Are Free Will And Determinism Mutually Exclusive?

[changed]

so, there is a little discussion here...

(I know, I should not argue with the in-laws like this, I do like a good discussion tho...)

and want to hear your viewpoints. What do you think - is the future set in stone or not? Cause/effect deterministic universe? Or uncaused/unpredictable/random events with no accountability – through which the future can be unknown/open? or multiple effects that stem from the same cause… two roads diverged in a yellow wood….

a few viewpoints:

a.) free will requires an unknown future, so God cannot know everything (cannot know the future or the future would be set in stone - and if God doesn't know everything, perhaps there is something better than the plan of salvation, perhaps things will not work out in the future...)

b.) free will does not require an indeterminate future, but is rather a statement about who causes the determinism. (deterministic future, but determined by the individual rather than an outer cause, so free will can exist concurrently with determinism.) - arguments entail being trapped by your own personality, unable to change the future - sound Calvanistic, but Calvanism is different because it is someone else pulling your puppet strings, rather than you pulling your own strings in a deterministic way...)

in short - are free will and determinism mutually exclusive? I don't think they are, but I could be wrong...

your opinions?

Edited February 12, 2012 by changed

[Deborah]

I do think we have free will and it isn't a matter of determinism. However, God has foreknowledge of what will happen but that only means he knows not that he drives it. This I think is how he is able to choose certain leaders at certain times to move his work forward. We don't have this foreknowledge so we are bumbling along trying to do what is right, hopefully.

A wonderful scripture on this is D&C 130:

5 I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.

6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth;

7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

[changed]

...that only means he knows, not that he drives it.

I agree - knowing something, and causing it, are two vastly different things.

[Bikeemikey]

Hard determinism and Free Will are mutually exclusive.

Some forms of determinism allows for some plausible conceptions free will, normally not definitions we as LDS would feel provide enough free will or agency.

That said, the real question you are asking is whether or not God possessing foreknowledge creates some form of determinism that can or may reduce the strength of free will and agency.

The answer to this depends entirely on the how and why of God's foreknowledge.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Kenngo1969]

We're just pieces on a chessboard, being moved about for God's amusement.

I don't understand the interplay between what we humans do to each other, what God causes, and what He allows. I can only try (yes try ... sometimes I'm not so sure) to have faith that God can make all things (regardless which of those three categories they fall into) work together for my good; and I can only say, with Nephi, "I know not the meaning of all things; nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children."

Edited February 12, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[JDave]

I don't understand the interplay between what we humans do to each other, what God causes, and what He allows.

I think your first category is what happens most of the time. In fact your third category seems to fall within the first.

I believe that God gives us what we need. Not all things can really be made to work together for our good, like papercuts. Human interactions get much more messy and hard to say whether things can work for our good eventually. We do know that the things we do and the goals we undertake can work towards our good, in fact towards our eternal good if we involve God in the process (2 Nephi 23:9)

[changed]

Hard determinism and Free Will are mutually exclusive.

Can you elaborate on why you think this? I always thought free will was a matter of who determines our actions, not if they are determined.... to me, free will still exists if the future is set in stone - so long as we are the ones that set our own future in stone.

That said, the real question you are asking is whether or not God possessing foreknowledge creates some form of determinism that can or may reduce the strength of free will and agency.

The answer to this depends entirely on the how and why of God's foreknowledge.

I think God's knowledge indicates that the future is known and deterministic - but that does not take away free will. (example: I can know what will be on TV tonight, but reading the TV guide in no way takes away the free will of those who determined the programming - knowing what will be on TV does not mean I caused what will be on TV)

I don't understand the interplay between what we humans do to each other, what God causes, and what He allows. I can only try (yes try ... sometimes I'm not so sure) to have faith that God can make all things (regardless which of those three categories they fall into) work together for my good; and I can only say, with Nephi, "I know not the meaning of all things; nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children."

We do many things for many different reasons, I don't think we're using our free will all the time - if there is no willpower involved with a decision then we are probably being "acted upon" rather than acting of our own free will and choice. For important things, we can use willpower if we choose to though.

