How does God's omniscience negate an individual's agency / free will?

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited July 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Chum]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I think you are doing great if you can keep trust that God has the eternity stuff worked out.

I appreciate that. Maybe I should clarify that I'm somewhat baffled and not particularly upset. Ultimately, God is God; He doesn't owe me. If I don't grok what He's doing then I don't.  In this context (therefore somewhat non-optimally), my personal feelings for the Church are overwhelmingly positive - a state it earns from me.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Sometimes I think my life is a massive joke, giving me the brains and the drive to be out there helping make life better, but then pulling out the plug, so I can’t even manage being an observer and clapping for others.  And my life has been relatively free of trauma and bad stuff, just a sleep disorder screwing stuff up.  No massive emotional suffering, no significant trauma dealing with family, no financial struggles like I know you have struggled with.

Better than despair, yes but still frustrating. My best perspective might be: better this on me than my loved ones. Untouchable suffering is hard.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Mortality does not make sense.

No, not when we misuse it. There are *a few* things I wish my younger self knew.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

There is more than one side to this:

For sure!

 

Quote

https://iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

Foreknowledge and Free Will:

"In this article, various ways of trying to solve the problem—for example, by putting constraints on the truth-conditions for statements, or by “tightening” the conditions necessary for knowledge—are examined and shown not to work. Ultimately the alleged incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will is shown to rest on a subtle logical error. When the error, a modal fallacy, is recognized and remedied, the problem evaporates."

I think the modal argument addresses some of the common formulations of the dilemma, but I believe the issue can be restated without committing a scope based fallacy.

As nofear mentioned earlier, there is no real consensus among philosophers on this issue (shocking, I know).

 

[Nofear]

23 hours ago, the narrator said:

Thus the opposite of determinism isn't free will, it's randomness. Free will simply isn't a thing.

22 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think part of the problem is that, from a scientific perspective, we actually don't know the first causes of any physical laws.

I quite agree that randomness doesn't restore free will either. I accept Galen Strawson's Basic Argument (http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/StrawsonFreedom.pdf).

Strawon's The Basic Argument
(1) Nothing can be causa sui—nothing can be the “cause of itself.”
(2) In order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be causa sui, at least in certain crucial mental respects.
(3) Therefore nothing can be truly morally responsible.

Fortunately for my position there are interpretations of LDS theology that evade The Basic Argument. We posit that a fundamental part of our identity is self-existent and co-eternal with God, uncreate (called "intelligence", but the name has some problems). This explicitly refutes premise (1) of The Basic Argument.

 

 

 

 

[Amulek]

On 7/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Navidad said:

Can you define theological fatalism for me? I am not familiar with that term. Thanks.

Sure.

Fatalism is the thesis that human acts occur by necessity and hence are unfree.

Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.

 

Quote

I am also uncertain about what source documents, data, or information we can use to know Him better than we did yesterday and do today?

Do you think reason plays no part in what we know about God?

It seems to me that everything we know about God comes from reason and/or revelation.

 

Quote

I guess I am not a big fan of the results of what philosophers and theologians have been doing for centuries in that regard.

This comment makes me think of that scene from The Devil Wears Prada, where Meryl Streep interacts with Anne Hathaway's character:

Quote

Miranda Priestly [Meryl Streep]: Where are the belts for this dress? Why is no one ready?

Jocelyn: Here. It’s a tough call. They’re so different.

Andy Sachs [Anne Hathaway]: (snickers under her breath)

Miranda Priestly: Something funny?

Andy Sachs: No. No, no, nothing’s… you know, it’s just that… both those belts look exactly the same to me. Y’know, I’m still learning about this stuff, and uh… (giggles uncomfortably)

Miranda Priestly: This… “stuff”? Oh, okay. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you.

You… go to your closet, and you select… I don’t know, that lumpy blue sweater for instance, because you’re trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back, but what you don’t know is that that sweater is not just blue, it’s not turquoise, it’s not lapis, it’s actually cerulean.

You’re also blithely unaware of the fact that, in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns, and then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent, wasn’t it?… who showed cerulean military jackets. I think we need a jacket here.

Nigel: Hmm.

Miranda Priestly: And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores, and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin.

