# Free Will Vs Determinism



## T.A.G. (Dec 28, 2009)

Basically my professor and the book we are reading says that Determinism is the only option, for Science proves it etc.

Does anyone know where I can get a few good arguments, as well as what a Reformed Christian should believe about this topic in philosophy? I am supposed to be discussing this topic with my fellow classmates on a discussion board similar to this but I am totally lost! Thanks,


----------



## Skyler (Dec 28, 2009)

The course of history is determined, not by itself (which both philosophical determinism and philosophical free will hold), but by God.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 28, 2009)

Skyler said:


> The course of history is determined, not by itself (which both philosophical determinism and philosophical free will hold), but by God.



I agree for sure with that


----------



## Skyler (Dec 28, 2009)

As far as arguments go, pull out your Bible. The Lord working in us both to will and to do is a good one; also see the ones about being a slave to the flesh or to Christ.

For determinism, you just need verses that emphasize God's sovereignty and control of history--there are numerous examples in Isaiah, Psalms--almost every book, really. Don't forget Joseph's response to his brothers and the passage in Acts where they talk about Jesus' death being ordained from the beginning.

-----Added 12/28/2009 at 05:39:00 EST-----

And if they get upset at you using the Bible, tell them it's not your fault since the universe determined you to do that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 28, 2009)

I would consider reading _The Freedom of the Will _by Edwards and _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will _ by Calvin.
Edwards argues against the idea that the will is self-determined and indifferent to anything. Edwards says that man always chooses according to his strongest desire. He also says that there is a difference between natural ability and moral ability. 

Calvin says that man sins of necessity, which means that his will is so corrupt that he cannot choose to be good. To sin of necessity does not mean that people are forced to sin. They sin voluntarily. 

In your class, you will probably discuss how man can be responsible for his sin if God ordained that He would sin. The book by Calvin that I mentioned above discusses this idea. In his book, Calvin asks the questions, "Why are crimes punished by the law if they are committed of necessity?" and “Why does the judge pass sentence on the person through whom God has acted?” He answers these questions on page 37. The following is his answer: “I reply that there is an answer to this objection if with due humility rather than ungodly arrogance one reflects on the way in which divine providence governs human affairs. For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without willful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgments to execution. “


----------



## jason d (Dec 29, 2009)

Andy Naselli Blog Archive Do We Have a Free Will?


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 29, 2009)

Skyler said:


> And if they get upset at you using the Bible, tell them it's not your fault since the universe determined you to do that.



...and the crowd goes wild! 

Great response.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Dec 29, 2009)

Philosophically speaking, I believe in free will. I also believe in determinism. I'm a compatibilist. 

Of course, what I mean by 'free will' here is just the ability to do what one wants; ordinarily we are not 'forced' to act contrary to what we desire for ourselves, and so ordinarily we are free to act according to what we desire for ourselves. 

_I desire right now to go to the store and have myself a chocolate milk ----> I go to the store right now and have myself a chocolate milk_. 

Ordinarily nothing is stopping me from getting what I want, what I will for myself.

_However_, what we want/desire for ourselves is determined (_explained_) by an infinite number of internal and external factors which have made up and continue to make up _who_ we are. 

_(Infinite number of internal and external factors) ----> I desire right now to go to the store and have myself a chocolate milk..._.

The human condition is to be both free and determined.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Philosophically speaking, I believe in free will. I also believe in determinism. I'm a compatibilist.
> 
> Of course, what I mean by 'free will' here is just the ability to do what one wants; ordinarily we are not 'forced' to act contrary to what we desire for ourselves, and so ordinarily we are free to act according to what we desire for ourselves.
> 
> ...



thats the stance I ended up taking, I am glad you posted this so it lets me know I was on the right track!


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 29, 2009)

What kind of determinism were you talking about? _Cosmological_ determinism is based in the concept that natural laws of the cosmos determine all things -- a thought more related to atheism at worst or deism at best. Theological determinism can include the idea of predestination, but many of us are squeamish with that term because of its association with the former definition.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Dec 29, 2009)

Another (I think, valid) way of looking at compatibilism is through the Aristotelian-Thomistic framework. And it goes like this...

