Determinism, predestination and freedom
Barnabas62
Shipmate, Host Emeritus
in Purgatory
To me at least(!) there were some interesting exchanges touching on this topic in the much tangented Divinity of Christ thread.
I’m not sure what the interest level might be. And the topic goes wider than Christian faith into issues of autonomy and personal responsibility. But I thought I’d set up a separate thread.
Here’s a trial balloon for you to have a pop at.
I’m not sure what the interest level might be. And the topic goes wider than Christian faith into issues of autonomy and personal responsibility. But I thought I’d set up a separate thread.
Here’s a trial balloon for you to have a pop at.
Comments
Just a note Luther and some of the earlier reformers preferred to talk about the 'bound will' rather than engage in philosophical speculation about determination and free will itself. Obviously this changes as the Reformation progresses and other people get involved.
From a purely scientific point of view I don't see a mechanism from which free-will in the completely libertarian sense can arise, unless you have a non-physical/non-material model of neurology.
Your last paragraph puts your finger on what I see as a big issue. And I see it the same as you.
I do like Berdyaev’s vivid pinball machine analogy.
I'm not quite sure how neuroscience applies to issues of free-will and determinism but I'd be interested in hearing more.
My gut-feel is to go with Berdyaev based on the short snippet but would be interested to hear other or opposing views.
Because within physics, chemistry and biology, there's no room for a 'controlled un-caused cause' of the kind that would be needed for free-will.
A good summary. I assume this is one basis for atheism? But it only works if you stay within that paradigm.
We may I suppose be sentient steel balls in the pinball machine, but if we are we are passengers and observers of external realities. We rationalise the inevitable we observe.
It’s very disturbing if true that human agency is an illusion. That, for example, this message is inevitable and has nothing really to do with my thoughts and reflections.
Hey, you could make it a basis for Calvinism. God has his list of saved and manipulates the universe so they inevitably have faith. I mean, to be fair, IME faith isn't anything I have any free will to have or not. Choice seems totally the wrong word for it.
Well, maybe, but we're struggling to find anything that makes it not actually the reality.
Don't get me wrong, I want to resist determinism to the death, but I'm really struggling for an even vaguely evidenced way out of it.
I'm not sure I have enough understanding of science to have the vocabulary to discuss this properly. I think I understand what @chrisstiles is saying but not sure he means by a 'controlled uncaused cause.' What do you mean by 'controlled'? Some kind of agency that is able to transcend evolutionary or biological determinism?
I'm not sure I understand what @KarlLB is saying about faith either. Are you saying that if we have faith there is something deterministic about that? That if we maintain faith it's because we can't do otherwise?
I'm not sure I follow.
Something that could transcend physical determinism in a way which is under our direct agency. There are random quantum related processes like wave function collapses, but those don't help if you are trying to look for a source of agency.
What's a 'wave function collapse'?
What sort of waves are we talking about? Knock on effects from butterfly wings? The Big Bang?
As far as we know particular mental states correspond to particular physical states (i.e arrangements of chemicals and molecules - and ultimately fundamental particles). It's not like you have a little homunculus in your brain that can re-arrange molecules at will to 'create' a new mental state inside your mind.
Not within a physicalist model of neurology at any rate, and no one has advanced any evidence for an alternative model.
We’re in the “tulgy wood” of quantum mechanics. I’m not sure whether it will enlighten or confuse you more but as a beginning, you might try reading about Schrödinger’s cat.
How can a cat be both alive and dead and what happens to make it one or the other instead of simultaneously both?
Thought experiments have a value in considering particle or wave physics but to be honest Gamaliel, it’s not an easy thought world to get into.
I’m 60 years beyond university and haven’t spent a lot of time since thinking about quantum theory and quantum mechanics. Nor am I sure whether subsequent theoretical development makes my limited standing out of date. It may a case of the semi blind leading the blind!
Of course, knowing that, along with everything else, is one of the factors that determines our thoughts and actions.
It gets a bit recursive at this point.
The best that can be said is that we presume that because we have no sound evidence for any states of being other than matter-energy that mental states must be produced from matter-energy.
I don't think this necessarily matters to the question of agency.
Right, but within the physicalist model there's no real mechanism by which we would initiate that change, things will change constantly, but it's hard to see how we could said to be in charge of that change in any sense.
Well the question becomes, if there is some other state of being than that of matter-energy, how does it interact with, or change the course of, the matter-energy that is our bodies, including our brains? If I recall Descartes suggested the pituitary gland. I believe that has fallen out of favor. If not that, then what?
Genetic studies have shown how certain behavioral traits can be passed down through the genes, like openness; consciousness, agreeability, extroversion, and neuroticism. Mental health issues like schizophrenia, autism, bipolar issues too.