However, that blue represents millions of dollars of countless jobs, and it’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry, when in fact, you’re wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room… from a pile of “stuff.”

You may not be a big fan of what philosophers and theologians have been doing for centuries, but I suspect you may seriously underestimate how much you presently believe about God was directly influenced by their work. 

 

Quote

[...] I also realize that because something doesn't float my boat, that it isn't important to others! Best wishes.

Fair enough.

I responded as I did though because I took your comment as a subtle dig at the LDS conceptualization of God along with our motivations for trying to understand Him.

You said that, "perhaps because my LDS friends view God as a glorified human, they (you) believe they (you) should be able to figure Him out using your not-quite-yet-glorified (exalted) reasoning ability and say 'Eureka, now I understand God!'"

But, as I said before, attempting to "figure Him out using [our] not-quite-yet-glorified (exalted) reasoning ability" is exactly what every other Christian on the planet has been doing for the last 2000 years. So your LDS friends are no different than your Catholic, Baptist, or Mennonite friends on that front.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Amulek

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I quite agree that randomness doesn't restore free will either. I accept Galen Strawson's Basic Argument (http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/StrawsonFreedom.pdf).

Strawon's The Basic Argument
(1) Nothing can be causa sui—nothing can be the “cause of itself.”
(2) In order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be causa sui, at least in certain crucial mental respects.
(3) Therefore nothing can be truly morally responsible.

Fortunately for my position there are interpretations of LDS theology that evade The Basic Argument. We posit that a fundamental part of our identity is self-existent and co-eternal with God, uncreate (called "intelligence", but the name has some problems). This explicitly refutes premise (1) of The Basic Argument.

Helpful stuff, this.  Thank you for sharing.

Could you clarify the "Reality is Indetermined" bit?  What does it mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Helpful stuff, this.  Thank you for sharing.

Could you clarify the "Reality is Indetermined" bit?  What does it mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

I meant indeterminate. One interpretation of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, which is the most popular interpretation) holds that certain aspects of reality don't exist until "measured". Bell showed that this must be* unless we have faster-than-light communication**.


* See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs for a nice little explanation.
** Which I actually favor -- our literal space filled theology becomes pretty problematic when limited by the speed of light. But, avoiding that limitation comes with all kinds of other problems. I don't have a good answer for that yet.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was more responding to the "what's the purpose of prayer if it can't change anything" statement that you made, illustrating that there must be a purpose to the need for prayer that goes beyond its ability to cause change.

Sorry. I agree that this isn't the only reason for prayer.

However, if we aren't really free to change based on what God says to us in response to prayer, then a lot of prayers seem kind of pointless.

Go back to the example I gave to SeekingUnderstanding about the girl who was praying to God about whether or not she should marry the man who proposed to her - the man who God knows will inflict nothing but mental and physical pain until the day she dies. If God infallibly knows she will marry that man, then nothing He says or does in response to her prayer can change the fact. God could appear to her in person, wake her up and walk her around to all of her friends / family members and expressly forbid her to marry the man, yet she would still find a way to marry him. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Why would God even bother with commanding us to ask Him what we should do in our lives (ex-ante) if nothing he says to us in reply will ever affect any change (ex-post)?

 

Quote

However if free will is freedom from coercion (which is how I've always defined it), then not being able to change course does not negate it, right? (Or am I missing something else?)

Yes, and that's kind of the compatabilist approach. Say, for example, that you were predestined to eat a banana tomorrow. So long as you are not coerced into eating that banana you might consider yourself free whenever you make that choice to do so.

However, someone who holds a metaphysical libertarian view of free will would say that - unless you really could have done otherwise, all you really had was the illusion of freedom.

I tend toward the libertarian view myself, but it's probably closer to hope than a belief. And I would not be surprised if I eventually throw in the towel on that and settle on some form of compatabilism.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

21 hours ago, the narrator said:

Sure, there may not be any scientific reason to give up on free will, but there is also no scientific reason to assume free will is a thing in the first place. There is, however. a pretty simply philosophical reason to recognize that libertarian free will is nonsense (lacking sense) as I laid out above.

A big problem with analytic philosophy--and particularly analytic philosophy of religion--is that so much of it begins with assumed premises that are nonsense or confused misapplication of language.

