Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:24 pmIt all comes back to the same fundamental question: is there a God or not? Until that's settled, it can't be decided who is guilty of embracing a consoling lie, and who is facing the truth.

It won’t ever be “settled” which requires a consciously derived conclusion. It will simply fade until the question itself disappears.

But it has been settled for some, in one way or another. But many refuse to see it.

I’ve decided not to respond point by point to I Can, partly because the shopworn Wager has been refuted over and over again, but mostly because the topic of this thread is supposed to be about free will and determinism. What is this discussion doing smack dab in the middle of this thread? Don’t moderators split off derailments to separate threads? Are there mods here?

I will make a few general points. I Can, your apologetics are recycled rubbish.
They’ve been dealt with again and again. Who are you trying to convince — us, or yourself?

The idea that atheists borrow their morality from Christian theism is demonstrable buncombe. Where did the ancient Greeks get their morality from? Certainly not from the bible or Jesus. True, they invented their own gods, plenty of them, but at least they had the good sense to give those gods human-like passions so as not to construct a straw god wholly incompatible with his alleged creation. BTW, what happens if you die, having taken Pascal’s Wager, and discover that god is Zeus?

Morality and meaning come from within, and in concert with others, for we are an evolved social species. God is as superfluous to morality as the aether is to light.

Speaking of evolution, it’s a fact. Darwin observed it, and documented it, for which he is justly respected. And sure, he made an argument to evil — it’s a powerful argument against the Omni God.

I recently watched some wildlife videos on YouTube. It went way beyond anything I expected — it was stomach-churning and hair-curling.

Warthogs are prey animals. Everything out there likes to eat poor warthogs — lions, tigers, hyenas, wild dogs, leopards, everything.

But warthogs are also tough as shit — as are other prey animals — which stands to reason from an evolutionary point of view; the genes of weaker prey animals would be quickly weeded out.

It turns out that to kill a warthog, the predator pretty much has to eat it all the way up — indeed, it has to eat it all up before the warthog even loses consciousness.

There is a riveting video online of a warthog being eaten alive by three lions. The sequence is three minutes and twenty six seconds long. When it begins, the lions already have eaten about half the warthog, from the bottom up. They are deep into its guts, which are fully exposed. Not only is the warthog not dead, it is awake, struggling, and SCREAMING. He continues to squirm, scream and struggle for the entire length of the video. His unspeakable suffering began before the video was shot, and presumably continued for some time after.

What kind of Sky Maniac would invent and decree such unimaginable and utterly pointless agony? Certainly not a benevolent one!

There are many such videos online involving other animals, some of which are too heart-rending to think about, much less write about. But I suppose your Sky Monster gets his rocks off on all this suffering, eh?

Of course all this terrible suffering is wholly inconsistent with a benevolent and all-powerful God, but it is fully consistent with — indeed, it is entailed by — metaphysical naturalism. The suffering is a consequence of the fact that endlessly reproducing organisms must forever compete for a limited food supply, full stop. Nothing and no one is to blame. It’s how things are.

Oh, let’s see, I know —Adam ate the apple and thus introduced suffering and death into the natural world! Before that, lions lay with the lambs in the Garden. But what kind of God would punish innocent animals for the so-called sin of a human animal?

In any event, we know that Adam and Eve never existed because evolutionary theory shows that the minimum number of humans on earth at any one time was about 2,000. So there was no First Man and First Woman. This is because populations evolve, and not individuals.

This also, btw, invalidates the New Testament meta-narrative, that Jesus died on the cross to permit humans to atone of the sins handed down from Adam. But of course there was no Adam; and no garden. Nature has always been red in tooth and claw. (One might also reflect on what kind of morality requires that the descendants of the first sinner continue to suffer for his sin, even though they themselves did not commit the original sin. This would roughly be like humans imprisoning the sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, etc. of a man convicted of a crime.)

As to Darwin and Dawkins, why do you dredge up quotes from them? Do you think that atheists worship them the same way that you worship God and Jesus? We do not. We respect then for their scientific accomplishments, as should theists. Dawkins in recent years has outed himself as a bit of a buffoon, though perhaps this is because of mental decline with his advancing age.

At any event, your quote from Dawkins misses the mark: he said the universe does not know good and evil; and not that there is no good or evil. Of course nature does not know good or evil — it is not an agent. It is mindless.