I don't know all things either - but I would like to have confidence in God, that He is all-knowing, knows what moves each chess piece will make, knows our natures... a pawn can't move like a queen, but a pawn strategically placed can win back a lost queen...

Edited February 12, 2012 by changed

[frankenstein]

Here is a situation.

Person A told me they were going on a trip with Person B. I thought to myself, "Not a good idea because X will happen and you will probably be ashamed of what you will do". I did not tell Person A my reservations about the trip with Person B.

A week later, I see person B. Person B, says "Hey guess what!" I said "You and person A did X", B's response was "Yeah it was awesome". Person A then did feel ashamed of what happened.

Did X happen because I thought it would?

[changed]

Here is a situation.

Person A told me they were going on a trip with Person B. I thought to myself, "Not a good idea because X will happen and you will probably be ashamed of what you will do". I did not tell Person A my reservations about the trip with Person B.

A week later, I see person B. Person B, says "Hey guess what!" I said "You and person A did X", B's response was "Yeah it was awesome". Person A then did feel ashamed of what happened.

Did X happen because I thought it would?

No, of coarse we don't control people simply by knowing them well... it does bring up the other question of should you have made a fuss about it before hand or not? (knowing what you know)...

if God told us all the stuff that He knows is going to happen in our lives, how would that change things? I suppose we would be overly depressed about the bad stuff that we knew would happen, or not appreciate the good stuff because we would just take it all for granted if we knew it would happen... we'd miss the whole experience of it if we knew the future like God did, so our minds are wiped at birth? ignorance is required for progression? That would be frustrating to know what will happen, and then not stop it though.

[CV75]

so, there is a little discussion here...

Commenting on the two viewpoints:

a.) free will requires an unknown future, so God cannot know everything…

But faith changes this. An otherwise unseen future can be “seen” with faith even if it is not “seen” with knowledge. Each sight is real and true. In either case, there is still an agent that makes choices based on what he sees with faith (and without it), and what he sees with knowledge (and without it). In perfection, all things are “present” and experienced by the beholder (D&C 38:2, 130:7), whether the agent labels the process “faith” or “knowledge.”

b.) free will does not require an indeterminate future, but is rather a statement about who causes the determinism.

There is no such thing as an indeterminate future because with faith, the future becomes the present, and faith requires the future / present to be real and true.

[CV75]

in short - are free will and determinism mutually exclusive? I don't think they are, but I could be wrong...

With faith and knowledge both at play, there is nothing that is indetermined and agency is fully exercised.

[Mudcat]

in short - are free will and determinism mutually exclusive? I don't think they are, but I could be wrong...

your opinions?

I think the two are mutually exclusive.

If our actions are predetermined then our perception of choice is simply a perception.

Given atheism, I think determinism is the most logical choice.

Given a Christian sort of God that has created us in his image, I think free will is the only logical choice. I know you mentioned Calvinism in your OP and have never understood why determinism is argued or embraced from a Christian paradigm. Only in a situation where mankind does have the freedom of choice does the efforts of Christ for us make sense to me.

[Nofear]

The idea that free will and determinism are compatible is called, well compatibilism.

[changed]

...with faith, the future becomes the present, and faith requires the future / present to be real and true.

I like that idea.

I think the two are mutually exclusive.

If our actions are predetermined then our perception of choice is simply a perception.

but what if they are predetermined by our own personality/character? if if our choices are determined by us - isn't that what free will is? determining our own choices? and isn't that determinism? If our actions are indeterminate - not determined by anything - not determined by ourself - that sounds like no-free-will to me...

The idea that free will and determinism are compatible is called, well compatibilism.

thanks for the link, I'll read through it later tonight.

[mfbukowski]

The idea that free will and determinism are compatible is called, well compatibilism.

There you go again, stealing my post!

What he said.

Edit: Just for that I will post the rest of the argument(s)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

http://plato.stanfor...ery=determinism

BWAAAHHHHHAAAA!

I win!

