Skepticologist

I'll admit to not having studied determinism thoroughly, but what I do know about it has never made sense to me, at least when applied to human beings. Of course, I realize that the choices I've made and will make are influenced greatly by what I've learned from my own personal experiences and those of others who have written about them. But I do not accept the premise that as I approached the turning points in my life, the road I would take was already causally predetermined. I can't empirically prove that, but neither can you empirically disprove it.

Secondly, even if I were to embrace determinism, I'm not sure what I would do with it. As I approached future crossroads, would the belief that the myriad of apparent choices available to me are illusory, and that my one choice has already been made, somehow alter the road I took? Or would it simply make me feel better if things turned out badly, since I really had no control over it anyway?

Somehow, that seems like checking my brain into cold storage and abdicating responsibility for my choices to forces completely beyond my control.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

SirArthur

It sounds like looking for a scapegoat...

«Oh no! I drink a bottle of whiskey and went out driving but I didn't meant to kill those peasants, it was Destiny/God/Allah/Satan/Zeus/Odin.... will who made me do it.»

Jesse

Which seems to better match the desires of an individual in the case of the Bad: determinism and thus the abdication of responsibility for the bad (alleviation of guilt), or, libertarianism and thus the acceptance of responsibility for the bad (acceptance of guilt)? Obviously one would rather reject the feeling of guilt than to accept it. Determinism better matches the desires of an individual in the case of the Bad. Which seems to better match the desires of an individual in the case of the Good: determinism and thus the abdication of responsibility for the good (the lack of reward), or, libertarianism and thus the acceptance of responsibility for the good (accepting the reward)? Obviously one would rather feel rewarded than to feel a lack of reward. Libertarianism better matches the desires of an individual in the case of the Good.

Determinism and Libertarianism have a desirable effect and an undesirable effect. The two desirable effects are of equal strength and the two undesirable effects are of equal strength. Suppose there was a wooden block and there were two machines of each strength pulling the block in opposite directions. Which way would the block move, or would it not move at all? It would remain unmoved. The mind, in a similar one, is not pulled toward one position over the other because the two forces compelling its movement are of equal intensity. Suppose the block had moved toward one machine over the other, just as my mind has been moved toward one conclusion over the other, how would one explain this movement? One would explain it by saying the cause was determined by other factors. So too is this method of explanation true for explaining my mind's movement toward one position over the other. There was another factor, or many other factors, influencing my mind. One factor, or set of factors, overpowered the other factor, or other set of factors. The factor that compelled my mind's movement away from neutrality, so far as I can tell, is my passion for the attempt to learn what is true. It was my passion being applied to the consideration of the two positions and determining which of them seemed more representative of my perception of reality.

I think the reasoning I've presented is sufficient to show the flaw in the "abdication of responsibility for the bad" argument but I would also like to address your question Skepticologist because it's an interesting one, and my response to it will also strengthen my argument that the "abdication of responsibility for the bad" argument is flawed.

I can only infer from the comment you made after the question that you have accepted an answer already, and that answer is that we can choose to not feel guilty about bad things after those bad things have occurred. That answer has a fundamental flaw: it assumes the existence of free-will. What is guilt or regret? It's an effect of a cause. The cause of guilt or regret is the past action. If determinism is true then the action was inevitable, as you say, but the action is a cause of guilt and regret so the guilt and regret is equally inevitable, contrary to the answer implied by your comment. I think it's a self-evident truth that seeking the means to render yourself happy is a goal in life. Recognizing this, it would be illogical to be a cause of your own inevitable guilt or regret. Therefore, it can be concluded, that from a deterministic point of view it would be logical to follow the moral path because it is in accordance with the goal of rendering yourself happy.

The argument that people "choose" determinism as a scapegoat to avoid the feeling of guilt or regret actually contradicts the deterministic perspective in two major ways. First, it assumes the existence of free-will and thusly the untruthfulness of strict determinism, not to mention the implication that determinists knowingly use their free-will and are thus hypocrites. I'll ignore the "not to mention" though because I'm fairly sure that implication wasn't intended. Second, from a deterministic perspective it is practically guaranteed that a normally-functioning brain would be unable to avoid the feeling of guilt or regret. If I truly wanted to avoid the feeling or guilt or regret, I would be better off "choosing" (which is only possible if libertarianism is true) the position of libertarianism rather than accepting the deterministic view that guilt or regret is inevitable. That conclusion, of course, throws your argument completely on its head.

Skepticologist

I read your response in its entirety three times and I'm still not sure what your point is. However, I have a couple of reactions.

First, I don't consciously decide anything on the basis of whether its ramifications will create a sense of guilt, regret or reward in me. I make my decisions based on that I think is best for me and for others, given the information I have. Since I'm not perfect, I fully expect some percentage of my decisions to result in unintended consequences that I either couldn't, or simply failed to, perceive. Whether such cognitive and/or predictive failures rreslut in my wallowing in guilt and self-recrimination is a matter of choice on my part. I can either beat myself up for being less than infallible, or I can be grateful for the learnings and chalk the whole experience up as a reward.