Secular versions of good and evil are easily accommodated by the fact, as noted above, that we are evolved social animals with complex brains.

Does anyone wish to discuss the actual topic of this thread?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:04 am Actually, he did.

It reads,

‘If the truth of this conclusion be granted [i.e. that there is more happiness than misery in the world], it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind … .’ He then added that many sentient beings ‘occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action … A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?’

Now, that's the argument from evil. He thinks that "benevolence," to use his word, is incompatible with "the sufferings of millions of lower animals." That is, assuming evolution is true, he thinks that it would be "unbenevolent" of God to allow such a thing.

In other words, he was an ideologue who took Evolutionism for a fact, and then mounted an argument against God based on it, with the implication that God would be "bad" for allowing "survival of the fittest."

...that's your interpretation. I don't in the least see it that way. In fact, though your quote is not complete, it's more in line with what I said. Is the statement, which is a very human question to ask especially so coming from Darwin...

...it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?’

...supposed to be an argument from evil? Darwin's question couldn't be more to the point IF one strives to believe in god. Reconciling god's mercies with the indifference of nature amounts to paradox which he well understood...but not if nature IS god.

When you say he took "Evolutionism" for a fact, (weird word) does that mean you don't believe in evolution or would you care to define what evolutionism means if not equivalent to evolution?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:04 amFor as Atheists themselves continually remind me, Atheism has no moral perspective to offer or to defend. In an Atheist, Materialist, Evolutionist universe, or as Richard Dawkins has put it,

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

I'm no fawning admirerer of Dawkins but no question that he's extremely intelligent and definitely worth reading.

His statement here is as clear, precise and as much to the point as it's possible to be without possessing any evil connotations so generously applied by theists for that would imply intent which in turn implies design and purpose.

If there is ONE indispensable quality required to cause something to be beyond good & evil it's indifference in its most absolute zero degree form. In nature, as in the universe there is no acknowledgement of either which for the theist denotes only ONE thing...pure evil!

...and yet ironically god is assumed to have created the universe. Does that offer any clues as to who the culprit really is...if HE actually ever was!

I'm finally out of this conversation!

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:50 am ...it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?’

...supposed to be an argument from evil? Darwin's question couldn't be more to the point IF one strives to believe in god. Reconciling god's mercies with the indifference of nature amounts to paradox which he well understood...but not if nature IS god.

If nature IS the god, then suffering is not evil. Nor is survival of the fittest unfair. Nor is child abuse, cancer, terrorist attacks or slavery. These things would simply be artifacts of nature, and nothing more could be said. What is, is.

On the other hand, if there's a God, then the concept evil comes back into existence, along with the term good -- and we can ask God to explain why evil happens.

So either there is no evil, and hence, no argument against God because of suffering in the world; or there is such a thing as evil and good, and we have a right to complain about injustice: but that is only possible because God exists.

How would you say it is? Do human beings have any sense in complaining? Or are they just whining, like Dawkins implies, at indifferent, pitiless nature?

When you say he took "Evolutionism" for a fact, (weird word) does that mean you don't believe in evolution or would you care to define what evolutionism means if not equivalent to evolution?

The suffix "-ism" indicates an ideology. Evolutionism is an ideology, the ideology of those who think everything that is came into being merely by accidental, progressive development. Evolution is merely a word used to describe some sort of process change.

I'm no fawning admirerer of Dawkins but no question that he's extremely intelligent and definitely worth reading.

Yes. But sadly myopic, very angry and not particularly wise in the kinds of statements he makes to the public.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... reputation

His statement here is as clear, precise and as much to the point as it's possible to be without possessing any evil connotations so generously applied by theists for that would imply intent which in turn implies design and purpose.

So you'd say there's no such thing as good and evil, then? For that is precisely what he says, as you can see.

I'm finally out of this conversation!

Sorry to lose you.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:38 am ...the shopworn Wager has been refuted over and over again...

Please...do show how. A simple syllogism should be all it takes. Personally, I've never seen it managed. I'd be impressed to see you do it.

The idea that atheists borrow their morality from Christian theism is demonstrable buncombe. Where did the ancient Greeks get their morality from?

You've misunderstood the difference between having a belief in morality versus having a real, objective morality. A person can be anything and still believe in a morality...it just won't be a real one, necessarily, not one grounded in actuality or legitimizable based on other things that person believes.

