Why Determinism Fails (Feel Free to Disagree!)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2024
- Are humans physical machines determined by the laws of chemistry and physics? Has science shown that free will is a myth? Sean and Scott invite Biola philosophy professor Greg Ganssle to discuss the recent book Determined by Robert Sapolsky. They discuss the nature of free will, respond to common arguments in favor of determinism, and talk about why this issue matters so much for human flourishing.
READ: Determined, by Robert Sapolsky (amzn.to/3w1r0rX)
READ: Our Deepest Desires: How the Christian Story Fulfills Human Aspirations (amzn.to/3xCSmFc)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org - Наука та технологія
"You are Free to Disagree" - I see what you did there.
Haha, yep!
😂 excellent 💯
Yes, I see what he did there as well, i.e. confuse the issue by using the ambiguity or multiple uses for the term "free". That an apologist would use this type of sophistry is unsurprising.
@@semidemiurge Yes because atheists never do, lol
@@SeanMcDowellIt also shows how little you understand about determinism.
I fail to see how Compatibilism somehow grants moral responsibility. If we do what we want, and what we want is determined, then what we do is determined.
What we want is determined, is is undeniable, this what we do is also determined. This idea that we have “free will” and that we can act like random number generators is disproved by basic logic.
Interesting discussion. I was watching a "sugar" expert on a nutrition channel recently.
He's a scientist and also a nutrition advocate.
I was surprised to hear him say that he's a determinist, believing that people, in particular, certain poor populations are predisposed to eating highly processed and other junk foods. He was much more detailed than this.
His solution, however, is to have the Federal Government tell us what we can and cannot eat.
Why, I thought, would I give up my perceived freedom to choose what food I eat to a group of politicians and judges, who are also living under the illusion of their freedom to choose, to determine what I eat? 🤯
Whether free will exists or not does not impact the fact that some outcomes are better. We outlaw plenty of stuff already like illegal drugs. Outlawing certain foods is not that far off.
@@WaterCat5 Unfortunately.
I think a lot of us are giving a lot more thought to the question of free will because of Leighton Flowers. While I've never really bought the idea of compatibilism, I used to have the idea that maybe it could work, somehow, in some weird way. After listening to Leight Flowers quite a bit, I'm left thinking that it's just nonsense.
Thank God for Leighton!
SAME problem for compatabalists: you can’t be caused to desire something and have no ability to choose against your desire, and still be held responsible. It IS defacto determinism.
I'd argue it's not merely de-facto determism, but worse; it IS determism, but pretending not to be. I.e. it is determism with an element of fraud.
It bears the same trappings as determism "proper", but redefines "free will" in an ad hoc manner in order to obfuscate.
Hey there, one of your friendly neighborhood compatibilist here. I think one of my favorite things about compatibilism, besides the fact that it's true, is how it makes both determinists' and libertarians' heads explode.
@@jacobvictorfisher8256 that's a quality argument there
I try to not argue with strangers on the internet. I know, I’m weird.
@@jacobvictorfisher8256 engages in conversation with strangers on the Internet, but claims to not engage in conversation with strangers on the Internet when challenged to provide substantive meritable content rather than platitudes and rhetoric 🤣
Got it. Makes as much sense as compatibalism 🤣
No free will = no guilt.
We cannot be called depraved or commendable in any sense without free will.
Merely passive recipients of the assigned roll of whatever determined us to do things.
Exactly. Without free will, there can be no such thing as sin, since we could only do what God wants us to do.
@@TimothyFish Or what we are naturalistically programmed to do according to the likes of Sam Harris.
You can still call actions depraved and recognize where they came from. That doesn't mean we shouldnt imprison criminals or try to correct behavior. It doesn't mean the person doing the act will never change their ways. Not sure what the issue even is. Just that we can't cast literally all of the blame on someone? Even under free will, it's not like we can do that. I don't think there's anyone out there who seriously thinks a drug addiction can just choose to not do drugs like choosing what to eat for breakfast. Obviously, our states of mind and environment influence decisions at the very least.
There is still consequence regardless of will/intention. If a person has a successful insanity defense in court, they are still separated from society. Consequence will happen even if you try not to consider it punishment.
@@phyrisl2 Exactly, if one demonstrates harmful insbility to choose, they are removed from society.
Sean, your channel is big enough, why don’t you get Sapolsky on with Ganselle, let them discuss the issue. You are of course free to ignore my suggestion.
That’s a great idea, thanks!
@@SeanMcDowell Yahweh much like free will is make believe. Can't wait for you to get sapolsky on
I totally agree - I like Sean's stuff but I thought this was a bit strange not to have the actual author on to explain or defend his positions.
Your videos are all such blessings! I’ve been struggling with some doubts for a while and really appreciate your insight and stories of others. You help address some hard, difficult issues and questions that we all think about. Thank you
Compatibilistic free will is not free will in any way most people would recognize as free. It claims that a will is free if it can do what it wants. But all your wants are determined by outsides forces. To call that "free will" is double speak.
Because it's not free will at all....
Correct. It contradicts the standard definition of "free"
Outside forces influence, not determine
I'm a compatibilist, and I agree that free will, as I understand it, is not what most people understand free will to be. But that's the case with most difficult philosophical concepts.
Exactly! Compatibilism IS determinism
Science, in this case neuroscience, is interesting and we should study and learn as much as we can. However, for me this book is just the most recent example of what I see scientists do all the time. They gain a little knowledge in the laboratory and then they try to extrapolate that data well beyond what is actually verifiable scientifically. There is a lack of humility in the sciences. Science has done so much to improve our lives, but my goodness, they prove every day that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing!
Compatibalism is a fallacy.
J.I. Packer argued, unsuccessfully, for this in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.
Because I will to do what God has predetermined for me to do, no matter how "free" it appears to be, does not make it free.