Secondly, unless I missed it in the textual preponderence of your response, you haven't addressed my question regarding what difference it makes if I accept determinism, or libertarianism, or neither. When I find myself at a decision point in the future, how will my decision regarding which course to choose be different for having accepted one or the other viewpoints? Unless you can answer that question (hopefully in a somewhat more succinct manner), any deliberation on my part with regard to the relative merits of determinism and libertarianism is functionally pointless.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

Jesse

My reply concerned (1) the remark that determinism is used as a scapegoat and (2) the implication that determinism leads to immoral behavior because it could supposedly be used as a scapegoat.

I shown that (1) was false. It doesn't make sense to choose determinism to abdicate responsibility for bad things because it would also work against one's interests by abdicating responsibility for good things. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to choose libertarianism to accept responsibility for good things because it would also work against one's interests by forcing the acceptance of responsibility for bad things. They both have one trait that's advantageous and one trait that's disadvantageous. The advantages and disadvantages are of equal strength. If these were the only two deciding factors it would make no sense at all to choose between them. Hence, it is illogical to claim that people choose determinism to avoid (the libertarianism conclusion) that they are responsible for past misdeeds just as surely as it is illogical to claim (1-reversed) that people choose libertarianism to avoid (the determinism conclusion) that they are not responsible for good deeds. Both of the claims, (1) and (1-reversed), are nonsensical and apparently serve no other purpose than denigration.

I also shown that (2) was false. The implication that determinism led to immoral behavior because it could, supposedly, be used as a scapegoat from guilt or regret is false implication. Guilt or regret for past misdeeds is inevitable in a fully-functional brain. Guilt and regret are an effect of a cause. You cannot avoid the effect unless you avoid the cause of the effect. This means that one should act in the manner that will not cause the effect of guilt or regret. Happiness and the sense of accomplishment are also effects of causes. This means that one should act in the manner that will cause the effect of happiness and the sense of accomplishment. Both of these conclusions show that (2) is a false implication. Likewise, it can be said that guilt, regret, happiness, and the sense of accomplishment are also effects of causes from a libertarian perspective, and the same conclusion would be reached: avoid being the cause of bad effects and when possible try to be the cause of good effects. The acceptance of determinism or libertarianism makes no difference because the conclusion is the same.

I don't even quite understand why we're debating determinism and libertarianism in a topic about the definition of agnosticism (and thus atheism because of its close relation.) The point I was making earlier is that one shouldn't define atheism as a choice. It presupposes the truthfulness of libertarianism. Many atheists favor determinism--everything in the universe seems to work according to fixed principles, even the workings of the mind--and a definition of atheism that presupposed libertarianism would be fairly outrageous, from their point of view.

Another problem with defining it as a choice is that this effectively alters the entire theological classification system. Atheism and theism are related just as asymmetrical and symmetrical are related. All paintings fall within the asymmetrical category or symmetrical category. The two terms apply exhaustively, across the entire spectrum. The same is true for atheism and theism. Introducing the notion of choice in the definition of atheism would lead to a contradiction of the terms being exhaustive in nature while trying to use them in a way that is not exhaustive. What if I am simply without belief in a god, not because I believed that god never existed but because I simply had no reason to affirm the proposition that god does exist, and I was not an agnostic because I thought knowledge on the matter was attainable, and my neutrality or indecision was not a choice I made but the necessary consequence of both sides lacking evidence? How would my position be categorized? If choice is introduced, I am not an atheist, agnostic, noncognitivist, theist, deist, pantheist, or anything else. Why should that thoroughly honest and optimistic position be uncategorized?

Why should I be excluded from the entire categorization system and have to watch the exhaustive nature of words in the English language be destroyed in favor of introducing choice, and thus the implication of libertarianism, into the categorization system? It makes no sense to have atheism defined as a choice.

Skepticologist

I didn't use the term "scapegoat" (that was SirArthur), nor did I imply that determinism "leads to immoral behavior". My point was simply that, if I believed that my actions were nothing more than the inevitable effect of prior causes, it would be very easy for me not to take responsiblity for them.

I think you finally answered my question. Determinists and libertarians may have different philosophies, but from a functional standpoont, there is no difference.

We're debating it because you introduced it in a post on September 5 in an effort to bolster your argument that atheism isn't a choice (for which I continue to see no compelling evidence).

So what difference does it make whether embracing atheism results from "genuine free-will" or "a deterministic illusion"? Are you really trying to say that there's no such thing as free will when it comes to the beliefs an intelligent human being ends up adopting?

I'll certainly stipulate that my particular set of beliefs was influenced by a lot of questioning, research and deep thought. But I also contend that, as a christian at the time, the very act of questioning my beliefs, in the face of multiple biblical warnings against doing so, was also a free-will choice.