There is something that agents will *necessarily*, and this is the Good. No matter what you do, in order to act you must at least be under the impression (the 'Guise of the Good') that what you are doing is good, or is in some way beneficial for you. (Even Hitler thought he was doing something good, something right, beneficial.) This is the main deterministic aspect; your will is always determined to act according to the Good. This is what the will _is_: the natural orientation toward a desired end (and desire is naturally tied up with the good or the perceived good).

The 'free will' or, rather, 'freedom of choice' aspect is when (and only when) there is more than one _avenue_ or _means_ toward that 'good' end desired/willed. The agent makes a choice. Even here the choice that the agent ultimately makes can be explained by an infinite number of internal and external factors, and so there is determinism here as well. What makes the choice 'free', however, is that it is not necessary but *contingent*. Although my choice of A-avenue over B-avenue is ultimately determined by who I am (I am naturally inclined toward A over B), it isn't absolutely necessary that I choose A over B in the way that me desiring the Good is necessary. It is always _possible_ that I could have chosen B over A.

I guess we can see why Aquinas's 'freedom' was criticized by his Franciscan opponents as being too deterministic.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

what I am having to answer is from a neurological standpoint, basically the old argument that everything you think in do is really just electrical synapse randomly going off in the gray matter of your brain doing chemistry. This is what decided what you think do etc.

They used an experiment to show their point.
H. H. Kornhuber a german guy, attached electrodes to the scalp showing that the decision when you decide to move your fingers or what not was actually observed on a electroencephalograph one and a half seconds before the individual made the choice to move.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Dec 29, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> what I am having to answer is from a neurological standpoint, basically the old argument that everything you think in do is really just electrical synapse randomly going off in the gray matter of your brain doing chemistry. This is what decided what you think do etc.
> 
> They used an experiment to show their point.
> H. H. Kornhuber a german guy, attached electrodes to the scalp showing that the decision when you decide to move your fingers or what not was actually observed on a electroencephalograph one and a half seconds before the individual made the choice to move.



I don't have a problem with this, or at least these _kinds_ of evidences in support of determinism.

As long as there weren't any glaring problems with the particular argument itself, I would be happy to respond to it positively, defend it, etc. But _then_ argue that this kind of determinism, contrary to what many such determinists and their opponents think, does not negate genuine human freedom and/or moral responsibility.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> T.A.G. said:
> 
> 
> > what I am having to answer is from a neurological standpoint, basically the old argument that everything you think in do is really just electrical synapse randomly going off in the gray matter of your brain doing chemistry. This is what decided what you think do etc.
> ...



you do not think that random electrical chemistry going off at random in the gray part of your brain determining what you think and do is not ridding us off responsibility?


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Dec 29, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> > T.A.G. said:
> ...



The only problem I have is the supposed 'randomness'. It may appear to be random, but I don't think that it is. Every effect has a determinate cause. A particular wind direction appears to be random to us because we are ignorant of the cause; but it is only reasonable to assume that there is a cause.

Barring this problem, no, I do not think that even this kind of 'extreme' determinism negates moral responsibility.


----------



## louis_jp (Dec 29, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> what I am having to answer is from a neurological standpoint, basically the old argument that everything you think in do is really just electrical synapse randomly going off in the gray matter of your brain doing chemistry. This is what decided what you think do etc.
> 
> They used an experiment to show their point.
> H. H. Kornhuber a german guy, attached electrodes to the scalp showing that the decision when you decide to move your fingers or what not was actually observed on a electroencephalograph one and a half seconds before the individual made the choice to move.



The book, "Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible", by Joel B. Green. It's all about these very issues -- free will and responsibility in the bible, in the light of scientific research into neuroscience and cognition, etc. He discusses experiments like Kornhubers. I'm not finished the book yet, but I think he's taking a more-or-less reformed view of it all. If nothing else, this book would supply you with a great bibliography on the subject.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 29, 2009)

You can get some good arguments against the idea from the Truth Project (The Truth Project).

These two books are also excellent:

Amazon.com: Understanding the Times (9781565072688): David Noebel: Books

Amazon.com: Idols for Destruction: The Conflict of Christian Faith and American Culture (9780891077381): Herbert Schlossberg, Robert H. Bork, Charles Colson: Books

What you're looking for are arguments to refute Skinner and Behaviorism.