Perceived freedom of the will is not free in any sense of the word.
Determinists, in particular, Calvinists, have a serious problem here.
That sounds like hard determinism. The problem with believing you’re predetermined to do something even if God predetermined it means one could justify any of their actions potentially. That puts one into the same camp as an atheistic naturalist.
THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS PODCAST ON, I LIKE THESE DISCUSIONS.
Great conversation. Thank you!
I think one of the challenges faced by the determinist is not only to establish that a unique mechanism exists where a given current event is solely linked to a prior set of events, but also they would need to demonstrated that this causal set is unique when compared to other sets of events both materially and relationally.
Hello, I watched The Beat today, 24 Aprail. Really enjoyed the collaboration.
Looked you up and.. SUBSCRIBED.
Amen
Personally knowing Robert, if you had invited him, he would have been more than willing to discuss his book with you. Did you ask?
But then again ... whether or not we get rid of free will has already been determined ... as far as determinists are concerned.
Excellent discussion.
I found this interesting. Thank you!
I have been wondering where you stand on this Dr. McDowell!
😀
@@SeanMcDowell Will you be telling us? I haven't determined yet your stance. 😀 😀
I suppose it comes down to how omnipotent God really is: humans can defy God's Sovereign Will or humans cannot defy his Sovereign Will. I lean the latter.
Control over beliefs: - you can immediately change your belief when presented with a strong reason(evidence/ argument etc). You can immediately change belief like when you suddenly see something you believed was false based on evidence.
If you see a flower in the vase can you really choose to believe the vase is empty?
The best argument I heard for determinism was from a discussion between Alex O’Conner and Ben Shapiro, in which Alex philosophically argued for determinism from the “law of non-contradiction.” I think there are some serious flaws in his argument, but it was something I had to listen to a few times to fully get it, and then think about for a while before I saw the problems with it.
I love finding that kind of argument, the kind that poses a serious challenge even if I'm not convinced in the end.
@@jacobvictorfisher8256 If you want to see some of the best atheistic/agnostic/materialist arguments, I would recommend Alex O’Conner’s self-named UA-cam channel, as well as Joe Schmid’s UA-cam channel, “Majesty of Reason.” The latter one especially offers several well thought out philosophical alternatives. I personally think the collective case leans more towards theism, but those two are rather solid thinkers.
What are the problems with it? Please tell me
@@charles21137 Sorry for the delayed response. I work about 50 hours a week, and lots of responsibilities at home too. So here is my analysis:
First, a clarification, it’s the Law of the Excluded Middle. So, to first break down the argument for anybody who is unfamiliar with it, it states (and I’m quoting from the video to use his own words): “The proposition that P must either be true or false, and it can’t be both, and it can’t be neither. It has to be one or the other…we can simple ask a question of any kind of mental activity, and this will be regardless of whether it’s material or immaterial. *cutting a bit for time* You can ask of that mental activity: is it determined or is it not? That is, is it determined by anything else or is it completely undetermined by anything? If it’s undetermined by anything, then it’s random, and you’re by definition not in control of that which is random. If it’s determined by something, then it’s either determined by something deeper inside your mind, or inside your brain, or indeed inside your soul. *cutting a bit more for time* If it’s determined by something exterior to yourself, then you’re not in ultimate control of that action and if it’s something inside of yourself, then all you do is push the problem back and you ask the question again…you keep going until it terminates outside of yourself, or it’s undetermined and therefore random.”
Now, I think this is a very powerful argument. It’s very strong, especially at first glance. However, I think it ignores our observational evidence, that we clearly think about things. We can internally reflect on our thoughts, if we so choose, or reject the choice(s) we’ve made. We weigh options, change our minds (or not), and we sometimes knowingly act in ways that are not in our best interests. It doesn’t follow that deterministic being that is programmed for survival, could possibly, knowingly, do something that is against its’ best interests.
I'm not free to disagree - I was always going to disagree based on my biochemistry and environment :)
It’s the same for the individuals who believe in “free will” can be no other way.
This is a very complex topic with a lot being said and will be said in the future.
First point: It's good that this discussion opened with the statement that this talk would be about a physicalist, atheistic view of free will. I think most theists and Christians believe that God has free will at the very least even if man doesn't. This would leave open a certain amount of non-determinism, even if just in the mind of God. If this is the case then there would be a certain degree of randomness and unpredictability in the universe, whereas, if everything has a physical cause and corresponds to an effect, and given that the consciousness of will and decision making isn't physical, then this would distinguish the theological and atheistic arguments.
Second point: Dr. Ganssle gives the defense to the purpose of writing the book Determined as necessary for some kind of physical change in the brain/mind to occur, this same defense could be used for criminal punishment. The issue is that we don't know what people are determined to do and whether they will change from day to day, this gets in to personal eschatology. Again there are different complexities that arise whether you think about this from an atheistic or theistic framework. Most Christians who are Armenian would ask how/why God would punish someone when He knows what they would do from the beginning? From an atheist perspective you wouldn't ask this question, but you would have to wrestle with a sense of fatalism and amorality. If an atheists can convince themselves that they understand some elses person eschatology and think it's not suitable for their continued existence they may convince themselves or others to remove these people, and be justified by saying that "this person would have never changed".
Good talk, I find the topic very interesting. But at the end of the day I always come back to something my Father told me a long time ago: "free will and determinism are two sides of the same coin we may never understand on this side of heaven ". God bless.
Incredible! Millennia have passed and we are still going like the dog chasing its own tail with this topic. Nothing new here, in my view. Thanks any way for sharing.
12:38 "something that feels like a decision". How do we know when something feels like a decision? How are we to know what a decision is?
I havent watched the video, but is that tghe kind of arguments one can expect? Because its the usual argument along with just assuming something is free.
When we weigh and evaluate our actions and reactions.
