Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 am 1. I do not believe there is a god.
It's ambiguous!
Is it? Well, thank you for the brightness you attribute to me; but given that, would you not assume I am aware of inflection and commas? (Try reading this aloud 5 times, emphasising a different word each time: 'I didn't kill my wife'.) If you can credit me with that awareness, what meaning do you give to a flatly read, comma free
1. I do not believe there is a god?
And how does it differ from the "unambiguous"
2. I believe there is no god?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 amThere is no strictness in atheism that requires anyone to insist there is no god.
Your definition, and that's fine!
Well, mine and everyone else who knows what it means.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 amAgnosticism is generally taken to mean 'Don't know, don't care', but as you are keen on definitions,
Without exacting definitions, no one can speak, or be understood to have spoken, "clearly," at all! As ones differentiated meanings cannot necessarily be grasped out of thin air. It would be nice if they could be. Hey, aren't you and I currently combating that very thing, (misconception?)
You are pushing against an open door if you are trying to persuade me that language is contextual.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 amhere's one for agnosticism:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology." That was written by Thomas Huxley, and if anyone knows what agnosticism means, it's him, because he invented the word.
But not the idea!
What idea are you referring to? It would help a great deal if you could explain what you understand by 'agnosticism'.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pmI thank you for that, my friend! I had no idea that he existed or that he coined the term. Of course he had much help, as the ideology goes way back in time, even as far as Socrates!
Again, it would help to know what you understand by 'agnosticism'; that way, we could work out what goes back to Newton, or Galileo, arguably Ptolemy; Archimedes is pushing it. Can you really trace it to Socrates?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu May 18, 2017 10:14 pmThere's nothing you can say that I can't get my head around if I care to!
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 8:39 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 amThat's the spirit. Try again then.
No need for that comment, it's your testosterone speaking. I need not try again! See my dissection of your two sentences above to understand why!
As I said; it would be useful to know what you mean by agnosticism.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by ken »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pm Hello, Ken:
ken wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 10:47 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:15 pm Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent.
How do you propose that follows?

... [proper guidance and care]...
If you're giving them this, then there are a number of things they are likely to want to do, that you will not let them. For example, you won't let them play on the roadway. You won't let them eat nothing but sugar. You won't let them stay up as late as they would sometimes wish. You won't let them watch anything they find on the internet...and so on.
A few things here;

1. I would much prefer you talk about what you think and what you would do instead of trying to guess and assume what I might think or what I might do. If you continue to do the latter, then you will inevitably sometimes end up being completely and totally completely wrong.

2. No matter if children are getting proper guidance and care or improper guidance and no care I would suggest, in this current way of life, that there will still be a number of things that children are likely to want to do, that adults will not let them. Most adults are not comfortable if they are not trying to control others in some way or another.

3. As for what I would or would not let them do, then that depends on all the variables. In each of your examples you gave here I have let children do those things. So, you are completely and totally wrong.

4. As I previously asked, 'If you brought up children with only love [proper guidance and care] AND also allowed them to do as they please, then why would you be a horrible parent?' still stands. Feel free to answer the question if you so wish. I propose if you give children enough love, proper guidance and care, then they highly more likely would not want to do anything that you would not want them to do, thus you could let them do as they please, and I propose you will NOT be a horrible parent at all.

5. Do you feel above and/or better then others when you make big judgement calls such as the "horrible parent" remark?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pmThe distinction between "proper guidance" and permissiveness is the very distinction I'm pointing to.
Were you? I never saw it. Can you now point us to where you were pointing to this distinction prior?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pmAbsent "proper guidance," yes, you'd be a horrible parent -- and uncaring, too, since you would evidently have no concern for their actual welfare. But I think you already know that, because you felt inclined to add "proper guidance and care" as a conditional to your question. Absent those, there would be bad parenting going on.
So what you are saying here is every parent is a horrible parent, doing bad parenting. Another huge judgement call I would suggest. I do not judge people that way. What I would suggest is that every adult does some wrong things, which in turn influences children the wrong way. This is called child abuse. To Me, wrong parenting can be unintentional whereas bad parenting is intentional. The reason ALL adults do some wrong to children and in front of children is due to the very fact that they themselves were abused as children.

To Me absent love, proper guidance and care, then there would be less than best parenting. Nothing more, nothing less.