Edited February 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[frankenstein]

That would be frustrating to know what will happen, and then not stop it though.

And very Greek too.

My opinion is God could have judged us without mortality, we being in Gods presence probably would have said "I would never sin against you God, never" so we all come to earth to prove to ourselves what will happen and then in end we each knowing our actions will say God is just for I received my reward, whatever kingdom it may be.

[changed]

I think the two are mutually exclusive.

If our actions are predetermined then our perception of choice is simply a perception.

but if we predetermine our own actions, isn't that free-will? I thought free will was defined as determining our own actions, and that is determinism, isn't it?

And very Greek too.

My opinion is God could have judged us without mortality, we being in Gods presence probably would have said "I would never sin against you God, never" so we all come to earth to prove to ourselves what will happen and then in end we each knowing our actions will say God is just for I received my reward, whatever kingdom it may be.

yea, I suppose so...

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.(Book of Mormon | Alma 14:10 - 11)

thanks for the links!

[mfbukowski]

but if we predetermine our own actions, isn't that free-will? I thought free will was defined as determining our own actions, and that is determinism, isn't it?

That is known as "self-determination", and I think it is the kind of freedom God has given himself. He conforms to natural laws which he himself has set. When we covenant to keep the commandments, that is exactly what we are doing- we are self-determining our actions to NOT drink alcohol etc. We can still do it, but we have freely decided not to.

Self determination is sometimes called positive liberty. The idea is that we are actually more free by keeping laws than we are if we do not. This idea is highly compatible with the LDS view that keeping the commandments makes us more free than if we didn't.

Suppose for example, instead of driving on the right side of the highway (in the US) and stopping at intersections, and following the speed limits, no one stopped at the interesections, drove wherever they pleased on either side of the road, and just went flying throught intersections if they felt like it.

Obviously chaos would be the result, there would be collisions every few blocks and you couldn't go anywhere safely. So we are actually more free by following laws than we would be if we didn't.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

[guitarist]

Suppose for example, instead of driving on the right side of the highway (in the US) and stopping at intersections, and following the speed limits, no one stopped at the interesections, drove wherever they pleased on either side of the road, and just went flying throught intersections if they felt like it.

So you mean if we lived in India then?

[Mudcat]

but if we predetermine our own actions, isn't that free-will? I thought free will was defined as determining our own actions, and that is determinism, isn't it?

To your first question, I think the difficulty we have in proving free will is that given any circumstance there are only one series of actions that occur. Those actions are perceived by us as what we chose to do so it's natural to assume that what we chose to do was the volition of our will. So I think our perception of events certainly points toward us having free will.

What complicates it, is that in order for us to say that our will is truly free, then we would have to assert that we could have actually done something rather than what we chose, given all the variables in play.

It would be impossible to go back in time and repeat the actual conditions, mental states and so forth that led up to our "choice" and our belief that we actually did have a choice is grounded only in our perception. Realistically, we could more likely not actually chosen anything else at all. Our brains operate like computers... to some degree and our particular programming would more likely give the same result, under the same circumstances every time than it would choose something else. This isn't altogether a bad thing as a different result would more likely mean our choices are simply random choices instead of reasonable determined ones.

Our self determined will does seem to be free, however the heart of the question on determism is not that we perceive free will and we perceive predeterming different actions, but rather that it's possible that these things are only perceptions and that in reality our actions have ultimately been predetermined and our volition of will is only an illusion.

All things in the universe are subject to cause and effect. So in a sense, we are contingent beings because of something else and we respond to the principles of cause and affect. In a way.. it's possible that we are just biological "robots" of a sort that are simply fulfilling our individual programs - this is what I would actually call determinism.

The notion that we are not automatons but are free agents that self determine our actions is what I would actually call free will. So your right that self determinism is free will.

[Bikeemikey]

Most definitions of Free will essentially try to determine if an individual can be or is morally responsible for their actions. The point of claiming free will exists is to also be able to claim that ones actions can be morally reprehensible or praiseworthy.