For instance. I want that thing I see. Do I have enough money to buy it? Do I really need it? Where would i put it. Ok, i will buy or not buy based on my evaluations.
@@chrisazure1624 maybe you missed my point. If Sopolsky is correct about determinism, and we don't have free will, it means we don't actually make decisions. This would also mean that we don't know what a decision even is, since decisions can't occur in his universe. If things like decisions don't exist, how would we even know what they are, or how to recognize them?
@gregorytoews8316 We wouldn't know, but Sean is also the person to think moral objectivism exists because he feels strongly. He isn't going to see the problem.
@@chrisazure1624 Yes, but is that free will? Aren't you just evaluating competing desires, and the stronger one is winning out Ex: My desire to be fiscally responsible overriding my desire to own this toy/item/whatever. Determinism isn't simply your most short-sighted impulses winning out.
As a Calvinist, I can affirm that on determinism: humans still have free will, are making choices, and are morally responsible for them. We have free will but not a freed will.
What is a freed will? I've never heard that before.
What i mean by "freed will" is:
The wills of all people since the fall, are enslaved to sin. We lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.
(Romans 6 verse 17 and 18; chapter 8 verses 7 and 8)
A person needs to be freed from this bondage to sin. This occurs when God converts a sinner, and translates him into a state of grace, at which point they are then able to freely will and to do that which is spiritually good.
( Colossians 1 verse 13; Romans 6 verse 22)
Also, the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 9 Of Free will, explains this point a little more in detail. Hope this helps and have a blessed day.
@@smarterworkout
@reformed2019 Thanks for the clarification. I do not think this works, however.
On this view, God determines all things including individual's sin.
Again, on this view, if God moves the will of a person to repent, and believe Christ, it was God who unilaterally acted. The person had no part in it. Conversely, if God moves the will of a person to reject God and live a sinful life, it was God who unilaterally acted.
In what sense does a person have a will at all? It appears to be the case that it is ultimately God's will and people are passively determined from the outset.
If true, I think the concept of love disintegrates.
Growing up as an atheist, I only came to believe that we have free wills when I read and believe "GOD IS LOVE " (1 John 4 8)
God demonstrated his perfect love for us through Jesus Christ. He redeemed us with his own flesh and blood.
Without free will, we can't love.
This is so true. Thank you. It's so simple but it answers the dilemma. ❤️
If I'm determined to love God how can it be real love. Even in our humanity we can't be forced to love someone. It has to be a choice
@@andrettanylund830would you say the love a mother feels towards their child is not real love because their instincts make them want to love their child? I think it’s beautiful that people are destined since before time to love each other, not just rolling a dice to randomly depict if they love a person or not.
@@charles21137 I'm not sure what you mean but a mother would always love her child. Anyway I was going to ask you how you know you were a chosen one? Even RC Sprol doubted his election and wondered if he did enough good works to be a chosen one so I don't understand how it can be so comforting if you aren't even sure you were chosen.
@@charles21137 maybe I sent my reply to the wrong person. Im a little confused who answered me. Sorry😊
every person i see who is against the idea of determinism seem to think we cant blame any one if determinism is true, so like if a guy robs a convenient store, you cant blame him because he was determined to rob the store, to counter this is quite simple really, let me ask you a very simple question, are you determined to blame him?
If we program an AI to do x, but we also program it to say "i think therfore i am, and I want to do x"
Is it therefore responsible for x?
No, the writer is
@@tonn333 precisely.
@@ravissary79that’s not how Calvinism works 😂 in Calvinism, we are evil by default, by nature of being finite created beings. Only God can perfect us. You also can’t call God guilty of anything using the argument of being predetermined, because if you use that as an excuse for sin, then so can God use it as an excuse for his Holy behavior, he can’t help but judge sinners.
@@charles21137 I don't think most Calvinist would describe biblical anthropology, sin nature, etc. In the way you have here. Can you please clarify your understanding of the nature of man pre and post fall? I want to understand what you believe on this. Best Regards.
@@charles21137 so in Calvinism God created us as evil?
But in the Bible God created us as good and we chose evil (not trusting in the Most High)
Calvinism is not Biblical.
Determinism destroys everything human. To write books defending it is to acknowledge you don’t really believe it, because why bother convincing anyone?
On the other hand: free will is a miracle. We cannot even perceive how anything could be without a cause. Not even in the spiritual world. So we free-willers must do more than debunk determinsim, we must also admit our deep seated faith in some profound and mysterious.
I don’t think this podcast went far enough in either direction (critique of determinism or explanation of free will). This topic is waaaay more radical
You don't get determinism. If you write a book, you will present information to people that can cause them to make a different decision than if you hadn't.
@@WaterCat5 you don’t get determinsim. In fact, under determinism there is no «you» or «me». There is no one to persuade to anything for any reason. There are simply processes.
@@WaterCat5
It is YOU who doesn't understand determinism.
@@mortensimonsen1645 But news flash, those processes seem to change based on eyes reading words. Therefore, presenting information does alter actions, even if you wish to dispose of the concept of personhood. You can't ignore the fact that new information alters decision-making. That's the whole point of determinism. If you change the starting point, you can alter the ending point.
@@WaterCat5 I accept what you are saying, no problem. But my critique goes much deeper. Let me explain with this example: If two chat-GPT-process talk to each other, they will continuously generate new states in each other. This may result in an endless chat, with new variations all the time. But we know that these processes are not "persons" or "actors" in any sense. This whole chat is of zero worth. The same goes with a determined human, he is no more than a biological robot on par or perhaps of less value than chatGPT. You argue that since we can alter the state of these determined "humans", we should consider that something of value - but that is where you fail totally. It has no worth, in fact, conversation and persuasion are meaningless. Whatever these robots say, it's determined. So to convince more robots, that is: to alter their internal state, has no purpose.