Does anyone wish to discuss the actual topic of this thread?

It's relevant.

If there's no God, just Nature or Material forces, then Determinism has to be the absolute truth. What else but blind forces preexisting us is there to enable us to choose anything?

"You've misunderstood the difference between having a belief in morality versus having a real, objective morality."

Here's your task, Mannie: if Christianity is the foundation for a real, objective morality (if this is your claim), then you must offer up real, objective evidence (of a Prime Mover, of this Mover's place as ultimate arbiter, etc.).

Have you?

Certainly, I'm not following any thread here (or anywhere) closely any more, so: mebbe you have.

If so, please direct me to it so I can be amazed and convinced.

If not, please foist that evidence now, here, in this thread.

If you can't or won't then your Christianity is -- as you might say -- just an opinion (one you are, of course, entitled to) .

#

"If there's no God, just Nature or Material forces, then Determinism has to be the absolute truth."

So, if I -- a nonbeliever (a foul materialist) -- say 'I choose, I self-determine, I self-direct (am free-willed) then I'm being incoherent.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:20 pm Here's your task, Mannie: if Christianity is the foundation for a real, objective morality (if this is your claim), then you must offer up real, objective evidence (of a Prime Mover, of this Mover's place as ultimate arbiter, etc.).

Have you?

Certainly, I'm not following any thread here (or anywhere) closely any more, so: mebbe you have.

If so, please direct me to it so I can be amazed and convinced.

If not, please foist that evidence now, here, in this thread.

If you can't or won't then your Christianity is -- as you might say -- just an opinion (one you are, of course, entitled to) .

Will do. What would you accept as evidence of God? If I can provide something that you, in response, would be happy to accept, I'll happily do so. And please understand, I'm not being evasive or trying to trap you here when I respond this way: I'm trying to figure out how to meet your question with a response you'll find compelling.

"If there's no God, just Nature or Material forces, then Determinism has to be the absolute truth."

So, if I -- a nonbeliever (a foul materialist) -- say 'I choose, I self-determine, I self-direct (am free-willed) then I'm being incoherent.

Okay, let's think this through carefully.

A "Materialist," by definition, is someone who believes that a comprehensive explanation for phenomena that happen in the real world is as follows: they are the result of material causes -- matter, energy, scientific laws. Is that not a fair definition?

But if that's a fair definition, then where does volition or will fit in? Is it a "material" too? If I want to stay a Materialist, I have to say it is. And if so, then the phenomenon I perceive as my own volition or will is really nothing other than an interaction of matter, energy and scientific laws. Even my feeling or impression that volition is my own is merely a phenomenon caused by an interaction of matter, energy and scientific laws.

Moreover, all that has ever happened in the universe, since the first event (whatever we say it was) is matter, energy and scientific laws. In principle, then unbeknownst to me, every twitch of every molecule in that universe was Determined by that first event -- nothing could happen outside of matter, energy and scientific laws. Determinism is absolute.

In fact, had we a big enough computer, and could we program into it all the variables in the universe, we could predict absolutely every event that would ever happen, for all time. Now, we don't have that computer, of course: but in principle, that's how things should work.

So Determinism follows inevitably from Materialism. I see no way to escape it. It is, as Max Weber has called it, "the iron cage."

Fair enough?

Can't say exactly what would convince me...I'm a 'let me probe the holes in his hands' kind guy, though...does that help?


And: as not a soul truly understands how 'brain in body' does 'mind' (which you gotta have if you're gonna self-direct), and as there's not a jot of evidence of an in-dwelling sumthin' or other, I say determinism and any and all alternatives are lacking.

Determinism has an edge, of course, cuz I can set up and trigger a line of dominos and declare 'cause and effect!', but then I can also interrogate my own experience of self-direction and declare 'cause and effect is missin sumthin' important here'.

From where I sit: ain't no one hittin' the nail on the head yet.

Me, I'm inclined toward the idea that 'self/mind/'I' (and the free will) is a non-deterministic algorithm (which is to say: I haven't a friggin' clue).

What I know: Reality is an on-going, deterministic event comprised of near-countless deterministic events, and -- in the midst of all that event-causation -- there seems to be a tiny cluster of 'sumthin' else', namely you and me and the other seven billion schmucks meanderin' about (agent-causation).

