tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1677742112961422193..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Two forms of determinismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64371317602206012722016-07-13T07:30:10.605-07:002016-07-13T07:30:10.605-07:00John Moore: "When [rulers] decide to punish [...<b>John Moore:</b> "<i>When [rulers] decide to punish [those who resist their rule], they should just think about the consequences of their punishments. Will their punishments tend to deter future [resistance]? That's the whole calculation right there.</i>"<br /><br />And thus it doesn't matter whether those punished are guilty of anything at all.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29650577244062697672016-07-13T07:24:13.981-07:002016-07-13T07:24:13.981-07:00John Moore: "a) Randomness might also be a co...<b>John Moore:</b> "<i>a) Randomness might also be a consideration. Some things might happen without cause.</i>"<br /><br /><b>grodrigues:</b> "<i>Randomness and cause-less are two distinct things.</i>"<br /><br />Well, yes and no. When the topic is causes and effects, 'randomness' and 'causelessness' collapse into one another; this being the only alternative to determinism, incoherent though it is, that materialists/atheists can bring themselves to clutch at.<br /><br />'Randomness' refers to a lack of correlation between two (or more) things in some aspect. If you chance to meet an old acquaintance at the town square, the meeting may be random in that no one planned or coordinated the meeting, and non-random in that you are both attending the town fireworks display.<br /><br />When one speaks of 'randomness' with respect to cause-and-effect, one is asserting that there may exist a lack of correlation between some effect and its cause. This is, of course, incoherent and absurd; for an effect <i>just is</i> a caused event. So, if one wishes to speak of events happening randomly, and one desires to be not immediately-and-obviously speaking absurdities, one must speak of events happening without cause.<br /><br />There are only two classes of “causes” alternative to deterministic causation – agency and randomness. As seen above, to speak of a random cause is actually to deny causation. BUT – from the point of view of the God-denier – to speak of causal agency is an even worse option; for the only rational way to affirm agency in a material world is to affirm the logical priority of immaterial agents/persons to mater … and that takes us right back to God.<br /><br />God-deniers are <i>committed</i> to denying the reality of God – everything they do and say is subordinate to this commitment. Since the affirmation of agent freedom must inevitably lead to the affirmation of God, they *must* deny agency/freedom. At the same time, they want some wiggle-room to escape the implications of the determinism they can and do affirm – let me emphasize this: the very same ‘atheist’, <i>even as he is asserting absolute determinism</i>, is also seeking for a way to deny the absoluteness he has just asserted. <br /><br />Since he *must* deny agency/freedom, the ‘atheist’ grasps at the straw of ‘randomness’. Typically, what they do is attempt to re-brand agent freedom as ‘randomness’. It works this way: since agency/freedom is immaterial/non-physical, and since the only causes they can allow are material/physical, any acknowledgement on their part of agency/freedom must perforce re-classify it as ‘randomness’, which in this context means “causelessness”.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65535985032556756582016-07-12T03:58:27.329-07:002016-07-12T03:58:27.329-07:00Replace:
"which the murderer accomplishes hi...Replace:<br /><br />"which the murderer accomplishes his victims"<br /><br />with<br /><br />"which the murderer accomplishes his murders"grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29707462851717209542016-07-12T03:56:25.083-07:002016-07-12T03:56:25.083-07:00"a) Randomness might also be a consideration...."a) Randomness might also be a consideration. Some things might happen without cause."<br /><br />Randomness and cause-less are two distinct things.<br /><br />"b) It's not clear whether you can know past states even with perfect knowledge of a particular state. It might be like a one-way hash function. So you couldn't see Jesus on the cross based on perfect knowledge of the year 1500."<br /><br />Whether we could or could not know the future on the hypothesis of determinism, is irrelevant for the problem that Victor posed.<br /><br />"c) Yes, it's Omar's fault. Fault means suffering the consequences. Just because you're a victim of circumstances doesn't mean you should be free of consequences."<br /><br />No, fault does not mean "suffering the consequences". For there to be fault or blame in any reasonable sense of the word, agent's actions have to be up to the agent in the relevant, thick sense needed for moral responsability. On determinism the agent's actions are necessitated by forces external to him, so there are no free agents. On determinism there are no alternative possible choices; there are no choices or agents, or even selves as we have come to conceive them.