So how do determinists defend evolution? On determinism - if we would know everything from the beginning then all mutations aren’t random but predetermined by previous events all the way to the Big Bang. So it is not an evolutionary process but a predetermined process. Same thing is for the survival of fittest, on determinism the survival has been predetermined from the time of the Big Bang. Am I correct?
determinism covers whether or not humans have free will. evolution describes the process by which species change over time. the two don’t even cover the same topics.
you might as well say “how can moral subjectivist defend photosynthesis?”
it’s a nonsense question
@@babs_babs no it is not. Determinism states that ALL processes can be traced back to the initial conditions at the Big Bang if we know all the information and all the laws of physics necessary because all the processes are physical. It is applied here only to the idea of free will, but it can easily applied to other fields. You can rephrase the same question to the animals (which we are according to physicalists). Do the predators make a free choice to eat one prey or another? Are the spices that survive really better adapted or predetermined to survive. I think it doesn’t take much imagination to see that determinism (as an idea) has much wider implications than just human free will. In this video and in the books it deals only with philosophical implications but it is not limited to only that. Ask a simple question are ALL events predetermine? If you say “yes” then you include evolution if not then you need to prove how are the processes differentiate between predetermined and random.
Isn’t our agency corrupted by sin though? Can a corrupted will act in obedience?
I think so. Children have corrupt wills but can obey their parents. Sin natures producing sinful inclinations don't stop people from sometimes choosing to do good. Being a slave (to sin) does not entail the inability to desire to be free nor the ability to accept freedom if offered.
Not only can we, but we are commanded by God to! Genesis 4:7
Not if it's predetermined that you loose your free will the moment you choose to sin.
Yes. Influences are not necessarily deterministic, though. One can be influenced by many factors, but the ultimate action of partaking in sin is a free will decision, regardless of the influences. Otherwise, the scripture (and God) is lying when it tells us God gives us a way out of sinning, even when we are tempted. Temptation as a coherent concept falls apart if determinism is true.
Through enough adverse life experiences and the observations of adverse life experiences. The absence of “free will” becomes obvious, no science needed. So this is what I have to say to “free will” believers I’m glad your existence was “good” enough (
Divine determinism of all things is rejected in scripture. See Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35.
Sean, you should look into having on Guillaume Bignon who wrote "Excusing sinners and blaming God." Have on the opposition.
I would think that some of the well documented NDEs (near death experiences) might offer a strong argument against this proposed deterministic model. Some of the NDEs have occurred under conditions where they absolutely know that there is no brain activity (i.e. - no neurons firing).
Free will doesn’t work even if there is a spirit. Think about it for just a second, if there is a spirit, what causes it to choose one thing or the other, is it random or based in something, and is that something random or also caused by something? I rather not be a random number generator.
Yes, you are free to disagree. However, if you could rewind time, and then do it again, could you have ever agreed, or would you still disagree.
I love the title. Determinism fails but feel free to disagree. Sounds good. I guess I might take him up on that offer :)
I believe we have free will and I just don't know whether we can make a universal claim of determinism or not.
Yep. I'm one of those compatibilists.
Determinism feels like a belief system for for redditors and kids who weren’t spanked.
16:42 to past 17:00 👏
I disagree with the conclusions of this discussion as the religious view of the participants cloud their impartiality as they don’t have the free will to even consider otherwise…not their fault it was already determined before they considered the discussion.
If we give up our first person experience of free will which is so strong then we need to give up our first person experience of my five senses as being in error and you lose science all together as you must go through them to do science. Philosophy First.
Well done guys - here is a challenge. Are you familiar with Bret Weinstein and his UA-cam channel Darkhorae Podcast? I like listening to him as I liked listening to your discussion today because I really like well articulated arguments that make a point. I also am a strong Christian believer and I believe strongly in the idea of God that created us and gave us agency and free will to exercise that agency.
Anyhow - I often like and agree with the logical outcomes that Brent reaches - ex pet when he just what I call a glass wall. He gets stuck in his atheistic and scientific prison where he can only accept things that he can scientifically explain. He can’t seem to grasp that there are things that exist that science isn’t well equipped to study.
All that to say - I am working on and I would like your thoughts or efforts at how best to make the arguments to Brent that he is in error and rationally ought to at least give the creation and a god story and dare I say the God of the Christian Bible a good study and understanding. Anyone want to help with that?
I could perhaps help you if I understood what youre trying to say. Im an atheist that dont believe in free will.
This sounds like another path to eugenics.
Consciousness does not arise from the brain/neurons, but exists in an apparently autonomous manner, using the brain as a type of instrument to effect its choices. This type of determinism obviously does not recognize that distinction and represents a nothing more than scientific materialism taken to its radical extreme. Even the great Sir Roger Penrose acknowledges that while we are clueless as to the origin of human consciousness, it is something distinct from the physical brain.
Even if you believe in a spirit world, free will doesn’t make sense. Tell me, what makes your spirit do one things or the other? Is it random, or does it have reasons? If it has reasons, are those reasons random or do they also have a cause? It isn’t materialism it is basic cause and effect.
I think mental illness completely disproves what you said, I am my brain nothing more or less.
I think this whole idea falls apart in the face of overcoming addiction. The point at the eight minute mark were they say every neuron firing is the direct result of the previous firing. Then why the change in behavior. There seems to be a departure from the previous neurons firing, then add in relapse. So it changes again. Why do some people go 20 years before having a drink again? The only answer I can wrestle out of people who think we have no free will is determinism. They use that word like God.
Such a clever title lol
Both atheists and Calvinists argue against free will, that tells you about something.
that christians are inconsistent in their beliefs across denominations?
Freewill is the foundation of humanism, read Aldous Huxley or Corliss Lamont. That puts you in the humanist camp.
The two questions are contradictory.
"The science of no free will." and
"The science of how we might best live once we accept this."