There are also evolutionary forces that come into play in a human. The fight or flight mode is one example
I know in matters of salvation, I have moved from the Augustinian position of the depravity of humans more to a more Pelegrin position that humans do have some agency in coming to faith. I do think faith entails good work and I do not have a hard and fast rule about original soin
I believe the technical term for that would be the soul.
For which we have no evidence. And even supposing it exists, no knowledge of any mechanism by which it can direct the chemical and electrical activity which constitute our thoughts, emotions, intentions and desires physically.
Since it’s not corporeal in the first place, studies of the material world can’t detect it. For how it “works,” or is connected to/interfaces with our bodies, literally God only knows. But if we’re talking about free will and predestination, then I’d say that’s more in the supernatural/ philosophical/ theological department than any of the material sciences in the first place.
Proposing incorporeal souls raised more questions than it answers.
What kind of evidence would suffice, though? If any apparent evidence could be explained away, then I would suggest that this would mean that the methods of analyzing this—specifically, looking at analyses that by their nature only focus on the material—might not be useful to find out something non-material. The existence of free will might even be a matter of faith, rather than absolute knowledge.
I believe that resisting determinism, and resisting materialism, is wise. Don’t give up! ❤️
Propose alternative analysis methods. That's always the problem when people criticise empirical evidence - they don't say what to use instead.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I think you said it very well. And it’s a very helpful issue to discuss.
I think your use of the phrase “voluntary determinism” is correct. And also the understanding of psychological determinism is used properly in psychiatry, particularly in the use of Cognitive Behavioual Therapy, to help people trapped by unhealthy thought patterns.
I accept the premise that people may be trapped, or voluntarily constrained, by cultural or religious beliefs, or abusive applications of control by others. And that trappedness is something that we may not be consciously aware of. I also accept that voluntary restraint may be either good or bad, depending on which external belief system it derives from.
We may not be as free as we think we are. The fathers (and mothers) may indeed have eaten sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are not necessarily set on age. As I also said, Ezekiel had a point in bringing personal autonomy and responsibility into the equation.
If there is such a thing (!) I incline to to the view that psychological determinism is a “partly deterministic”understanding. And a useful one.
The love of Christ constrains us? Or as other translations put it “leaves us no choice”? Perhaps we do choose to be left no choice? Despite being aware of the options.
Or perhaps we are “predestined” to go down that path. It’s a new dimension to the discussion. Or maybe a can of worms?
The problem is that we don't have any evidence at this point for this kind of dualism. Very simplistically if this were the model we'd expect to see evidence of interactions between the soul and the physical world when we looked inside the brain and as far as we can tell everything we've observed so far comports with physical laws.
I don’t believe that learning is an illusion.
I don't think it is. I don't think determinism is meaningfully reductionist at all. Reduction to what? Determinism does not imply fatalism. Quantum mechanics is determined, mathematical chaos is determined, i.e. the results of determinism, and they go on to further determine reality. So we haven't the faintest idea, and neither could any proposed transcendent agent (God), whether it's going to rain tomorrow. There is no fixed future from fixed conditions as there is no such thing as objective, absolute reality. The fixed laws, constraints of physics, of possibility, (of which the preceding is one) do not dictate how the future unfolds. How we unfold. In our weakness and ignorance, in seeking meaning. In the 'simplest' natural phenomena. Matter is unimaginably complex to 'start' with. And then it interacts with more. From which emergent phenomena of ungraspable complexity above the 'lower' levels emerges, evolves, again and again. Matter, life, mind. Matter alone is infinitely complex.
So, neither free will nor determinism operate in any absolute, meaningful, understandable sense. But they they both meet in the middle. Us.
There's no need for magic in that.
Anyway the problem for physicalism is that there are secondary qualities (*) - colours, sounds, smells - even if only in our minds - and by definition physicalists have to hold those aren't real. Not only are physicalist attempts to explain them away extremely hand wavey and reliant on large promissory notes - there isn't even an apparent way that the required correlation or explanation could be achieved, since the whole problem is that one side of the correlation can't be described in terms internal to physics.
The same goes for intentional attitudes in general. As Quine, a physicalist, noted, physics requires that two terms with the same reference can be swapped without changing truth, but that's not the case for sentences about intentional attitudes. ("That's a swallow" implies "that's a dinosaur" but "she knows that's a swallow" doesn't imply "she knows that's a dinosaur".)
Of course one can be a materialist without being a physicalist but then one's saying that matter has properties not recognised within physics.
Basically there isn't an unproblematic option here.
(*) Definitions: Wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are primary qualities. The sensation produced in our visual systems and brains by that electromagnetic radiation is a secondary quality. Secondary qualities are either qualities that appear to only one sense, or apparently equivalently, qualities that can't be quantified and which therefore don't appear in physics, or equally equivalently, qualities that only appear within intentional attitudes (beliefs, wants, perceptions, hopes, etc) and therefore don't appear in physics.