But you are suggesting that no matter how much proper guidance and care you give children, that if you still "let your children to do as they please", then you will still be a "horrible parent". This implies that children are born to do wrong and/or bad things. You say that if children are not restricted in one way or another from doing some things that they wish to do, by a controlling parent, then the parent is horrible. This appears to be a very religious, and a very WRONG, teaching to Me. It comes across as though an older or "upper" figures, for example adults, parents, doctrines, teachings, et cetera, KNOW what is right and that younger or "lower" figures, that is children, do NOT know what is right and that by controlling those children they will "learn" or MUST follow a certain way.

One day it will be understood that the exact opposite is the truth.

Children are not born to do wrong and bad things. Children learn to do wrong things by following adults, especially their parents.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pm
Does that God interfere with human beings or does It let It's children [human beings] do as they please?
You'd have to nuance your characterizations before I'd know what was the appropriate answer there. Do you mean, "Does God allow their wills to have effects," or "Does God micromanage the universe?" Or "Are miracles possible," or "Does 'natural law' eliminate the possibility of divine action..."
There is no more "appropriate" an answer other than the one you supply. I am not looking for any particular answer, other than your truly honest and open answer. I also do not want to change anything different in the question nor make the meaning of the question any other way. I simply ask, 'Does that God, which you believe in, interfere with human beings or does It let human beings do as they please. Only you can answer that question, It is after all your God, so you must already know the appropriate answer. Do not worry I am not asking you to pass a test or anything. I am just asking you if you know if God does interfere with human beings or not. If you do know, then answer with a "Yes" or a "No". If you do not know, then so be it. And, if you say God does interfere with human beings, then just provide how you think this occurs.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pmYou can see the difficulties in interpreting your question, I'm sure.
No I can not. To Me, the question is a very straight-forward simple question. I do not see any ambiguity in the question so I can not see any difficulty in interpreting it.

Again you trying to guess and/or assume what I see or do, will inevitably show that you are wrong. Just look at the question for what IT IS and not for what you THINK it is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pm
If a God does let It's children do as they please, then does that make that God a horrible "parent"?
I would say we're too far from describing the situation there, by way of a poor analogy. For parents are notoriously deficient in omniscience. They are incapable of seeing all of the best outcomes from the beginning, or of calculating the real effects of their decisions. They also lack the omnipotence to bring about what they discern to be the best results. They merely do the best they can, and always in a flawed way.
Yet you think you are the one who can judge other and if they are "horrible or bad parents" or not.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pmSo at best, I would suggest that the word "parent" there is a weak analogy, not entirely unfitting, but not good if we try to apply it in absolutely every respect. God also doesn't have labour pains when we're born, or die when we're in late middle age. That doesn't make Him less of a "parent." But it also makes him somewhat unlike human parents.
Father's also do not have labor pains when children are born, so are they also somewhat unlike human parents?

As for when people actually die I will leave that for another matter and time.

Why do you still call God a "him"?

If 'we', human beings, are God's children, as some might say, then would that not make God 'our' parent/s?

Or do you say 'we' are not God's children?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pm
If God does not let It's children do as they please, then how does God do this?
Why would we presume an either/or? Why not consider that God sometimes allows complete freedom, and sometimes intervenes? Do not good parents do exactly the same? They let the children play as they please...within appropriate bounds...only intervening when necessity and love dictate they should.

Why not rather say both?
Did you forget it was I who was asking you the question. I have been waiting for to answer the question. If your answer is "both", then great. We are finally moving ahead.

By the way I never presume an either/or. That was you who was presuming that. I just asked a simple open question.

I am amused here again by your ability to think that you can make the judgement call, "good parents".

But anyhow we are back at How do propose God intervenes?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 4:15 pm
And then how does your responses reflect with your beliefs in free will and/or determinism.
I'm not a Determinist (i.e. no free will). Nor am I a Deist (i.e. nothing but free will). When it comes to speaking of divine action, I would say I'm of the "both" camp. There is genuine human free will. There are also periodic episodes of direct divine action. And with both, there is complete foreknowledge by God, and so ultimate divine sovereignty. That's where I sit at the moment.
What do you mean by divine action? Is that opposed, superimposed, and/or supernatural to natural actions?