To be clear, I probably subscribe to something like soft libertarian free will. I don't think that all of our choices have maximal freedom. I think many of our choices are significantly constrained. However, I still believe that free will "is a thing" and that most of us regularly and freely make significant moral choices. I also think that we make a host of minor choices every day that are essentially free from significant constraints. 

You wrote: 

Quote

Now, given the state of my will (which has been formed by nearly infinite sets of infinite sets of experiences through my life) when I made that choice given the particular set of circumstances, how could I have possibly chosen to not shave this morning? If it were actually possible that I could have chosen to not shave this morning given the exact same state of my will and the exact same set of circumstances, then the very notion of me choosing anything is rendered meaningless. It's not a choice, it's mere randomness.

Thus the opposite of determinism isn't free will, it's randomness. Free will simply isn't a thing.

This reasoning seems faulty, as it simply assumes (without evidence) that choice is completely random. I think your explanation overlooks the possibility that free will, on some meaningful level, is a fairly constant aspect of our lives. How do you know that each state of mind isn't a variable combination of outward circumstances, internal biology, and free will? And if it is true that free will is a fairly constant and concurrent influence in shaping our circumstances and state of mind, then it seems hard to ascribe our state of will and actual decision in any given moment as utterly meaningless or random. In other words, I don't think you can successfully argue in favor of randomness over free will based merely on the observable evidence. Randomness is simply an assumption that you seem to prefer. 

Ironically, according to your own stated rationale, your preferred conclusion (i.e., randomness is a better explanation for the observable data than free will), would itself be purely random. In effect, your belief system renders your own discourse and thought patterns as essentially meaningless, as every epistemic "choice" you have ever made (including interpretive choices pertaining to this conversation) would have to be viewed as random rather than freely chosen due to its rational appeal. Yours is a self-defeating position. 

I find it telling that those who argue for strong determinism or randomness over free will tend to act, think, and speak as if they and others have meaningful and authentic free will. To me this suggests that the intuitive perceptual evidence of free will is so strong, and the practical utility of holding to that perception is so valuable, that people tend to disregard their own confessional beliefs about its non-existence. Apparently, free will "is a thing" whether or not one professes to believe otherwise. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[Amulek]

On 7/13/2023 at 2:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

His KNOWING it will happen has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN.

I agree. I don't think there's a casual element at play here.

Though I suppose I should qualify that and say that I am open to the notion that it's actually our ultimate happenings that are causing His knowing.

Classical theists would certainly have a problem with that statement, but it doesn't offend my LDS sensibilities.

 

Quote

There are landslides destroying houses worth millions, in California right now.

Experts KNOW that they will continue.

Can we sue the geologists for CAUSING the landslides which are happening?

Of course not.

Again, I agree.

The geologists are only observers here. It wouldn't make sense to hold them accountable for causing something they didn't create but merely knew about.

For classical theists however, things get significantly bleaker - because when you substitute God for the geologist in this example, you get a being who not only knew about the landslides in advance but, given that foreknowledge, purposely created (out of nothing) all of the natural elements, forces, and people living in those houses who would then be subjected to those landslides.

But that takes us away from the free will discussion and into the problem of evil though, so probably best to cabin that for now.

Still, with respect to both topics, I can't say this loudly enough: Thank God for Joseph Smith!

I have yet to come across anything more satisfying to these difficult questions than the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Amulek

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This reasoning seems faulty, as it simply assumes (without evidence) that choice is completely random.

No it does not. The problem is that if my exact same will can be applied to the exact same set of circumstances and result in different choices, then I (my will) is not making a choice. Rather, it's either an outside factor affecting my will differently, or some sort of metaphysical randomness (or let's say some aspect of indeterminate quantum physics)--but again outside myself--is determining that choice.

 

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think your explanation overlooks the possibility that free will, on some meaningful level, is a fairly constant aspect of our lives.