As I've said before: I can't deny cause and effect and I can't deny my own on-going experience of self-direction, so I stand apart from both crowds, waitin'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:20 pm So, if I -- a nonbeliever (a foul materialist) -- say 'I choose, I self-determine, I self-direct (am free-willed) then I'm being incoherent.

The cause of each specific motion is ultimately the same in terms of first cause.

“First cause” means the cause of first motion.
- A specific choice causes a specific motion.
- The cause of each choice is the same, in principle.
- Therefore, finding the common principle behind the cause for each motion reveals the one principle that applies to each cause, including what caused first motion.

The question is, what is common to the cause of every motion?

Since humans, worms and planets move, the commonality that causes motion in each is obviously not individual choice or it’s lack.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:35 pm Can't say exactly what would convince me...I'm a 'let me probe the holes in his hands' kind guy, though...does that help?

I don't know. It worked for Thomas, apparently. But if you are asking me for some sort of demonstration, I'm pretty hard-pressed to be helpful if I can't figure out what you'd ever accept, Henry.

I think the problem is that practically anything anyone can provide is going to be equivocal. By that, I don't mean "bad" or "unclear" as evidence, but rather such that it admits of an alternative interpretation, and thus allows the skeptic to escape.

If I could tell you that an earthquake would happen tomorrow as 6, would that do it? Or would everyone just say, "Lucky guess"? If I could provide a human being raised from the dead, would everybody believe it, or would they just say, "He wasn't really dead"? If I could heal the sick, would people believe me, or would they say, "It's a trick"?

To a person disposed to disbelief, there's pretty much no way to provide evidence, so far as I can see. Nothing one provides as evidence will be accepted as evidence.

...there's not a jot of evidence of an in-dwelling sumthin' or other...

This would be a case in point. I think there's PLENTY of evidence for a subjectivity, or soul, or identity, or personality, or self, or whatever one wants to call it. I would even say that by speaking to me, you're actually affirming your faith in it without realizing it. But will that convince you?

And if it won't, what's my next step?

But in any case, the idea of all these entities -- souls, identity, self, whatever -- is denied by Determinism anyway. These have to be seen by the Determinist to be some oddity produced by material forces and scientific laws.

Determinism has an edge, of course, cuz I can set up and trigger a line of dominos and declare 'cause and effect!', but then I can also interrogate my own experience of self-direction and declare 'cause and effect is missin sumthin' important here'.

I completely agree. But how do we PROVE that? That you and I feel it strongly will not convince anybody else...

... in the midst of all that event-causation -- there seems to be a tiny cluster of 'sumthin' else', namely you and me and the other seven billion schmucks meanderin' about (agent-causation).

Yes, there it is again. Agent-causation.

As I've said before: I can't deny cause and effect and I can't deny my own on-going experience of self-direction, so I stand apart from both crowds, waitin'.

For what? What do you anticipate will happen, if you wait? Have we any guarantees that this knot can be untied? Or is it one of those things where you have to take an initial hypothesis, and then act on it, before you discover proof?

In other words, does in require more than simply doubt -- does knowing, in this case, also require an act of faith?

That's not as weird or religious as it might sound. Take relationships, for example: you never develop a friendship or a companionship or partnership with anyone unless you're willing to predict that they are a good person, that they will stay loyal, that they will not stick a knife in your back, and so on. It takes a bit of faith in them to believe that, because as we all know, sometimes people fool us, or we accidentally fool ourselves about them. However, without this faith, we would have no friends at all...at least, not real ones.

The great thing about a real friendship is the trust one can have in it. But that trust is always perilous too: we don't know beforehand that our friend will be reliable; we only believe it based on previous evidence, experience and intuition. Not the most secure basis, that; but there it is.

That's an act of faith. Some things actually cannot be known until we are prepared to make at least a small step of faith.

And if you were ever at that point, I might be able to get you your evidence.

As I noted in my prior post, I’m not here to discuss Pascal’s ridiculous wager with you. I came here to discuss free will and determinism. You now write this, ignoring my previous post:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:35 pm If nature IS the god, then suffering is not evil. Nor is survival of the fittest unfair. Nor is child abuse, cancer, terrorist attacks or slavery. These things would simply be artifacts of nature, and nothing more could be said. What is, is.