There are many examples that philosophers suggest demonstrate that humans can be exercising principles of self determination but not necessarily be in a circumstance that we would make them morally responsible, that is no claim, or a limited claim to the presence of free will.

[mfbukowski]

Our self determined will does seem to be free, however the heart of the question on determism is not that we perceive free will and we perceive predeterming different actions, but rather that it's possible that these things are only perceptions and that in reality our actions have ultimately been predetermined and our volition of will is only an illusion.

You have stated it very well I think, but then the question for me, becomes :who cares?

The question is as useful to debate as whether or not we are asleep and dreaming all this, or awake.

That's why I am a Pragmatist on things like this. You can't tell the difference between reality and illusion, so there isn't one!

Sure we know a mirage is illusion because it's a bit difficult to actually drink water out of a mirage lake. It doesn't work.

The only differences we need to worry about are those which actually make a difference in our lives, and the rest are irrelevant. That's why EV's and Mormons and Catholics should stop arguing about religion and team up on the stuff that will really make a difference. Can you imagine what a force we could be if we worked together?

"If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately". That quote is attributed to various founding fathers- whoever said it was a wise man! In these troubled times we need to work together and quit arguing about theological semantics!

Edited February 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Most definitions of Free will essentially try to determine if an individual can be or is morally responsible for their actions. The point of claiming free will exists is to also be able to claim that ones actions can be morally reprehensible or praiseworthy.

There are many examples that philosophers suggest demonstrate that humans can be exercising principles of self determination but not necessarily be in a circumstance that we would make them morally responsible, that is no claim, or a limited claim to the presence of free will.

The bottom line for me is that courts of law have no problem attributing responsibility or partial responsibility or no responsibility to people- and do it all day.

And they never worry about whether or not the individual had "free will".

"I believe in determinism, therefore no one has free will, therefore no one is responsible for their actions, therefore, your honor, don't send me to jail"!

Try that and see how far it gets you!

I think it will get you just about as far when you finally face God and give him the same story!

[changed]

Whoops! seems the board went down last night, didn't think one of my posts made it on there sorry for the double post.

...a different result would more likely mean our choices are simply random choices instead of reasonable determined ones...

yes - if we chose differently, it would force our character to be different, or for it to be random. Deterministic past/future is simply evidence of a consistent character.

All things in the universe are subject to cause and effect.

but what is the original cause? Our spirits have no beginning - no original cause - and this I think is the root of free agency.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.... Behold, here is the agency of man, a....(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 31)

it's possible that we are just biological "robots" of a sort that are simply fulfilling our individual programs .

the difference between robots and people stem from the original cause - robots are created, their programs come from outside of them - they are controlled by how they were created...

because our spirit was not created, we are not robots. I think our ability to act (and not just be acted upon) is evidence of the eternal nature of our spirit.

Edited February 13, 2012 by changed

[Mudcat]

You have stated it very well I think, but then the question for me, becomes :who cares?

The question is as useful to debate as whether or not we are asleep and dreaming all this, or awake.

Lot's of folks do Bukowski.

Not to sound scolding, but the question goes well beyond the usage of a debater on any topic. The view has a great impact on how we view God and our relationship to him.

The difference on such viewpoints fueled a 30 year slaughter of Christian vs. Christian in less amenable times.

Are we the children of a God that can freely choose his wisdom that leads us to a better place or to choose against his council and choose our own destruction?

Or are we merely the playthings of a God that saves his favorite toys and burns the rest?

You ask me, "who cares?"

I do.

The only differences we need to worry about are those which actually make a difference in our lives, and the rest are irrelevant. That's why EV's and Mormons and Catholics should stop arguing about religion and team up on the stuff that will really make a difference. Can you imagine what a force we could be if we worked together?

"If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately". That quote is attributed to various founding fathers- whoever said it was a wise man! In these troubled times we need to work together and quit arguing about theological semantics!

I don't disagree with a thing you have said. Sometimes we let our praxis trip over our doxa.

The worlds going to hell in a handbasket and the more hands we have to hold on the roller coaster ride, the better.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Mudcat