When do the alleged periodic episodes of direct divine action happen? How did they happen? And, what was the actual actions that took place?

By the way if anyone had been following any thing I have written about free will AND determinism, then they would have noticed that, to Me, they both exist equally. I also question people why do they pick one side or the other, and why do think that it has to be either one or the other?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

ken wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 2:56 pm A few things here;

1. I would much prefer you talk about what you think and what you would do instead of trying to guess and assume what I might think or what I might do. If you continue to do the latter, then you will inevitably sometimes end up being completely and totally completely wrong.
Wow. That's a lot of agitation. I seem to have hit on some nerve of which I was unaware. I suspect the cause is my use of the editorial pronoun "you," rather than "one," which always has the danger of seeming to single out a particular person for accusation.

That was not my thought. But if I've offended you on that count, I apologize. The fault was mine. I did not intend to convey any accusation. I simply thought the principle rather obvious; that parents who let their children run riot are demonstrating a lack of "proper direction and care," to use your terms. And it seems to me that that is pretty much definitional in the terms "proper" and "care."

But if you suppose otherwise, it's not a point important enough to warrant further consternation. I yield the wording to you.
Children are not born to do wrong and bad things. Children learn to do wrong things by following adults, especially their parents.
Now, this point I would think worth debating.

I think that thinking that children are born innocent is the luxury of those who spend little time on the playground. A schoolyard is a place of raw power, in which the boys with size and strength dominate the smaller and weaker, and the girls gifted with the power of beauty tyrannize the less gifted. Unless they all have truly horrid parents who train them in vicious and self-serving behaviour, I think they have their own innate resources on which to draw for much of that.

I don't recall when my parents taught my young brothers and I to hit one another. They did no such thing to any of us, nor to each other, nor to anyone else. But we became skilled at it very quickly.
I simply ask, 'Does that God, which you believe in, interfere with human beings or does It let human beings do as they please. Only you can answer that question, It is after all your God, so you must already know the appropriate answer.
Then I answer, "interfere"? No. For "interfere" is a pejorative term, and already slants the question in the wrong direction.
I do not see any ambiguity in the question so I can not see any difficulty in interpreting it.
Then I suppose my answer is also unambiguous. No.
Yet you think you are the one who can judge other and if they are "horrible or bad parents" or not.
No, I do not presume to judge by remote. But some things are definitional. A person isn't a "parent" if they have no children, for example. For by definition, a "parent" is a relational term pertaining to children, just as are "father," "mother," "brother" and "sister." And this much I will venture: that an indifferent parent (that is, one who neither "cares" nor provides "guidance," to borrow your terms) is a bad parent. That may not be quite definitional, but it's as close as one can come with a value judgment, perhaps.
If 'we', human beings, are God's children, as some might say, then would that not make God 'our' parent/s?

Or do you say 'we' are not God's children?
Analogies are not one-to-one correspondence, as I said before. To call a person a "fox" does not mean he has a tail and red fur. Yet it still communicates an aspect of his character in a telling way.

In judging of analogies, one always has to say what aspect of the analogy is being emphasized. It's never the whole thing, or it's not an analogy at all; it's the thing-in-itself.
Did you forget it was I who was asking you the question.
Well, I didn't "forget:" one can't "forget" a person one has never met. So no slight was intended there.
I have been waiting for to answer the question. If your answer is "both", then great. We are finally moving ahead.
Then I have answered, as you say.
But anyhow we are back at How do propose God intervenes?
You said "interferes" above. That would change my answer. With which term did you wish to continue?
What do you mean by divine action? Is that opposed, superimposed, and/or supernatural to natural actions?
A Supreme Being would most certainly be capable of intervening to interrupt the natural laws that He had set in place. Now, since He has set them in place as regularities, He would not do so all the time, it seems to me: for why bother with laws, if that's the case? But if He should so wish, there would be no reason why the One who had the power to create those laws should not have power to interrupt them too.