But of course, as Dawkins pointed out, it is the universe, the universe at large, that is indifferent to right and wrong, good and bad. That is because the universe is not an intentional agent. The universe has no mind. But we do have minds.

It is in the mind that concepts of right and wrong arise, as a consequence of our legacy as an evolved social species. Other non-human social species also have such concepts. There is nothing mysterious about this and nothing to explain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:04 pm Okay, let's think this through carefully.

A "Materialist," by definition, is someone who believes that a comprehensive explanation for phenomena that happen in the real world is as follows: they are the result of material causes -- matter, energy, scientific laws. Is that not a fair definition?

But if that's a fair definition, then where does volition or will fit in? Is it a "material" too? If I want to stay a Materialist, I have to say it is. And if so, then the phenomenon I perceive as my own volition or will is really nothing other than an interaction of matter, energy and scientific laws. Even my feeling or impression that volition is my own is merely a phenomenon caused by an interaction of matter, energy and scientific laws.

Moreover, all that has ever happened in the universe, since the first event (whatever we say it was) is matter, energy and scientific laws. In principle, then unbeknownst to me, every twitch of every molecule in that universe was Determined by that first event -- nothing could happen outside of matter, energy and scientific laws. Determinism is absolute.

In fact, had we a big enough computer, and could we program into it all the variables in the universe, we could predict absolutely every event that would ever happen, for all time. Now, we don't have that computer, of course: but in principle, that's how things should work.

So Determinism follows inevitably from Materialism. I see no way to escape it. It is, as Max Weber has called it, "the iron cage."

Fair enough?

No, sorry, not fair enough.

First, even if this is true, so what? An appeal to negative consequences is a logical fallacy. Just because some fact may have unpalatable consequences, does not make the fact false. But what you write is indeed false.

That is, your view of causal determinism is wrong. This is not causal determinism. This is Laplacean determinism, and it’s wrong. We know it’s wrong because: quantum mechanics.

The compatibilist with respect to free will holds that our motivations are causally determined but we are free to act upon those motives, which acts then enter the deterministic chain; for the compatibilist, this just is human freedom.

But the story doesn’t end there. Causal determinism (not the same as Laplacean determinism) holds that our motives are determined by the prior states of the universe in concert with the “laws” of nature. However, this smuggles in a metaphysical presupposition: that the laws of nature govern the universe. Drop that unjustified presupposition, and the alleged incompatibility between determinism and free will vanishes. The “laws” of nature do not govern anything.

The irony here is that the materialist, in the metaphysics of science, has unwittingly imported a theistic conceit: that there are laws that govern stuff. This is a residue of the belief in a supreme lawgiver — God.

Drop the lawgiver, and drop the laws.

Mannie,

All I want is proof of the fire.

You say 'fire!...I see no flames, feel no heat, smell no smoke, but you want I should get up, stop watchin' porn, and 'do' sumthin'.

Okay...I will, once you show me the fire.

And: I'm not seeking escape...just not inclined to give over easily and without a damned good reason, which no *religionist, of any kind, has offered me in 54 years.

#

"To a person disposed to disbelief, there's pretty much no way to provide evidence"

*ahem* "with God all things are possible"

#

"I think there's PLENTY of evidence for a...self."

Sure. Not so much for the notion that 'self' is spirit.

#

"What do you anticipate will happen, if you wait?"

Not a damn thing.

Got no other option. though.

Everyone else keeps saying' 'I'm right and he's wrong'.

I seem to be the only one sayin' 'cause and effect is real and my will bein' free is real, so everyone is missin' sumthin'.

I wait for evidence, from any one, about anything...till then I raise my kid, do my work, dodge authority, drink way too much coffee and smoke way too many cigarettes.

#

"you never develop a friendship or a companionship or partnership with anyone unless you're willing to predict that they are a good person"

That's call gamblin', which -- in context -- is synonymous with living.

Faith got nuthin' to do with it.









*not just talkin' about 'religion' here, but also politics, sociology, and much of what passes for science these days

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:13 pm It is in the mind that concepts of right and wrong arise, as a consequence of our legacy as an evolved social species. Other non-human social species also have such concepts. There is nothing mysterious about this and nothing to explain.

Actually, there's a great deal to explain about this...such as how "concepts in the mind" arise, if they are unrelated to material phenomena. If there is no reality to free will, how does the very idea even appear in the first place? I'd like to know how you might explain that.