suggesting that our decision-making process might not be as freely willed as we often perceive it to be.
- The process of weighing pros and cons, as in deciding what task to undertake, manifests a conviction that multiple outcomes are possible and that it is up to the individual to determine the outcome.
Again.. WRONG!
Determining the exact extent to which deterministic factors influence decision-making is challenging due to the complex interplay of variables involved. However, certain methods and approaches can provide insights:
1. Twin Studies: Twin studies, especially those involving identical twins raised apart, can help gauge the impact of genetic factors on decision-making. If identical twins tend to make similar decisions despite different environments, it could suggest a strong genetic influence.
2. Longitudinal Studies: These studies track the same individuals over time and can provide insights into how changes in environmental conditions or life experiences influence decision-making.
3. Neuroscientific Research: Advances in neuroscience have allowed us to study the brain’s activity during the decision-making process. For instance, certain brain regions or pathways could be more active when making specific types of decisions, suggesting a biological basis for these choices.
4. Behavioral Economics Experiments: These experiments often involve making decisions under controlled conditions, allowing researchers to manipulate specific variables and observe their effect on decision-making.
5. Psychological Assessments: These assessments can help identify learned behaviors, attitudes, and biases that influence decision-making.
- Therefore, the very act of deliberation may suggest that, at a fundamental level, we operate under the assumption of free will, regardless of our professed intellectual beliefs.
Firstly, the assertion that we operate under the assumption of free will might be conflating the experience of conscious decision-making with the belief in free will. Just because we experience our decisions as voluntary and conscious does not necessarily mean that these decisions are free from deterministic influences. For instance, our choices could be influenced by genetic predispositions, past experiences, or current environmental conditions, even though we consciously experience these choices as freely made.
Secondly, the argument seems to indicate that the belief in free will is inherently practical or necessary for functioning in daily life. However, this isn’t necessarily the case. For example, the legal system often considers deterministic factors such as mental illness or coercion when judging an individual’s responsibility for their actions. In these cases, the assumption of free will is not absolute but is moderated by an understanding of deterministic influences.
Lastly, the argument assumes a dichotomy where one either believes in free will or doesn’t. However, the concept of free will is not black and white. There are various interpretations of free will, such as compatibilism, which asserts that free will can coexist with determinism. According to this view, our actions can be both determined by prior causes and be considered an act of free will, as long as they align with our desires and intentions.
ARGUMENT:
In other words, I reveal a deep rooted conviction that I am free as I deliberate, and the same holds true for every deliberation anyone engages in. There simply is no other way to deliberate. People may sincerely think they believe in determinism, but they act otherwise, and must act otherwise, every time they deliberate. The great American philosopher Charles Pierce argued that a belief that cannot be consistently acted on cannot be true. If he’s right about this — and I believe he is — then determinism must be false.
Think about it,
He highlights the profound nature of our experience of deliberation, emphasizing that when we engage in the act of contemplation and decision-making, we cannot help but feel a sense of agency and freedom. It is through this lens that he questions the validity of determinism, suggesting that if we genuinely believed in its truth, our actions would consistently align with its principles.
Indeed, the eminent American philosopher Charles Pierce espoused the notion that a belief that cannot be consistently acted upon cannot be true. From this perspective, if determinism were an accurate representation of reality, our very acts of deliberation would be illusory, mere products of predetermined causal chains. If determinism were to hold sway, it would render our perceived freedom as nothing more than an illusion, a grand charade.
However, it is essential to approach this argument with careful consideration, my inquisitive companion.
While the experience of deliberation and the sense of freedom it entails are undeniably profound, it is worth noting that our subjective perceptions do not always align with objective reality.
Our experiences and beliefs may be influenced by cognitive biases, societal conditioning, and a myriad of other factors. ITS LIKELY THEY ARE…
Our sense of agency and freedom within the act of deliberation can be understood as emerging from the deterministic processes themselves.
Our choices and decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors, such as our genetics, upbringing, and past experiences. Our sense of freedom arises from the complex interplay of these deterministic factors, creating the illusion of autonomy.
Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that the compatibility of determinism and free will has been the subject of extensive philosophical discourse.
Compatibilists argue that even within a deterministic framework, our actions can still be considered free if they align with our desires, values, and motivations.
In this view, free will is not necessarily the ability to act independently of deterministic causation, but rather the ability to act in accordance with our own volitions.
Shalom…
- Cami