Why? As long as it's a robust illusion, does it matter or make any difference? What particular problem are you trying to address here? In the context of several of your posts (including the OP), it seems to be related moral responsibility.
Maybe it would be useful to consider For Whom Does Determinism Undermine Moral Responsibility? Surveying the Conditions for Free Will Across Cultures:
On moral responsibility generally (and introducing the idea of compatibilism):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/
And more specifically, regarding the Stoics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-ancient/#StoiFataArguCoFateEven Which seems relevant, given the context of these forums and the significance of one of the notable sons of Tarsus (a significant location of the Stoic school of thought, at the time).
I interpret you as saying we might have choices in the moment by moment uncertain material universe we find ourselves but our considerations of free will or determinism cannot answer that question with any certainty given the infinutely complex nature of the material world.
That would make you agnostic about both free will and determinism.
Do I read you right?
I don’t think threads make up their mind! I’m sure we can talk past one another depending on whether we are considering philosophical, neurological or theological viewpoints.
Why does it matter to me whether human freedom, including choice, is a reality or a robust illusion? Because I also believe that abuse of human freedom is very definitely a reality! Not a robust illusion. It hurts a lot if you’re on the receiving end. That would seem to matter. The suffering is very real. Berdyaev was writing in the context of that. His philosophy and faith did not arise in a calm society. Nor did Alexander Men’s. (Men was a great admirer of his and I mentioned him in the previous thread).
Is my concern moral or ethical or political? Yes.
Reading this feels like wearing a vice on my head. I understand that Berdyaev is relying on basic assumptions that are held in (Western) philosophy, and so doesn't bother to define or support any statements. Without doing that work, he doesn't have to confront his own assumptions, or even rely on reality to inform what he says about it.
The entire quote relies on the assumption of absolute freedom (whatever he means by it) in contrast to absolute determinism (whatever he means by it) which he equates with compulsion. For human purposes, neither pole is of value.
Refusing the reality of some nonconscious, nonsentient beginning, or ourselves as subjects of the laws of nature is simply silly. And the fact of them has nothing to do with our freedom or lack of it in any practical sense.
We are. And have no control over our having come into being. Until some point of maturity, we are hardly "free" in any sense at all, unable to care even for ourselves. We are. within community and all that that implies. We are utterly reliant for years on the agency of others.
Our existence and agency are subject to our surroundings as well as our very composition.
Get away from the desk and hang out for a few weeks with brain-injured kids or adults, or with special ed kids. Spend time with residents of senior citizen communities. Learn about the brain-altering affects of certain chemicals such as heroine. Absolute freedom is an illusion. Although Berdyaev doesn't seem to grasp that.
His final statement, "Freedom is the alternative to nihilism," is illogical. One can have all the freedom one wants and still see it all as pointless, absurd, meaningless.
A nihilist can view freedom as an illusion, but that doesn't mean that having more freedom will disprove the view to the nihilist. There is something else going on, and more freedom (whatever that is) doesn't cure it, might even reinforce it. That's what the book of Ecclesiastes is about. I'm sure, as a Christian Berdyaev must have read it.
Berdyaev never addresses in the quote above that freedom and necessity are more like a sliding scale, or perhaps form us through our interaction with them acting on us. These are more complex ways of looking at the matter, which are far more reflective of the actual lives we are living.
The current state of which depend on their previous state and the physical forces acting on them. I don't think there's room in that model for free will in the colloquial (and libertarian) sense, which leaves various forms of compatibilism and hard determinism.
He was writing in the contexts of both reactionary Tsarism and revolutionary communist totalitarianism. Plus he wrote a lot more.
I’m not defending the binary defects of the quote. Of course the issues are more complicated than that simple quote would indicate. And of course it has rhetorical elements.
I've been absent/on again/off again for so long now I barely feel like I have the place to comment on such a weighty subject. But it's one that haunted me for most of my university days as a philosophy major, and it's of course inextricably entwined with the logical conundrum known as "the problem of evil".
It took me about 20 years to assemble a coherent narrative framework that admits of BOTH a Supreme Consciousness that is all-loving all-knowing and all-powerful AND the existence of free will, suffering and atrocious evil. And that free will AND predestination are both at work simulateously in my life.
What was required was for me to pay careful attention to some of my own experiences with regard to past-life recall, and to not dismiss out of hand the possibility of continuity-of-consciousness through a transmigratory corporeal journey. Fancy schmancy roundabout reference to the R word.
If anybody is interested in hearing my conclusions I'd be happy to share. But I don't want to intrude on the current discussion if it doesn't feel appropriate.
Love to everyone .
AFF