As if he has a choice in making the proposition and as if we have a choice how we live assuming we have a choice whether or not we accept it. It's all nonsense.
At any rate, "it's in the best interest of society" ... "best" according to whom? Some people think "best" is for us all to commit suicide. And even if it is "best" for society, what would be "wrong" with anyone trying to get away with whatever they can? Who gets to define what is pragmatic, and who are we to judge anyone for doing anything -- if there is no free will?
Ok what about this: biochemical reactions are the implementation of our free will. Anyone?? Beuller?? Beuller??😅
If God knows every possible action and outcome, and God gave us the ability to choose our actions, God has determined our actions, as he knew the exact actions we would take when he gave us free will, as well as the outcome of our actions. He has also determined the outcomes, as he both knew of and approved of it happening by causing something that he knew would cause it. Furthermore God controls at least some part of both the outcome and what precedes it, assuming God interacts with creation in even the slightest way.
I say this as a theist, not as an atheist or deist critiquing theism.
Only one problem with your statement, “…and approved of it….” God repeatedly states His disapproval of our actions of sin. Just because something can and does happen that He disapproves of, does NOT mean that He did not know about it. That is a hard thing to get through but is the age-old question: How can there be evil in the world with a loving God? How can God give Divine permission through His omniscience and omnipotence yet not approve of it? That is free will in a nut shell.
@@stacinolan86He has to approve of everything at least in a sense otherwise it would not exist.
Just because he knows something will happen doesn't mean that he determined it so.
@@ecpasosIf God knows X will cause Y, as he does given he is omniscient, and God chooses to do X, then he chose for Y to happen.
@@Wully02 except that in between x and y are us humans that freely choose Y.
Anyone ever read any Luther?
Free will or pre determination? We will never agree. Its irrelevant since we suffer the consequences of our actions no matter the cause.
Exactly. Actions still have consequences whether they were determined or random
@@PiRobot314 Had an extraordinary encounter with men of apparent cosmic intelligence. They explained the matter thus: our destinies are in the realm of possibilities that mean nothing until they are manifested.
The reason that the question of whether or not free will exists is so important seems to be lost on most. If it does exist, it is clear evidence of the super natural. If people can control themselves despite the physical postion of the Universe in the prior moment, that is proof of the supernatural. If Free will does NOT exist, that again, would be proof of God. There is no way an explosion would have people create the art we see today billions of years later. No way what so ever. Both positions point to God. That is why this conversation is so important.
If God is all-knowing, this includes the future, so every one of our actions is already known to God. You can write all of the books you want with convoluted ideas seeking to confuse. But it doesn't matter. The only way for us to have free will would be for God to be of limited knowledge.
I believe J.P. Moreland has demonstrated we aren’t our neurons🥴😉
It is both, free will and no free will at the same time. Because there is the macro and the micro world at the same time.
YES-NO-YES-NO-YES-NO sorry I can't seem to stop
Im a christian and i loathe calvanism too
So does God have freewill ... Can God choose to be evil. Eg"They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open"
Or is anything god does deemed good. If a person obeys will of God by dashing a baby to the ground, is that an exercise of free will. If they harm a baby to avoid punishment from god, is that free will?
Exodus 20:13
13 “You shall not murder.
@@zyxwfish the concept of murder is comparatively modern ... it is more correctly translated as not kill.
There are quite a few commandments that offer exceptions and clarifications ... killing infants is permissible. Eg, Hosea 13:16r "They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
So again; do we have free will if God demands we conduct a wicked act
The more basic question here is: does perfect randomness exist? Because only random patterns can ensure a free will. Since there is unlimited potential in existence, we actually know that true random generation really does exist, and so free will is enabled because of that. Simple math basically.
“True randomness” is a dumb. I rather be determined by my biology and such then by randomness.
@@charles21137 It is both, biology is just a structure but randomness is part of the fields around electrons. But the biology is certainly in the foreground.
@@Braun09tv we know for a fact that biological processes are not random, even though you want fantasize about it, it takes a lot to keep an entire atom in superposition, so it doesn’t happen in your body. You are controlled by predictable chemical processes, leave your pseudoscience out of this.
Free-willer: I chose the vanilla icecream over chocolate icecream. It was my free choice.
Compatiblist: I agree with you, because your will was inclined to do so.
This just seems like a waste of time... dithering over semantics, and in the process, invalidating the question anyway. If everything is determined, then there is no meaning, so why even talk about it? If the entirety of human experience is purely biological, then what are all these thoughts and feelings? The whole question seems like a distraction.
Calvinism is not Biblical.
Sean isn't a member of the East Syriac Church
So much for Free Will
FYI Calvinism isn't determinism.
@@doxieherblitz not strictly speaking, but Calvinism states our ultimate destiny is decided against our will. That is not the God of the Bible.
According to the West Minister Confession of Faith God ordains all things (including the bad). So I believe Calvinism would be considered determinism. It’s just God who determines everything.
I agree. Thank you for saying that. I hate that people keep spouting nonsense.
40 minutes of “If you can’t prove that God didn’t fire that neuron, he must be in there somewhere. Not one scrap of positive evidence.
This compatibilism doesn’t make any sense.
His words:
“So I do an action because I will to, and if I didn’t will to, I wouldn’t have done it, but my will is determined.”
Okay then that’s just determinism. He could have simply said “I do an action because I was determined to, and if I wasn’t determined to, I wouldn’t have done it.”
If determinism were true, none of us could know it because everything we did and believed would not be based on evaluating evidence and choosing which was more reasonable, we would just be dancing to a tune that nature or God forced us to. All thoughts, beliefs, and actions would be unstoppable and to argue about it would be futile as arguing assumes your interlocutor possesses the free will to change their mind🤦🏻♂️
I agree that we wouldn't be able to know it for a fact, yes. It'd simply have to be (as many things are) our best attempt at explaining the world around us, feat. us.