Skinner is correct in asserting that man's behavior is determined if we agree with him that mind is nothing more than a brain working. The view requires that we agree with Naturalist presuppositions that the physical universe is all there is. Consequently, thought is simply matter in motion that will follow physical laws just like any other phenomena.

Of course your professor's limitation of "science" to naturalistic presuppositions is itself limiting. That is how many view science today but science as a discipline does not require naturalism to operate. This is a religious assertion and not a "scientific" assertion.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> T.A.G. said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Thomist said:
> ...



subconscious? could this be the result of the neurons firing off before the individual decides to?

Though one thing is for sure, random firing neurons can not be an end to themselves, all would be maya or illusion if it was, reality could not be made intelligible, again thats why this view could not account for the preconditions of intelligibility. I would submit to you Aristotle reasoning of first cause for this particular incident in the neurons.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 29, 2009)

God's sovereignty esablishes man's free agency. If God wasn't sovereign over all things in order to preserve Man's moral responsibility, to the extent that impersonal chance and fate had a look in, man would not be responsible for his actions. Only the personal and absolute sovereign God can do this. See Calvinists who discuss this.*

If someone really believes in determinism, they are holding to a self-refuting philosophy. If all human thought, words and action are determined then your professor's belief about determinism is determined and my belief that it is not true is determined. 

If your professor believes that irrational forces determine our beliefs, he might as well give up being a professor and all rational discourse. If he doesn't do the latter, this shows that he doesn't really believe what he's talking about.

*I'd be interested in finding material, myself, where Calvinist theologians and philosophers discuss how God's sovereignty establishes Man's responsibility.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> God's sovereignty esablishes man's free agency. If God wasn't sovereign over all things in order to preserve Man's moral responsibility, to the extent that impersonal chance and fate had a look in, man would not be responsible for his actions. Only the personal and absolute sovereign God can do this.
> 
> If someone really believes in determinism, they are holding to a self-refuting philosophy. If all human thought, words and action are determined then your professor's belief about determinism is determined and my belief that it is not true is determined.
> 
> If your professor believes that irrational forces determine our beliefs, he might as well give up being a professor and all rational discourse. If he doesn't do the latter, this shows that he doesn't really believe what he's talking about.




so would you disagree or change something that I said?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 29, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > God's sovereignty esablishes man's free agency. If God wasn't sovereign over all things in order to preserve Man's moral responsibility, to the extent that impersonal chance and fate had a look in, man would not be responsible for his actions. Only the personal and absolute sovereign God can do this.
> ...



Well, I don't know what you've written for your class.

But scientific or materialistic determinism is a self-refuting philosophy and such philosophies cannot be true by definition. If determinism is true then it's not true.

I believe the answer is the above: you need an all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent sovereign God to establish Man's free agency, in a world where all sorts of forces may otherwise squash his responsibility. 

I'd be interested in reading more on this myself, so I can't help you much on the theology and philosophy of that. 

It would probably be _relatively_ easy to show that such a God is necessary to avoid determinism, which by its own definition is false anyway.

It would be more difficult/impossible to show _how_ God does this.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 29, 2009)

> what I am having to answer is from a neurological standpoint, basically the old argument that everything you think in do is really just electrical synapse randomly going off in the gray matter of your brain doing chemistry. This is what decided what you think do etc.




That may not be right, even on a purely scientific basis. Quanta may not be deterministic as Quantum physics cannot perfectly predict electron movement. A physicist named John H. Conway recently proposed a Free Will Theorem based on the 'free will' movement of electrons. He recently did a three part series at Princeton and its on Itunes U.

The argument operates on Euclidean geometry, and that may not be true of subatomic particles...but who am I to argue with quantum physics?

Summary:http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen..._Trek__Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will?