The Deists would agree God has the power to interrupt physical regularities he's established, but would say that God does not do that. Some suppose that any miraculous intervention would imply bad workmanship on the part of the "Divine Watchmaker." I don't think that.
When do the alleged periodic episodes of direct divine action happen? How did they happen? And, what was the actual actions that took place?
As I say above, I do believe miraculous intervention is possible. And I would argue we have specific instances of the same, as recorded in the Bible, for example: preeminent among these would surely be the resurrection of the dead, and Christ in particular.
By the way if anyone had been following any thing I have written about free will AND determinism, then they would have noticed that, to Me, they both exist equally. I also question people why do they pick one side or the other, and why do think that it has to be either one or the other?
I can see the problem from a Determinist perspective. That is, allow ANY free will, and you have something less than strict Determinism in place. Moreover, it then argues that physical laws and regularities are not the total story of the universe, and that seems to threaten causal attribution, and to some, even science itself.

Again, I don't agree with their position. Periodic intervention does not threaten causality or science. It just implies that there will be events very occasionally for which material causality and human science will not be the adequate and total explanation. Under normal conditions, the material and causal regularities will still hold. When they definitely do not, and when we perceive that they do not, only then need we speak of the "miraculous."
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
I can see the problem from a Determinist perspective. That is, allow ANY free will, and you have something less than strict Determinism in place. Moreover, it then argues that physical laws and regularities are not the total story of the universe, and that seems to threaten causal attribution, and to some, even science itself.

Again, I don't agree with their position. Periodic intervention does not threaten causality or science. It just implies that there will be events very occasionally for which material causality and human science will not be the adequate and total explanation. Under normal conditions, the material and causal regularities will still hold. When they definitely do not, and when we perceive that they do not, only then need we speak of the "miraculous."
Well argued.

Two questions: what is the use of miracles: can there be sufficient evidence for miracles?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 7:44 amWell argued.
Thank you.
Two questions: what is the use of miracles: can there be sufficient evidence for miracles?
Answer 1: A short and conventional answer might be that miracles are specific incidents designed to attest to the presence and intention of the Supreme Being.

Answer 2: It depends on what you mean by "sufficient evidence," and on the specific miracle in question, I would say. We don't have "absolute" evidence for much of anything, so what makes evidence "sufficient" would decide whether or not we had enough of it.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 3:50 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 7:44 amWell argued.
Thank you.
Two questions: what is the use of miracles: can there be sufficient evidence for miracles?
Answer 1: A short and conventional answer might be that miracles are specific incidents designed to attest to the presence and intention of the Supreme Being.

Answer 2: It depends on what you mean by "sufficient evidence," and on the specific miracle in question, I would say. We don't have "absolute" evidence for much of anything, so what makes evidence "sufficient" would decide whether or not we had enough of it.

My reply to Answer 1.

Yes and indeed they do so. But what is the use of their doing so, or in other words who do miracles serve?
My reply to Answer 2.

Sufficient evidence is what would be judged sufficient evidence in a trial under secular law . The question is "Who or what did it?" "Did God do it, or did nature do it? "

Take for instance the case of the Fatima miracle. (Any miracle would do). The motives and reliability of the witnesses. Precedents for the sun's moving and dancing. Expert evidence from psychologists, sociologists, weathermen, and astronomers.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 4:16 pm
My reply to Answer 1.

Yes and indeed they do so. But what is the use of their doing so, or in other words who do miracles serve?
I would say they server the purposes of God, but also the best interests of mankind. In fact, their primary value is as a communication between the two of some important truth.
My reply to Answer 2.

Sufficient evidence is what would be judged sufficient evidence in a trial under secular law . The question is "Who or what did it?" "Did God do it, or did nature do it? "
"Law"? Secularism has no non-arbitrary "laws," since secularism rules out objective "laws," or at least treats such as if they do not exist.

But if you mean "methodologies," then any "secular methodology" already refuses to entertain any metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena. But that too is merely arbitrary: if the world is a "secular" place, then why should any particular methodology at all be obligatory?

But perhaps I know what you're trying to express. Maybe you're just asking whether non-sectarian historical, observational and critical methods are adequate to establish the existence of a particular miracle.

I think they are. At least beyond reasonable question, in some particular cases.
The motives and reliability of the witnesses.
This is the sort of thing I imagined you might mean.

Well, "motive" is always difficult to evaluate. Even people we know today are tricky in that regard.

"Witnesses"...that's better. Even today, we use witnesses to establish the truth of propositions. Two of them, or even one-plus-good-circumstantial-evidence, can send a felon to prison for life. I'd say we regard that as pretty convincing as a means of gathering evidence.