I don't overlook that at all. Our brains being wired to experience the world as though we have free will does not mean that we actually possess this nonsensical thing. (And there is plenty of neuroscience pointing to precisely that.) This is the case for most of our experience of the world. Our senses of vision (neural-interpretation of particular waves of light constructed into images [with plenty of gaps being filled in]), hearing (again, our brain interpreting vibrations carried through physical mediums), and even our experience of time are all constructs of our brain that do not necessarily exist in reality as we experience them

 

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Ironically, according to your own stated rationale, your preferred conclusion (i.e., randomness is a better explanation for the observable data than free will), would itself be purely random. In effect, your belief system renders your own discourse and thought patterns as essentially meaningless, as every epistemic "choice" you have ever made (including interpretive choices pertaining to this conversation) would have to be viewed as random rather than freely chosen due to their rational appeal. Yours is a self-defeating position. 

I'm actually a pretty hard determinist and believe that randomness itself is an illusion based on our inability to comprehend the near infinite sets of factors that cause things to happen. (A dice roll may seem random, but the outcome of that roll is determined by newtonian physics the minute it leaves my hand--though ultimate probably determined at the moment of the Big Bang. Another way to see this is through computer programming. A computer cannot produce a random number. Rather a computer's random number generator is simply using it's clock to pick a seemingly random number based on the time that the number is retrieved.) The fact of the matter though is that my brain is hard-wired through whatever evolutionary processes to experience the world as though I have free will--just as it is wired to experience time, light, etc in the way that I do.

That our brains are hard-wired to experience the world like this has really struck me over the last year as both my wife and son were diagnosed with ADHD (and my daughter soon to be diagnosed with autism.) This was revelation for me, as I had to really come to grasp the reality that my wife experiences the world very differently than me, radically so. In particular, the way it affects/limits her executive function makes it so that she simply can't choose to do things in the that I can. (And let me tell you, really coming to terms and embracing this reality has significantly reduced the number of emotional arguments we get into.) In addition, witnessing out emotional disorders, pathologies, and other things affect people around me makes it further clear how much our perceived "choices" are very much determined by our biology and environment.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I find it telling that those who argue for strong determinism or randomness over free will tend to act, think, and speak as if they and others have meaningful and authentic free will.

It's how are brains are hard-wired to experience the world. Nothing that amazing really. It's the same way that you interact with visual light, sounds, time, three-dimensional space, etc as if they truly  (whatever that means) exist as you experience them.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

But that takes us away from the free will discussion and into the problem of evil though, so probably best to cabin that for now.

Still, with respect to both topics, I can't say this loudly enough: Thank God for Joseph Smith!

I have yet to come across anything more satisfying to these difficult questions than the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Agree.

And forget the "classical" philosophers who have been shown to have used poor logic again and again.

There has been 2500 years of examination of their logic by some of the best minds to have ever lived, and all have been found wanting in one aspect or the other.

If you ever have to be hospitalized, would you want to be treated with ancient techniques? Of course not!

Those who have not studied it think of philosophy as wise sayings, perhaps as Confucius might say, but it's not. Today it is the rigorous analysis of language itself, and how humans think with the tools they have. Symbolic logic is essentially mathematics.

Classical philosophy is as relevant today as is ancient medicine. As the saying goes, we "stand on the shoulders of giants", and so then we are even "taller" than was possible for them to be.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Why would God even bother with commanding us to ask Him what we should do in our lives (ex-ante) if nothing he says to us in reply will ever affect any change (ex-post)?

 

Because sometimes what He says to us does have an affect?

Quote

 

Yes, and that's kind of the compatabilist approach. Say, for example, that you were predestined to eat a banana tomorrow. So long as you are not coerced into eating that banana you might consider yourself free whenever you make that choice to do so.

However, someone who holds a metaphysical libertarian view of free will would say that - unless you really could have done otherwise, all you really had was the illusion of freedom.

I tend toward the libertarian view myself, but it's probably closer to hope than a belief. And I would not be surprised if I eventually throw in the towel on that and settle on some form of compatabilism.

 

But what if you weren't predestined to eat the banana?  

[Navidad]

On 7/13/2023 at 1:38 PM, Calm said:

I think you are doing great if you can keep trust that God has the eternity stuff worked out.

Amen!

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

But, as I said before, attempting to "figure Him out using [our] not-quite-yet-glorified (exalted) reasoning ability" is exactly what every other Christian on the planet has been doing for the last 2000 years. So your LDS friends are no different than your Catholic, Baptist, or Mennonite friends on that front.