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> > what I am having to answer is from a neurological standpoint, basically the old argument that everything you think in do is really just electrical synapse randomly going off in the gray matter of your brain doing chemistry. This is what decided what you think do etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that article was way over my head hehe


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 29, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Another (I think, valid) way of looking at compatibilism is through the Aristotelian-Thomistic framework. And it goes like this...
> 
> There is something that agents will *necessarily*, and this is the Good. No matter what you do, in order to act you must at least be under the impression (the 'Guise of the Good') that what you are doing is good, or is in some way beneficial for you. (Even Hitler thought he was doing something good, something right, beneficial.) This is the main deterministic aspect; your will is always determined to act according to the Good. This is what the will _is_: the natural orientation toward a desired end (and desire is naturally tied up with the good or the perceived good).
> 
> ...



Hey Nathan, how does the Thomistic view relate to John Calvin's view(in Bondage and Liberation of the Will)? Are they the same? It would seem they are close to one another. I'm thinking of writing a paper on this and relating it to John H. Conway's Free Will Theorem.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 29, 2009)

One of the critiques of Behaviorism is that, like most philosophies, somehow the observer of others Deterministic behavior has to stay above the person being observed. The theory itself is self-referentially meaningless because, if all thoughts are determined by firing synapses, then so is the theory itself. There's no point in even making the statement.

It's for reasons like this that lead to Nihilism. What's the point in even having a discussion? When Paul Manata was debating an Atheist who was a Determinist, he compared two views as cans of soda. Shake up one can and it comes to one conclusion but another can comes to another conclusion.

This is why Atheists are forced to consciously resort to irrationalism to give meaning to life and reasons for ethical norms. Somehow they have passions and common desires for right and wrong but how can you complain that one person's brain is functioning to oppress and murder on the basis that your brain is moving atoms in a different manner?


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 29, 2009)

Where does the brain stop and the mind begin? This is not as esoteric as it may initially seem. In a Human Cognition class I had in college, the professor pretty much admitted that we can make medical observations of the brain, and we can show patterns in behavior, but we can't really explain what we perceive as "thinking." I appreciated that he was honest enough to recognize that everything that goes on in the human head can't be reduced to molecules and impulses.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 29, 2009)

If our thoughts or decisions are determined by the electrical or chemical reactions of our brain, then how do you account for the fact that people are able to use the laws of logic when then think or make decisions? The electrical and chemical reactions of our brain do not follow the laws of logic. The electrical and chemical reactions of our brain are not rational. 

If our thinking or decision making is governed by God, then we can account for the fact that people are able to think or make decisions by using the laws of logic. God can ordain that we make decisions by using logic.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 29, 2009)

Tyler, make sure you let us know what we received for a grade in your class.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 29, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> Tyler, make sure you let us know what we received for a grade in your class.



hahahaha will do

-----Added 12/29/2009 at 08:44:58 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> If our thoughts or decisions are determined by the electrical or chemical reactions of our brain, then how do you account for the fact that people are able to use the laws of logic when then think or make decisions? The electrical and chemical reactions of our brain do not follow the laws of logic. The electrical and chemical reactions of our brain are not rational.
> 
> If our thinking or decision making is governed by God, then we can account for the fact that people are able to think or make decisions by using the laws of logic. God can ordain that we make decisions by using logic.



you have a very good point with the laws of logic!
but for the other thing that you stated, the whole premise is that people can predict if we will move before we even decide to move by watching the neutrons.


----------



## The Calvin Knight (Dec 30, 2009)

louis_jp said:


> The book, "Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible", by Joel B. Green. It's all about these very issues -- free will and responsibility in the bible, in the light of scientific research into neuroscience and cognition, etc. He discusses experiments like Kornhubers. I'm not finished the book yet, but I think he's taking a more-or-less reformed view of it all. If nothing else, this book would supply you with a great bibliography on the subject.


 
You might want to read, if you haven't already, Dr. John Cooper's (of Calvin Theological Seminary) book "Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate" ( Dr. Green coined the title of his book against Dr. Cooper) or Dr. Cooper's recent review of the Dr. Green's book in _Philosophia Christi_ volume 11. Dr. Cooper also has an article called "The Bible and Dualism Once Again: A reply to Joel B. Green and Nancy Murphy" published in _Philosophia Christi_ volume 9.


----------



## Skyler (Dec 30, 2009)

I remember when I got stuck on something in Philosophy I'd drop into the AOMin chat room and ask questions in real time. 

For some reason I didn't have much trouble though. Maybe because I didn't speak up as much as you are.


----------