And, of course, first-hand evidence, our own, is even more compelling.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 6:12 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 4:16 pm
My reply to Answer 1.

Yes and indeed they do so. But what is the use of their doing so, or in other words who do miracles serve?
I would say they server the purposes of God, but also the best interests of mankind. In fact, their primary value is as a communication between the two of some important truth.
My reply to Answer 2.

Sufficient evidence is what would be judged sufficient evidence in a trial under secular law . The question is "Who or what did it?" "Did God do it, or did nature do it? "
"Law"? Secularism has no non-arbitrary "laws," since secularism rules out objective "laws," or at least treats such as if they do not exist.

But if you mean "methodologies," then any "secular methodology" already refuses to entertain any metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena. But that too is merely arbitrary: if the world is a "secular" place, then why should any particular methodology at all be obligatory?

But perhaps I know what you're trying to express. Maybe you're just asking whether non-sectarian historical, observational and critical methods are adequate to establish the existence of a particular miracle.

I think they are. At least beyond reasonable question, in some particular cases.
The motives and reliability of the witnesses.
This is the sort of thing I imagined you might mean.

Well, "motive" is always difficult to evaluate. Even people we know today are tricky in that regard.

"Witnesses"...that's better. Even today, we use witnesses to establish the truth of propositions. Two of them, or even one-plus-good-circumstantial-evidence, can send a felon to prison for life. I'd say we regard that as pretty convincing as a means of gathering evidence.

And, of course, first-hand evidence, our own, is even more compelling.

IC wrote:
"Law"? Secularism has no non-arbitrary "laws," since secularism rules out objective "laws," or at least treats such as if they do not exist.

Secular law is based upon common notions of morality, and those are in their turn caused by ethics which have been fostered by the prevailing faith.
Secular law depends upon precedent, and evidence in a court of law in a free country is scientifically methodical.

IC wrote:
And, of course, first-hand evidence, our own, is even more compelling.
If the witness is unable due to religious or political bias, mental problems of illness or development, or temporary illness from giving true answers their evidence is not worth a lot. You probably know, Immanuel, that you or I and anyone else can be mistaken in our interpretation of what we perceive. A video of the sun dancing might be admissible evidence for all I know of trick photography.

IC wrote, regarding miracles:
I would say they server the purposes of God, but also the best interests of mankind. In fact, their primary value is as a communication between the two of some important truth.
God must be aware, don't you think, that many if not most people think that miracles give God a bad reputation?
Some of us want to restore God to His proper energy which is dynamic not static.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Nick_A »

Devomm

From the OP:
My question is, how can someone actually believe in free will? If free will exists.. molecules and chemicals that drive our actions are being created in the brain from nothing, with no initial cause. It goes completely against the law of cause and effect. I don't see how the thought is logical.. Are you reading this post right now because of free will? or because the topic of free will vs determinism interests you and you circumstantially saw the title of this thread and clicked on it? How can anyone not agree that the latter is the case
What if free will like consciousness is our human potential? As we are, we lack the inner unity necessary to make free will possible. Man may have free will but man on earth residing in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall cannot.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
What if free will like consciousness is our human potential?
I hope not! I don't want my choices to be random.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by thedoc »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 4:16 pm My reply to Answer 1.
Yes and indeed they do so. But what is the use of their doing so, or in other words who do miracles serve?
Miracles serve God's purpose and the edification of the individuals effected by the Miracle. I don't know what God's purpose is but I think it has something to do with effecting the individuals involved, why should it effect anyone else? Or do you think that a miracle is only useful if it can effect everyone on Earth?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:53 pm Secular law is based upon common notions of morality, and those are in their turn caused by ethics which have been fostered by the prevailing faith.
Secular law depends upon precedent, and evidence in a court of law in a free country is scientifically methodical.
I don't disagree that this somewhat describes how some secular laws come about. But if they're just temporary artifacts of a particular social arrangement, and arrangement that is itself entirely contingent to time and place -- or worse, vestiges of a "prevailing faith" that is no longer "prevailing" because we've gone "secular,"-- then secular ethics and law really rest on nothing...not even so much as a vapour.

They can be blown away.