Ok. I have no problem with agreeing with that. All of that, no matter who does it, gets in the way of piety, simplicity, humility, and simple trust. I have seen the use of the term "common sense" many times in this thread. God so greatly transcends common sense that it makes no sense to try and grasp how common sense  or confusion (another word commonly used) fits into a conversation about God because all we have is common sense and confusion - vis a viz "reason." Reason and trust are incompatibilities - so saith Navidad!  Relying on reason is like relying on beliefs. The one thing that solves all our dilemmas and unknowables about God is trust. Oh, and I must make a confession to you. My comment about God being human was in a subtle way a subtle dig at LDS theology. I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that!

[webbles]

On 7/13/2023 at 1:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

His KNOWING it will happen has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN.

If God is the prime mover, the first cause, etc, then I actually think His knowing is the same as making it happen.  For instance, when I program a computer, I know exactly how it will act.  If I programmed the computer to delete a file, then I would say that I made the file be deleted, even though it was the program that did it.  If God is the prime mover (which I don't believe fits in our theology), then when He made me, He knew everything I would do at that point.  He could have made me differently or not make me at all.  I'm a "computer program" to Him since He knew exactly what I'll do.

[Chum]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Relying on reason is like relying on beliefs.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. These are such different things. Reason is the bridge between what is known and what is about to be known. Experience is a vehicle but reason is the road. Belief is a map of where reason and experience have taken us. We consult it to better understand where and how we've traveled.

[Ryan Dahle]

45 minutes ago, the narrator said:

No it does not. The problem is that if my exact same will can be applied to the exact same set of circumstances and result in different choices, then I (my will) is not making a choice. Rather, it's either an outside factor affecting my will differently, or some sort of metaphysical randomness (or let's say some aspect of indeterminate quantum physics)--but again outside myself--is determining that choice.

Even if a given agent were to always choose the same choice in precisely the same set of circumstances, it doesn't follow that the choice is necessarily determined. Conversely, if the same agent were to make a different choice in precisely the same circumstances, it doesn't follow that the choice is necessarily random. In either case, one would still have to identify the true cause of the consistency or variation, which isn't possible. Perhaps the real problem is simply the assumption that whatever free will is, it is going to function on the principle of mechanical determinism. It seems like a box our minds have a hard time getting out of. 

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think your explanation overlooks the possibility that free will, on some meaningful level, is a fairly constant aspect of our lives.

I don't overlook that at all. Our brains being wired to experience the world as though we have free will does not mean that we actually possess this nonsensical thing. (And there is plenty of neuroscience pointing to precisely that.) This is the case for most of our experience of the world. Our senses of vision (neural-interpretation of particular waves of light constructed into images [with plenty of gaps being filled in]), hearing (again, our brain interpreting vibrations carried through physical mediums), and even our experience of time are all constructs of our brain that do not necessarily exist in reality as we experience them

I think the neuroscience is not nearly as conclusive as you seem to think it is. And the fact that our immediate intuitive perceptions of reality give us an incomplete comprehension of reality is not really relevant, seeing that one does not have to perfectly comprehend reality to make meaningful choices. 

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

I'm actually a pretty hard determinist and believe that randomness itself is an illusion based on our inability to comprehend the near infinite sets of factors that cause things to happen. (A dice roll may seem random, but the outcome of that roll is determined by newtonian physics the minute it leaves my hand--though ultimate probably determined at the moment of the Big Bang. Another way to see this is through computer programming. A computer cannot produce a random number. Rather a computer's random number generator is simply using it's clock to pick a seemingly random number based on the time that the number is retrieved.) The fact of the matter though is that my brain is hard-wired through whatever evolutionary processes to experience the world as though I have free will--just as it is wired to experience time, light, etc in the way that I do.

We actually don't know how our brains were hardwired. We have evidence that evolution has influenced human anatomy on many different levels, but evolution has limited explanatory power for the full range of human decision making. It is mostly extrapolation and assumption based on indirect and incomplete evidence. 

Quote

That our brains are hard-wired to experience the world like this has really struck me over the last year as both my wife and son were diagnosed with ADHD (and my daughter soon to be diagnosed with autism.) This was revelation for me, as I had to really come to grasp the reality that my wife experiences the world very differently than me, radically so. In particular, the way it affects/limits her executive function makes it so that she simply can't choose to do things in the that I can. (And let me tell you, really coming to terms and embracing this reality has significantly reduced the number of emotional arguments we get into.) In addition, witnessing out emotional disorders, pathologies, and other things affect people around me makes it further clear how much our perceived "choices" are very much determined by our biology and environment.