Evaluating evidence & choosing the most reasonable one, then, becomes more of a technical game. In any real, truthful sense I agree, this is baloney. However, this isn't preventing the fact that has been mentioned many times, which is that it still feels like we make decisions. In a truthful sense, we may not, but that doesn't stop me from feeling like I do, and the knowledge of it is not stopping me either.
All this to say that, love, reason, thought, etc. becomes more apparently descriptors of physical action then- how our neurons move around and do their thing. One particular pattern, effect of, or operation of neurons may be more accurately called thought, whilst another could be called love.
Technically, it would be pointless to have arguments, but I think only if you knew what was true about those arguments anyway. Even if we don't have free will, we still don't know what the correct side (if any) of an argument is. We can still argue for and against certain courses of action because, even though there may inevitably be 1, we don't know which it is, which kinda puts us at practically using the effects of free will anyway.
Clarification: I am not arguing that free will does not exist. I am more simply more accurately (to my knowledge) defining what would be the case in a world where it doesn't exist.
@@Eliza-rg4vw all of this is well stated and I completely get your point. I guess what would say is that those who claim they believe in determinism engage in a performative contradiction. On the one hand, they openly claim they believe that all of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are pre-determined, but then turn around and argue with others to try to change their mind. If, as they claim, they truly believe a person has no ability to choose their beliefs, then all argumentation is essentially just sounds and letters and no real processing is going on.
True love, responsibility, morality, and knowledge of truth can only be possible if we have free will. Without free will it is absurd to judge people for the thoughts and actions they have no control over. We don’t convict the mentally ill/disabled for violent crimes on the basis that they didn’t know any better, so if a person believes determinism is true, they should apply that same standards when judging all violent crimes. If they believe nobody has any control over their behavior, then they should also see the absurdity of punishing behavior the person didn’t have the option not to engage in.
@@scottsponaas You'll be surprised to hear that I (technically) agree with you like 100%. I do think maybe the implications have been thought about, but not really worked thru, with a lot of people.
The first thing that helps many: if it is true, it is true. No matter the consequences. Intuition does not overpower truth. In order to cope with no free will, this idea needs acceptance for many people.
I do believe I covered some of this, at least. Particularly with arguing, I agree that technically, you cannot "change someone's mind". The issue I take here, though, is that we do not operate on s technical level in the practical world. 100% agreed that in terms of truth, you cannot (well, if determinism is true. Randomness could exist which would make this true still but differently lol.).
In the practical, real world though, that's not how humans operate. Even if we know that we can't actually change someone's mind, it still looks like that what we call arguing can lead to a result that looks like them changing their mind, even if it is not, in truth, the case. The truth of thr matter is not going to impact how the situation still looks and feels- I compare it to optical illusions. Similarly to those, you can be fully aware that the illusion is present, yet unable to see past it in spite of that knowledge.
I actually do agree with the first part of the 2nd paragraph, though I'll need to point out 2 things. The first is that word again, technically. The second is that, this is only the case if love, responsibility, morality, etc. are real things and not concepts.
I'd say more but quite frankly I feel extrmeley sick for now, so I'll reply later.
@@Eliza-rg4vw well I hope you feel better soon. Feel free to strike this conversation back up when you do. Seems we have very similar views on this but it’s always interesting to get another person’s perspective. God bless!
I agree, that’s hard determinism. Compatiblism doesn’t work like that.
“I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
What does this mean?
-Answer: I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.” Martin Luther’s small catechism, explanation of the third article of the apostle’s creed.
The only free will exist that bible teaches us the will to either accept God's will ( life) or do stuff our way, which will based on worlds will eventually mainupulated by God of this world ( devil) so (death).
E. g suffering heart break comes to all, vengance and selfishness is logical human or any being, but God's will is it's okay hundred hesrtbreaks, in depression but still remain humble hopefull. Why? Though, because we trust him maybe he let this happen to use this for greater purpose.
I loathe determinism and that view of God so much so that the very idea derailed my journey. I was actually leaning toward Christianity until Calvinism reared its ugly head. Nothing makes you think “this is man-made” like Calvinism does. But then it made me think that maybe it all is and it all just became too exhausting to try to figure out. 😒
You know you can reject Calvinism without rejecting the love of God as expressed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Like most Systemized Theologies, it emphasizes some passages over others. The journey I am on is to love God and love others as best I can by following the guidance of the Bible and Holy Spirit.
Hey, same experience as you but you don't need to think that Calvinism is true. When we experience doubt we don't need to do that without God. God's not afraid of us doubting or questioning, I learnt that I can go through doubts with God rather than without him. So hold his hand as you navigate through all the lies. Ask him along the way.
@@nejiskafir8198I'm responding to your response to the person who is exhausted from trying to figure things out and got hung up over Calvinism. Thank you, you said that very well.
If you will allow me, I will try to simplify salvation and how to become a Christian for you. We have all done things that are wrong and this keeps us from having a relationship with God. Until Jesus came, sacrifices were made for past sins but none of them covered future sins. Jesus was born and lived a life being tempted in everything every way just as we are tempted, but without ever yielding. This made Him the perfect spotless sacrifice to take the responsibility for all of our sins upon Himself and receive our punishment in our place. When God's wrath was satisfied with the punishment His Son took for everyone, He gave Jesus the power to rise from death to life. Because of the finished work of the cross, we can have a relationship with God the Father through the payment that His Son Jesus paid on our behalf. When we acknowledge that we have committed sins, these keep us separated from being with God, and thank Jesus for taking our place, we are immediately filled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that He would have to leave and that He would send the comforter to live with us in His place and teach us. John 14:26 When the Holy Spirit enters our lives we are starting over again as a new creation since the old life is exchanged for the new life. 2 Corinthians 5:17 & Ephesians 4:24. There's nothing for us to do or not do because we are dead to our sinful nature since our old nature and natural cravings are exchanged with Jesus' nature. No, we won't stop sinning until we meet Jesus face to face and our salvation is completed but in God's eyes, and that's all that matters, we are justified and pure. My father explained the word justified this way, when God sees us it is {-Just-As-If-I'd-} never done it. Although he used this example to help kids understand this word every time I hear a person use it I automatically hear my Dad's explanation.