Gobbledygook! So is atheism symmetrical or asymmetrical? Whichever it is, am I to assume that theism is the converse? I'm afraid that either your intellect or your verbosity is way out ahead of mine. I'd sincerely like to understand your point more clearly if it's the former, but please don't fill up another couple of screens unless you can boil it down to my humble level.

In the meantime, perhaps a kind reader given to a greater degree of succinctness will see fit to enlighten me.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

Jesse

Your point was that one could look back on the past and choose to not take responsibility for them if you've accepted determinism. As you say, "it would be very easy for me not to take responsibility for them." Your question, in essence, was "since it would be very easy for me not to take responsibility for my past decisions if I accept determinism then how would that knowledge, that I could easily abdicate responsibility, influence my future decisions?" The question certainly implies that determinism would lead to bad behavior but determinism can be used as a scapegoat for accepting responsibility for bad behavior. You might not have used the word "scapegoat" itself but you implied that "scapegoat" would be a correct way of viewing the matter.

I didn't say, or argue, that atheism wasn't a choice in the sense that "choice" could be interpreted from either a deterministic or libertarian perspective. From those perspectives of "choice," atheism very well could be a choice. My argument's main concern was with the necessitation of choice in the definition. Some atheists might have "chosen" atheism while others might not have. If I am without belief in god's existence because the evidence necessitates indecision or neutrality then it wasn't my choice to be without belief.

According to all of the dictionaries and encyclopedias I'm aware of, none of them make choice a necessity for qualifying as an atheist. If there is a consensus among dictionaries and encyclopedias about the meaning of a word then that's what the word means. Those who propose a change to the definition, as you have, are obligated to provide a strong justification for it. Thus far, you have offered no justification at all.

There really isn't a difference in "embracing" atheism from a "genuine free-will" or "a deterministic illusion." My point in regard to libertarianism and determinism was that when someone says "choice" the implication that most people see is that of libertarianism. I think the definition of atheism shouldn't have any implication whatsoever on the matter.

Am I really trying to say that there's no such thing as free will when it comes to the adoption of beliefs? I wouldn't say that as being a fact but that is my suspicion. The reason for my suspicion is that "free will" is, quite literally, meaningless to me. What does it mean for the will to be free? Or, in other words, what is the will free from? It certainly isn't free from memories, emotions, sensory experiences, or our decision-making processes. If it's not free from those then what in the world is it free from? I don't know. To me, saying "the will is free" is to say something vacuous and without meaning like saying "uggablav" or "unietolinockle."

These terms/phrases are meant to be exhaustive: theism and atheism; symmetrical and asymmetrical; typical and atypical; pregnant and not-pregnant. A person is either an a theist or an atheist. A painting is either symmetrical or asymmetrical. A day is either typical or atypical. A woman is either pregnant or not-pregnant. You cannot be "sort of an atheist and sort of a theist" any more than a woman could be "sort of pregnant and sort of not-pregnant."

By introducing choice as a necessity for being qualified as an atheist, you've made the term non-exhaustive. This means that more categories must be created to categorize peoples' positions. One category that would need to be created, if your definition of atheist is accepted, is one where the person is without belief in a god but choice wasn't involved in that neutrality or indecision. It doesn't make sense to have atheist, theist, and the "something-else-ist" categories when only two are needed and it makes more sense to only have two. Imagine what would happen if we did the same thing of introducing choice into the definition of pregnant. You would then need to create another category that describes those who were involuntarily pregnant. You would have pregnant, not-pregnant, and the "something-else-nant" categories. That doesn't make sense.

Jayhawker Soule

Forgive the materialist in me, but there is a reality that transcends the pages of your dictionary. The term 'atheist' has come to mean one's chosen view on the existence of supernatural agency. To suggest that my one year old granddaughter is an atheist impresses me as sophomoric nonsense.
Get over it - the map is not the territory.

May I as your view on SETI? ... on M_Theory? ... on Deism?

Jesse

So it hasn't always meant, but has come to mean. That's interesting. When? By whom? Was this change recent? Was it by your own divine decree?

Edit: Is atheism a choice or does it just happen?

False analogy. Territory is an objective subject while language is not.

Searcher

I really identify with Skepticologist on this one. I even concede as does he that I haven't investigated it in great detail, mainly because I didn't consider it as warranted. It is the sort of thing where the thought occurs you chase your tail forever without ever approaching an answer. Not sure if I can put things any better than he has, but it makes the same sense to me as it apparently does to him.

My only additional point was that I also believed determinism had been virtually blown out of the water by quantum theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:

Of course if you accept the ability for something to make a measurement without affecting the results (something I believe is still considered to be scientifically impossible) then it's possible to accept it in theory. But as above, I have no idea what I would do with it. It just seems irrelavent beyond a purely scientific interest.