If the witness is unable due to religious or political bias, mental problems of illness or development, or temporary illness from giving true answers their evidence is not worth a lot.

But "bias" is difficult to prove, and even when reason to suppose it can be adduced, it begs the question of whether the person on hand is telling the truth or a falsehood at this particular moment (in other words, it's the ad hominem fallacy). The suspicion of bias can give us an inclination to think someone may be more likely to be telling a falsehood than not; but it cannot help us know if a single, particular utterance is true or false.

To illustrate, if a woman says, "My daughter did not commit murder X," we may say, "Well, it's her mom; she's bound to be biased." Maybe. But maybe it's also true that the daughter WAS innocent of the murder. The truth or falsehood of that fact, then, will not be settled merely on the basis that it's her mother speaking. It will be settled on the facts: did the daughter choose to kill her boyfriend or not? That's really what's decisive.

And courts recognize that too.
God must be aware, don't you think, that many if not most people think that miracles give God a bad reputation?
Oh, I don't think that's true at all. It may be true to say that people who are removed from a particular miracle by time and place are more likely to doubt the miracle, but that's hardly a revelatory observation. But if you were yourself witness to an actual miracle, and supposing you to be a fair-minded person, I have no doubt it would increase God's reputation -- at least with you.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 10:40 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:53 pm Secular law is based upon common notions of morality, and those are in their turn caused by ethics which have been fostered by the prevailing faith.
Secular law depends upon precedent, and evidence in a court of law in a free country is scientifically methodical.
I don't disagree that this somewhat describes how some secular laws come about. But if they're just temporary artifacts of a particular social arrangement, and arrangement that is itself entirely contingent to time and place -- or worse, vestiges of a "prevailing faith" that is no longer "prevailing" because we've gone "secular,"-- then secular ethics and law really rest on nothing...not even so much as a vapour.

They can be blown away.

If the witness is unable due to religious or political bias, mental problems of illness or development, or temporary illness from giving true answers their evidence is not worth a lot.

But "bias" is difficult to prove, and even when reason to suppose it can be adduced, it begs the question of whether the person on hand is telling the truth or a falsehood at this particular moment (in other words, it's the ad hominem fallacy). The suspicion of bias can give us an inclination to think someone may be more likely to be telling a falsehood than not; but it cannot help us know if a single, particular utterance is true or false.

To illustrate, if a woman says, "My daughter did not commit murder X," we may say, "Well, it's her mom; she's bound to be biased." Maybe. But maybe it's also true that the daughter WAS innocent of the murder. The truth or falsehood of that fact, then, will not be settled merely on the basis that it's her mother speaking. It will be settled on the facts: did the daughter choose to kill her boyfriend or not? That's really what's decisive.

And courts recognize that too.
God must be aware, don't you think, that many if not most people think that miracles give God a bad reputation?
Oh, I don't think that's true at all. It may be true to say that people who are removed from a particular miracle by time and place are more likely to doubt the miracle, but that's hardly a revelatory observation. But if you were yourself witness to an actual miracle, and supposing you to be a fair-minded person, I have no doubt it would increase God's reputation -- at least with you.
IC wrote:
I don't disagree that this somewhat describes how some secular laws come about. But if they're just temporary artifacts of a particular social arrangement, and arrangement that is itself entirely contingent to time and place -- or worse, vestiges of a "prevailing faith" that is no longer "prevailing" because we've gone "secular,"-- then secular ethics and law really rest on nothing...not even so much as a vapour.
I don't disagree that this somewhat describes how some secular laws come about. But if they're just temporary artifacts of a particular social arrangement, and arrangement that is itself entirely contingent to time and place -- or worse, vestiges of a "prevailing faith" that is no longer "prevailing" because we've gone "secular,"-- then secular ethics and law really rest on nothing...not even so much as a vapour.
The rationale for secular ethics and law is social control in a collective. People need to live in communities, and we need to abide by a consensus regarding how to live without harming others, and to live while helping others. Ethics and laws are natural necessities. I suppose that a roving tyrannosaurus could live without ethics and laws.

Regarding biased witnesses, disinterestedness is best; not having an agenda.

If I witnessed an actual 'miracle' I'd regard it as a paranormal event, not an intervention by God.