Calvinism is false. Christianity is true 😊God loves all people and wants us all to come to him.
The will is a slave to sin, and it’s only through the Holy Spirit that the will is free to live out righteousness. These debates always miss the mark because they ignore critical theological concepts.
Prevenient grace is absolutely essential to the free will argument if one believes in libertarian free will. If this is ignored, salvation is nothing but a process of manipulating the will of a person, and with enough brainwashing they can be wholly convinced. After all, the Bible makes no distinction between the mind/soul/will, they are all names for the same essence of one’s being.
If a will is completely free, with no influences (which would be necessary for absolutely free choice), then the decision is arbitrary. Neutrality only further complicates free will.
The molinist has a far better argument for the freedom of the will, in that they actually take into account that you couldn’t exist if it wasn’t for exactly the history that played out as it did. If God knew us before we were even born, then free will as most think of it, can’t exist. That why anyone that actually wants to genuinely understand this topic knows that there is at least 4 different ways to view the human will. Either the will is completely free, and God isn’t, or the will is limited in some sense and therefore not completely free, or there is soft determinism in which the will is free to operate within its orientation until freed, or there is hard determinism which is more like the robot analogy in which the will utterly bound and one has to question how perception of reality can even exist.
Within these four there are still more subcategories.
Can you choose to be an atheist right now? No? Then you are not free to choose what you believe.
That logic does not follow. You can choose to seek evidence that will convince you.
@@peterfox7663 but you can’t choose what convinces you nor do you choose what line of evidence you desire to pursue. “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”
Exactly!!!
I think the biggest “issue” that these people are scared of are the implications of there not being free will, but I honestly find it comforting that my decisions are determined by who I am then being randomly generated.
@@charles21137 most people don’t even realize that if decisions aren’t determined then they are random/arbitrary.
God literally commanded His people to adhere to the Law that He knew they could not live up to, and yet He held them culpable for it. So no, you can’t claim that God couldn’t judge His creatures for something they couldn’t help but succumb to eventually
My will was always inclined towards the things opposite of how the God of scripture reveals how I should conduct myself. Looking back I realize my will was enslaved , and my sinful nature was the lord of my life. It wasn’t until I was born again , that I now have the will to fight against that sinful nature . To me , only a will that is not under any kind of coercion right or wrong is truly free. My will is now driven by The Holy Spirit ,that I may not give in to my sinful nature.
"If you can identify one neuron that fires as a result NOT of something previous, then I'll believe in free will."
Yes, 2 things: the FIRST neuron that fired,
and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.
"If there is determinism, then there's no moral culpability."
"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still hold us responsible, if he has already determined what we're going to do?" Romans 9:19
Nevertheless there is moral responsibility, and there is a God.
ROFL. OH dear, well, since you mention imaginary things, you fail.
Are you intending to have this intellectual spar based on biological causes which fired up your neurons?
Or would you like to spar purely out of your independent free will?😊
""If you can identify one neuron that fires as a result NOT of something previous, then I'll believe in free will.""
This makes no sense. Rabdom firings of neurons is "freedom"? How?
That Romans 9:19 is not in my Bible. Which translation do you use?
God is sovereign over everything, including human actions. Of the brothers’ great betrayal of Joseph, Scripture says, “You meant IT for evil; God meant IT for good, for the salvation of many.” (Gen. 50)
And of the guilty parties who murdered Jesus Christ, Scripture says it happened “according to predestined plan.” (Ac. 2 & 4).
Man makes real choices. God is sovereign over those choices. Man is responsible. God judges man.
Look at Isa. 10, which days that God used the invading forces to act according to his righteous will, though they had evil in their hearts. God uses them to punish Israel, then God punishes the “tools in his hands.”
So, now you've talked about what determinism isn't, now tell us what free will actually is.
Who would've guessed! Another topic on which pretty much every scientist and philosopher on the planet argues one thing, but, because that thing happens to run against theological sensitivities, apologists have to run massive mental gymnastics to salvage the illusion. Guys, at some point, you just have to let it go.
Don’t try to make sense of his determinism, it’s absurd, illogical and most important UNBIBLICAL.
there's literally hundreds of explicitly anti-freewill verses. Either God's will, or man's will. There can't be both. Put your faith in God's will.
This is one of the most pointless debates ever, in fact, it's not a debate and it cannot be answered philosophically.
Free will (determinism) is only answerable by quantum mechanics and until the problem is solved using quantum mechanics everything else stated on the subject is simply irrelevant white noise.
A point to consider: An explosion occurs, there are literally thousands or millions of things arising from it that will ripple through time forever. People dying, ambulances, legs blown off, etc., etc.
Now consider you move back in time to just before the explosion and imagine everything is exactly the same down to the position of every sub-atomic particle (including in everyone's brain) and it happens again. There is nothing to suggest, if everything is exactly the same, that everything that follows wouldn't be exactly the same as there is nothing to alter it. Now consider the Big Bang (big expansion). It happens once, what is there to prevent everything that follows being pre-determined by the original event? Not saying it's true, just saying it's interesting.
Quantum mechanics more or less says, if there is no randomness (like the orbit of an electron), then everything would be pre-determined from the Big Bang. And of course, if everything in your brain down to the position of the smallest sub-atomic particle was the same and there was no sub-atomic randomness what could possibly cause a different decision? Not philosophy, not a theory, just an unanswered observation.