I don't think that one has to adopt strict determinism to be more empathetic. Those who believe in a healthy degree of libertarian free will can still recognize that many human choices are far less "free" than we might expect based on our own limited subjective experiences. I actually think that strict determinism, when fully embraced, is more likely to cause social harm than result in love and empathy. This is because determinism doesn't just soften our value judgments of others, it completely eliminates them. 

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I find it telling that those who argue for strong determinism or randomness over free will tend to act, think, and speak as if they and others have meaningful and authentic free will.

It's how are brains are hard-wired to experience the world. Nothing that amazing really. It's the same way that you interact with visual light, sounds, time, three-dimensional space, etc as if they truly  (whatever that means) exist as you experience them.

This seems like a misguided analogy. Humans are very capable of readjusting our perceptions of reality and making choices based on newly adopted paradigms, including those that involve information beyond our immediate perceptions. Professing to believe in strict determinism and then acting like we all have free will seems more like willful ignorance or wishful thinking than a biological necessity. It isn't really that hard to conceive of a world where choice is an illusion. I think that people just don't want to live in that world, and for good reason. 

[InCognitus]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

If God is the prime mover (which I don't believe fits in our theology), then when He made me, He knew everything I would do at that point.  He could have made me differently or not make me at all. 

I know you know this (I'm just bouncing off your comment to add my own comment), but the "prime mover" model doesn't fit our theology in part because we don't believe we were created ex-nihilo.  The premortal existence of the spirits of men and their choices to either align with God and his plan for progression or to reject that plan, makes so much more theological sense to how things really work here, in my opinion.  The later invention of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo really messes up a lot of things.

[the narrator]

44 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Even if a given agent were to always choose the same choice in precisely the same set of circumstances, it doesn't follow that the choice is necessarily determined. Conversely, if the same agent were to make a different choice in precisely the same circumstances, it doesn't follow that the choice is necessarily random. In either case, one would still have to identify the true cause of the consistency or variation, which isn't possible. Perhaps the real problem is simply the assumption that whatever free will is, it is going to function on the principle of mechanical determinism. It seems like a box our minds have a hard time getting out of. 

You're still missing the point. The very notion of a will itself renders libertarian free will meaningless (unless one defines free will as indeterminate and un-willed choices). This isn't even about material determinism. It's simply a matter of what it means for a self/will to choose something.

 

51 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't think that one has to adopt strict determinism to be more empathetic. Those who believe in a healthy degree of libertarian free will can still recognize that many human choices are far less "free" than we might expect based on our own limited subjective experiences. I actually think that strict determinism, when fully embraced, is more likely to cause social harm than result in love and empathy. This is because determinism doesn't just soften our value judgments of others, it completely eliminates them. 

But since we cannot experience the world as determined your hypothetical elimination is a fantasy. On other hand, I see libertarian free will repeatedly used over and over and over again as a cudgel to unempathetically judge others with the premise that they are in their situation because of choices they made that others did not. Libertarian free will is primary fuel for self-righteousness, judgment, pride, oppression, racism, and so many other evils. It's the opposite of grace.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

You're still missing the point. The very notion of a will itself renders libertarian free will meaningless (unless one defines free will as indeterminate and un-willed choices). This isn't even about material determinism. It's simply a matter of what it means for a self/will to choose something.

I don't think I'm missing your point. I just disagree with your premises. I stated why, but you haven't responded with specificity. 

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

But since we cannot experience the world as determined your hypothetical elimination is a fantasy. 

In many cases, humans have proven able to assimilate into their paradigms information that is beyond immediate perceptions, or which seems counter-intuitive to them. So it isn't a fantasy that the widespread adoption of determinism could, and almost certainly would, lead to extremely deleterious social effects. 

Quote

On other hand, I see libertarian free will repeatedly used over and over and over again as a cudgel to unempathetically judge others with the premise that they are in their situation because of choices they made that others did not. Libertarian free will is primary fuel for self-righteousness, judgment, pride, oppression, racism, and so many other evils. It's the opposite of grace.