The God that is reasonable and acceptable to everybody atheists included is the God which is subjective not institutionalised.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

IC wrote:
I don't disagree that this somewhat describes how some secular laws come about. But if they're just temporary artifacts of a particular social arrangement, and arrangement that is itself entirely contingent to time and place -- or worse, vestiges of a "prevailing faith" that is no longer "prevailing" because we've gone "secular,"-- then secular ethics and law really rest on nothing...not even so much as a vapour.
Belinda wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 11:52 pmThe rationale for secular ethics and law is social control in a collective. People need to live in communities, and we need to abide by a consensus regarding how to live without harming others, and to live while helping others. Ethics and laws are natural necessities. I suppose that a roving tyrannosaurus could live without ethics and laws.
No, I agree...ethics are certainly necessary.

But "necessary" is different from "justifiable" or "legitimized." There are things we might need and want desperately, but to which we can demonstrate no rightful ownership. If we're secular, then as Nietzsche and Dostoevsky both said, we're without warrant for ethics. We can have them -- by force of arms or the power of a majority will -- but that won't go a step to making them legitimate. We might just be behaving like tyrants, saying "You will follow our morals or be punished; for we are the mighty majority."

Meanwhile, what the majority approves could be flawed or even outright evil. I doubt it was much consolation to oppressed minorities when the majority told them, "Well, there's more of us."
Regarding biased witnesses, disinterestedness is best; not having an agenda.
Of course. But biased witnesses can also tell the truth sometimes. More importantly, sometimes calling a very fair-minded witness "biased" is a way of simply getting rid of a perfectly good witness. That too is common.
If I witnessed an actual 'miracle' I'd regard it as a paranormal event, not an intervention by God.

Actually, the Bible mentions this. It actually says that even a resurrection from the dead, right in front of their eyes, would not be enough to convince people who are determined not to believe. (Luke 16:31, if you're curious.)
The God that is reasonable and acceptable to everybody atheists included is the God which is subjective not institutionalised.
The God that is reasonable and acceptable to everyone does not exist, I'm afraid. Nobody's acceptable to everyone...not even the Supreme Being. And that's the point: we're here to make up our minds, on this equivocal stage called Earth, whether we prefer to be with God or not.

Some prefer not. The Bible calls them those who "did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2:10)
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote:But "necessary" is different from "justifiable" or "legitimized." There are things we might need and want desperately, but to which we can demonstrate no rightful ownership. If we're secular, then as Nietzsche and Dostoevsky both said, we're without warrant for ethics. ...
Who says someone has to grant one a warrant for one's ethics?
We can have them -- by force of arms or the power of a majority will -- but that won't go a step to making them legitimate. ...
Or through love of having a better relationship with ones fellows.
We might just be behaving like tyrants, saying "You will follow our morals or be punished; for we are the mighty majority."
Bit like a 'God' saying "Follow my morals lest you burn in eternal damnation" eh!

How about we say "Follow my morals and we'll live a nicer and better life and achieve our goals over those who do not wish to follow them to boot"?
Meanwhile, what the majority approves could be flawed or even outright evil. I doubt it was much consolation to oppressed minorities when the majority told them, "Well, there's more of us."
Bit like the Christians in Africa and the Americas then.
Actually, the Bible mentions this. It actually says that even a resurrection from the dead, right in front of their eyes, would not be enough to convince people who are determined not to believe. (Luke 16:31, if you're curious.)
Look forward to seeing one of these then but so far not the slightest sign of such an event, seen a few dead people tho'.
The God that is reasonable and acceptable to everyone does not exist, I'm afraid. ...
Not much of a 'God' then.
Nobody's acceptable to everyone...not even the Supreme Being. ...
Not very supreme either then.
And that's the point: we're here to make up our minds, on this equivocal stage called Earth, whether we prefer to be with God or not.
This 'God' gives you no choice tho'. As 'it' knows what you are going to do already so your choice is a false one and 'it's' got the home fires burning just to toast you for doing what 'it' already knows you are going to do. If 'it' doesn't then it is not omniscient and if so what else might it be fallible about?
Some prefer not. The Bible calls them those who "did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2:10)
And yet this 'God' has already made 'it's' will up about who and who is not going to be saved so not much choice in receiving this 'love' is there as 'it's' made up 'it's' will already about who is getting toasted or not.
Post Reply