Even Jesus prayed “not my will but thine be done.” From a biblical perspective, free will is particularly evident in repentance. God brings conviction to all, but each must decide to repent, to submit one’s own will to the will of God. This is evidenced in Acts 17 when Paul informs the Athenians that God commands all men everywhere to repent, which presupposes their ability to do so, yet their lack in doing so proves their free will. Also, in Matthew 12 Jesus states that the men of Nineveh who repented at the preaching of Jonah would in the resurrection stand up and condemn those who failed to repent at the preaching of Jesus. In a deterministic system they would literally have no ground to stand upon to condemn others for not repenting.
There is a case for maintaining moral responsibility even without free will.
If our inputs affect our outputs, then seeing and knowing people are responsible for their actions influences our output.
So even if we’re determinist machines, we have the input that we’ll go to prison for killing someone. That input may change our output.
So moral responsibility reduces chaos even in a determined world.
It seems unlikely that objective meaning, God, freewill, or morality exist.
We have a freed will, but not a free will.
We didn’t pick our parents, where we were born, what color our skin is. We get to make choices all day, but God still directs our steps.
Denying free will is a convenient intellectual position for an agent of evil. By holding it, a person puts on an mask of a legitimate participant of the intellectual discussion. It occurs in the culture adherent to free speech and under normal political conditions, when the agent of evil faces no or little punishment for the voicing of its harmful ideas. If you were given an ability to see with certainty through such agents' minds, would you even try to debate them? There's little reason to reason with anyone bereft of good will, because there's simply no genuine debate without keeping minds honestly open to the opposite arguments, but the determinism is a belief that inherently excuses itself from the obligation of being honest, open, and good willing.
What?
people like you can’t think past “if no free will, everyone innocent”, if you could pull your head out of your ass for 5 seconds and think, you would notice that there are plenty of ways to incorporate a moral system into a determined world. One is “if a murderer is innocent by being predetermined, then so is the judicial system after punishing them. If the client doesn’t like this, that means they have an obvious unjust mindset, thinking he can justify himself with pre-determinism but when others do it, it is wrong”
OMG, the arguments for free will are so weak it is embarassing to watch.
I agree, It’s the individuals whose lives were “good enough” to have the belief clinging onto the idea that “they’re better” than the less fortunate or mentally ill (who are the most imprisoned individuals). The issue is at this point in time it can be no other way, maybe in a couple billion years. Through enough adverse life experiences and the observations of adverse life experiences the absence of “free will” is obvious, absolutely no scientific proof is necessary.
cynicism and the belief that science has managed to explain anything and what self-awareness is or what role it plays only shows low intellectual abilities. but I forgive you because you could have had no influence on this impulsive comment or had the tools to think about it.
@@tipphome these are the arguments. My brain has automatically formed.
here’s how I would reply I have a sense that I think Humans are an animal not separate. All animals are conscious in the sense that they are alive and thinking their behavior isn’t random, there is intent to what they do.
Quote: “Non-human animals, including all mammals, birds, and many other creatures, possess neurological substrates, which are complex enough to support conscious experiences.”
Humans possess ”high intelligence” that’s the only difference.
Basically we possess enough neurons for intelligence to emerge and that intelligence is on a spectrum, which that fact proves to me, there’s no such thing as smart or stupid. There’s just where any given individuals luck is and where they land on that spectrum.
The hard problem of consciousness doesn’t seem that hard to me.
To me consciousness is an emergent property of complex organic matter as it is on earth it’s the how that isn’t known, but it obviously only exists in the confines of the brain, to say otherwise is to say lobotomizing someone does nothing, that mental illness isn’t real, that brain damage does nothing….ect.
It’s also been proven self (conscious) awareness is not a human specific trait.
Quote: “Over the past 30 years, many studies have found evidence that animals recognise themselves in mirrors. Self-awareness by this criterion has been reported for: Land mammals: apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas) and elephants. Cetaceans: bottlenose dolphins, killer whales and possibly false killer whales.”
Dolphins are especially “intelligent”
Quote: “BIOLOGISTS have long thought that the chimpanzee was the animal closest in intelligence to the human, but recent work assigns that honour to the dolphin. Some scientists are so impressed by the mental capacity of the dolphin that they believe dolphins should be categorised and treated as “non-human persons”.”
(Side note: I believe human hands are the literal only reason why dolphins don’t rival human “intelligence”)
All animals (humans also…) are constrained by the law of cause and effect. Therefore, actions are deterministic. Therefore, there is no “free will” or separate operator. It cannot exist or be limited. I find it interesting when that’s suggested, the words limited and free are not compatible.
unconscious activity is very important, coming from my understanding unconscious activity (subconscious) has been proven to shape many human behaviors. From as simple as breathing, walking, talking…. To…
Quote: “Our subconscious is formed from our memories and experiences. These memories and experiences determine our adult behaviour and our conscious mind is fed information from our subconscious whether we realise it or not, and is what provides us with the significance in all our communications with the world.”
To saw otherwise humans would be a blank slate day to day and to say, the conscious part of the brain (the 5%/95% ratio) shapes the unconscious (subconscious) solely on its own. Is similar to saying….
Putting a few drops of food coloring in a swimming pool every day for a lifetime with water that is constantly being cycled and drained. In the environment of that pool it’s always heavily raining replenishing the volume of the water… is going to change the color of the water.
This relates to the human experience and how the brain automatically absorbs everything it sees, and automatically organizes some and discards some of that absorbed information. That’s why some individuals who are abused forget the abuse it’s the brain protecting itself. It’s the unconscious (subconscious) that shapes the conscious and the subconscious is shaped by everything it sees and experiences (environment). Actually look up “split brain” allot of proof there.
To me, the proof is all there, it’s just not liked because it proves humans aren’t special… Just another organism on this “floating rock” in the desolate emptiness of space. It’s disheartening.
@soteriology101