<br /><br />If I coerce John to kill Victor the law, rightly, does not fault John for the murder but me, the coercer, precisely because John was not the free agent of the murder. But the very same logic implies that on determinism, since no one is the free agent of his actions, no one can be blamed for anything. And it is no use invoking that there is a disconnect between the agent's will and his actions in the case of coercion, because on determinism your will and desires are likewise necessitated and determined by forces external to you. If I, a notorious mad scientist, implanted a chip on your brain that overwhelmed your will and compulsed you to kill Victor, one would still rightly assign the blame to me not to you (there is a famous Agatha Christie murder story in which the murderer accomplishes his victims by manipulating, like a puppet master, his subjects to do his bidding. Poirot does justice by his own hands and, if I am not misremembering, the help of a little pistol).<br /><br />"When courts decide to punish murderers, they should just think about the consequences of their punishments. Will their punishments tend to deter future murders? That's the whole calculation right there."<br /><br />Why are consequences the only consideration? A calculation that, as you point out in (b), is impossible to make. And on determinism there is only one possible history, so what meaning can there possibly be in doing calculation to choose between possible policies?<br /><br />"If it's practical and economical to reform criminals, then fine. We should work on the technology for that, or the psychology or whatever. But in the meantime, it's simplest just to lock up criminals."<br /><br />As if we have a choice?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28993340174695571392016-07-12T01:33:19.820-07:002016-07-12T01:33:19.820-07:00"God, before the foundation of the world, cre..."God, before the foundation of the world, creates the world and predestines every event."<br /><br />Is it a correct usage of the word "predestines"?<br />Are events "predestined" or persons "predestined"?<br /><br />"Any philosophy or theology that denies the primacy of Free Will is, no matter whatever else you wish to call it, not Christian. "<br /><br />Rather, it is not sane.Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45365958006230936312016-07-11T20:44:46.720-07:002016-07-11T20:44:46.720-07:00In books, I often note that one character "mi...In books, I often note that one character "misbehaves" and is "punished" by the other characters. Given that the character had no choice in his/her actions, they exist entirely at the will of the author, is this an injustice? Do books by their very nature mock the idea of justice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88774964553985424382016-07-11T20:38:26.168-07:002016-07-11T20:38:26.168-07:00a) Randomness might also be a consideration. Some ...a) Randomness might also be a consideration. Some things might happen without cause.<br /><br />b) It's not clear whether you can know past states even with perfect knowledge of a particular state. It might be like a one-way hash function. So you couldn't see Jesus on the cross based on perfect knowledge of the year 1500.<br /><br />c) Yes, it's Omar's fault. Fault means suffering the consequences. Just because you're a victim of circumstances doesn't mean you should be free of consequences.<br /><br />When courts decide to punish murderers, they should just think about the consequences of their punishments. Will their punishments tend to deter future murders? That's the whole calculation right there.<br /><br />If it's practical and economical to reform criminals, then fine. We should work on the technology for that, or the psychology or whatever. But in the meantime, it's simplest just to lock up criminals.<br /><br />John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16828775163740543632016-07-11T20:31:50.826-07:002016-07-11T20:31:50.826-07:00It's become popular now for atheists to confus...It's become popular now for atheists to confuse cause and effect with determinism, It is entirely possible to be a naturalist and think that the multiplicity of outcomes is possible owing to the complexity of variables.<br /><br />Theologically I'm armionianJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22275766831762721602016-07-11T20:23:34.229-07:002016-07-11T20:23:34.229-07:00My (admittedly snarky) above comment was intended ...My (admittedly snarky) above comment was intended to show that determinism (of any form) and Christianity are <i>incompatible</i>. Oil and water are blood brothers by comparison. Free Will is one of the indispensable pillars of the Faith. Any philosophy or theology that denies the primacy of Free Will is, no matter whatever else you wish to call it, not Christian. <br /><br />"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18982917652350468142016-07-11T18:50:31.953-07:002016-07-11T18:50:31.953-07:00If either form of determinism is true, is it Omar&...<i>If either form of determinism is true, is it Omar's fault that he killed all those people</i><br /><br />If <i><b>any</b></i> form of determinism is true, then no, it isn't.<br /><br /><i>or is he just a victim of circumstance?</i><br /><br />Yes, he would be.<br /><br /><i>And what does that mean for people convicted of murder. Do they deserve a penalty because either God or the laws of nature, guaranteed that they would commit murder, while people like Abraham Lincoln and Mother Teresa were predestined or determined to do good?</i><br /><br />It means they are not morally culpable for their actions, and ought not be punished, but rather reformed.<br /><br /><i>What happens to moral responsibility?</i><br /><br />To what? What strange terms you do use!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com