I know, right! How dare people adopt such an evil view of free will.

It is so much better to abstractly and confessionally believe in strong determinism, thereby eliminating all moral choice and meaning, but then to adopt libertarian free will as a moral framework because it is simply necessary to do so and impossible to do otherwise, but then to criticize libertarian free will because it potentially leads to evil and unfair judgments, but then to know abstractly that this criticism itself is meaningless because you don't actually believe in good or evil or the ability to choose between them, and at the same time to recognize the irony that comes from criticizing others for being too judgy, as it takes a certain degree of moral self-righteousness to make such judgments. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

If God is the prime mover, the first cause, etc, then I actually think His knowing is the same as making it happen.

That "if" is the big flaw especially for us because he is NOT the prime mover etc.

Remember he used existing matter already " moving",  having collisions etc.  NOT the First Cause etc.

Our God chose to act immanently in our universe, at least, the church teaches.

But the whole concept has serious problems anyway.

If He started everything who started Him, especially as an immanent being ? 

The concept itself has problems I won't go into because the whole argument is irrelevant for us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#Influence

Edited July 15, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

....even our experience of time are all constructs of our brain that do not necessarily exist in reality as we experience them

Then how can we know there IS such a reality we cannot experience?

This seems to postulate Platonism- ie: that the reality we experience is NOT "real" simply because it is created by humanity.

I find it simpler to postulate that if all we can know is what we experience, let's just call that "reality as we know it" and forget about any impractical question like determinism.

What good does that view do for us?

THAT is "Pragmatism" and "Phenomenology", as both continue to eschew the invisible metaphysics of what cannot be seen.

God is a human, or so we believe; I think to be consistent we must insist that "God's reality" is also " our reality " or God himself is not "real" and so testimony and revelation disappear as "real".

Of course such feelings are coupled for millions of years with survival.

When you hear a bear in the forest, I don't think "it's all just chemicals" will serve you too well. 🤔

[Navidad]

As a young person in the newly arising Evangelical world, I was taught that we (as Christians and Evangelicals) should always seek three things from God. First, to know His moral will for our lives, second His individual will, and third, His sovereign will for our lives. The first is to know what is right for a believer, the second is to know what is right for me as an individual, and the third is to know what He knows will happen as sovereign of the universe.  

I then, when I was about twenty-two years of age, read a book written by a good friend of mine from college. He was very smart. That book, to some degree, turned the Evangelical world a bit upside down with its impact. Very controversial and of course, I was proud to be a friend of such a pot-stirrer! 

The basic premise of his book is this: There is no need to seek God's will for our lives! What? Huh? His point is that God has a sovereign will for our lives, but He isn't telling us. No matter how much we plead to know, He isn't telling. No need to seek to learn more about it, because He isn't telling. He knows, but He doesn't choose to share that with us, because of the impact on our lives and decision-making. We might never get out of bed!

Second, we don't need to pray to know His moral will because it is completely revealed to us in scripture. We need to read, not pray. Anything that isn't revealed in the scripture isn't within the scope of His moral will or He would have revealed it in scripture.

Third, God does not have an individual will for each of us! No need to pray about that! Huh? His point was that if we live in His moral will, He doesn't care what we do, so He has no will in that regard. Where should we go to college? Which job should we take? Who should we marry? He doesn't care so long as we take all those actions within His Moral will as revealed in scripture. For example, he believed God revealed in Scripture that as Christians we should only marry other Christians. It doesn't matter who it is, as long as they are a Christian, we are within His will for our lives. His book was called, "Decision-Making and the Will of God." It really changed my life so much that I still remember it fifty-some years later. Needing to be in the center of God's will was a heavy burden. I counseled many a frustrated Christian who just wasn't sure they were in the right place, with the right person, etc etc. His book was very controversial, but very freeing for many who felt bound by the chains of having to live in the center of God's will in order to please, honor, and glorify God.

I am not sure how all this fits into an LDS worldview. But it sure fit into my nascent view of things as a newly-minted Evangelical. My friend went on to become a professor at an Evangelical seminary. I am not sure if he is still alive. I will have to check. Best to you all.  I personally found his conclusions very refreshing and freeing.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how all this fits into an LDS worldview

Not well.