Because It’s True
Posted in Philosophy, Quickies, Religion on | 1 minute | 12 Comments →
A few posts back, in the context of Harrisian determinism / Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, I asked:
Why embrace a worldview that necessarily commits one to a full abdication of ultimate moral responsibility, especially when it’s a philosophical position with no scientific grounding?
In a very long response, a commenter going by ThatGuyWithHippyHair (hereafter “ThatGuy”) replied:
Because it’s true, for one, but also because it frees us from the primitive retribution ethic that demonizes human beings.
Forget the bit about demonizing human beings, I want to address the first three words: because it’s true. Those words suggest one of three possible defects in ThatGuy’s reasoning: grave inconsistency, scientific ignorance, or flat-out cajolery. Inconsistency, because it’s simply asserted the same way many theists simply assert that God exists, yet, ThatGuy rejects those assertions. Scientific ignorance, because, well… 1) no evidence or data is presented, and 2) Harrisian determinism is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis at all. I’d rather not imagine the third option, because I couldn’t prove it anyways.
Daniel
says...I am a bit perplexed by the claim that embracing hard-determinism is liberating. A retributive moral framework seems fairly hard-wired into our natures (http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/babies-have-sense-of-justice-from-as-little-as-three-months/). If anything,ThatGuy’s ability to divest himself of eons of evolutionary selection for a retributive ethic would suggest the falsity of determinism. His mere belief in determinism wield so much power over the rest of nature, which conspires upon each one of our genes to seek retribution. I would see this as a powerful display of freedom, ironically enough.
dale
says...we are free to believe whatever we want, but that doesn’t make or reveal truth, necessarily. i know the discussion is about “because it’s true,” but i think if the “demonizing humanity” comment was fully explored, you might get to the true origin of why “that guy” believes the way he does.
my gut instinct is that this guy has a problem with orthodoxy, which i understand. as a believer in jesus christ, i often feel that orthodoxy has gotten many things wrong in their interpretation of and acting out in the name of jesus’ teachings. but, that’s just my opinion.
“because it’s true” is an explanation, as far as i’m reading it in what has been shown in this dialog. “because it’s true” is not where this starts, it’s where he ends it. start at the beginning, which is “demonizing humanity,” and the end will make much more sense.
cl
says...Daniel,
So well said. Good to hear from you again.
Dale,
Exactly. Unless of course, he comes back and defends his claim.
I would also like to clarify: you don’t mean “Orthodoxy” as in the Orthodox Church, but, “unthinking orthodoxy” in general, right?
dale
says...CL,
To clarify what I said:
I do mean “unthinking orthodoxy,” but I also mean “orthodox thinking” in relation to the Orthodox Church, and when I mean that, I am speaking of the Catholic Church, and all subsequent Churches that came afterwards.
I know there is a properly named “Orthodox Church” which you have compared and contrasted to the Catholic Church in previous posts, but I am not highly informed to their teachings or history, so I cannot speak on them.
As I’ve grown older I’ve gravitated towards Gnostic Christianity. I am an admitted student of their teachings and have been doing hearty reading on them and I’ve been consuming as much information on them as possible.
In light of what they say, I see a context in which a lot of my concerns with Orthodox Protestantism and Catholicism can be focused and I feel more honest with who I truly am (as in spiritual core: heart, spirit and soul) by saying “I’m a Gnostic Christian” than just “I’m a Christian.” But I don’t believe everything that is penned to or under their name. It’s been since this experience that the peace and clarity in my life we’ve personally talked about has come about. I don’t think it’s coincidental.
When it comes down to it, I believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect manifestation of the true living god, incarnated in human form, who came to teach humanity of their true spiritual and infinite potential, and to spread a message of love and unity to all, not just a select chosen few. As far as who his father is, I part ways with Orthodoxy. I question YHWH as being the one true god. Yes, he was the creator, and thus our material father. But he is not our true father, nor is he Jesus’ true father.
Definitely the beginnings of a long discussion, which we can have online, but maybe a personal one would be more suiting? It’s a lot to talk about.
Again, to stress, I believe every word the Christ ever said. I just don’t believe everything the church says, nor do I support everything they have done in his name.
Think about what is anti-christ.
cl
says...Dale,
I appreciate the sharing and I would actually love to hear more about these influences. You’re right, definitely fodder for a lengthy discussion!
And I’m with you, I don’t believe everything the Church says, nor do I support everything done in it’s name. Seems to me Christ was in the same boat. He had much to say WRT the Church. The part that concerns me, or, should I say, the sentiment I don’t yet share, is:
If you feel like explaining more of why, I’d love to hear. If on the blog, great, if not, next time we chill.
dale
says...CL,
I understand the not sharing the sentiment with me that you do. When I first read it, it shocked me and a chill ran through my body. I felt like I had created a heresy and sin just by reading it. But, I prayed in Jesus Christ’s name on it for a very long time, meditated on it, and then I got to reading the Bible cover to cover.
After this, I started noticing many small things here and there that I’d never noticed before, and some things that had always not registered with me as far as making sense started to clarify. It made me realize that this just isn’t some, “I changed my mind on this thought,” it was more like, “I wasn’t sure what wasn’t right with what I thought I believed, but now that I know this, I for the first time, and in the realest way I can express to you, felt like I knew who I was, why I am here and what is real. I felt a connection and relationship to Christ that I had never felt before to such a degree”
To Christians here I may be a heretic, to the atheists I may be a kook, but this experience has been realer than real for me. I cannot stress this enough.
I don’t believe everything that has been penned to to the name Gnosticism, just as I’ve never believed in the ultimate authority of the church as the true representation of Jesus on earth until his physical return.
One thing I give you, but I don’t have the verse numbers memorized, is that three times in the new testament it is said either by Jesus in the first person, or by others speaking after his words, that the father of Jesus Christ has never been seen or heard by any man, save Christ. I mentioned this to you in a previous post on a separate thread, but you interpreted it as him saying that directly to the specific people he was speaking to. I took it as literal and a broad and all encompassing statement. We interpreted it different, all good. Then, after that time, I read the same words two more times. Like I said, I can’t give you exact chapter names and verse numbers, but it’s in there, KJV pub 1950-something. I’m have a long term project of going back into the bible I read and compiling notes of all I marked digitally. I bought a version of Quick Verse for Mac but haven’t had the time to sit down and get to my task.
Sorry to ramble, back to the bible, and go with on this…If Jesus says his father, who no one has ever seen or heard is true, then his father cannot by YHWH. Adam and Eve spoke with and walked with YHWH physically. And there’s more people who’ve had similar experiences, but Moses was “face to face” with god, at least a physical manifestation of his presence if not his literal “face.” A ton of people have heard YHWH.
There’s a lot of this on my mind, and I can go on, but I’ll end it here.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair
says...cl,
Wow, what a nice little strawman you’ve established here!
Cl, you know perfectly well that in context I wasn’t “simply asserting” that. I was engaging the question on the level it was posed — if you’re going to ask why we should believe things that are seemingly unpleasant, I’m going to tell you tough luck, the truth is what it is regardless of how it makes you feel. Indeed, I provided a solid case of evidence in my reply, and that’s leaving out entirely studies about how the brain makes decisions seconds before we are conscious of them. The most basic philosophical consideration of the alternative leaves determinism much more defensible than you’ve implied.
That’s like saying the belief that “I think, therefore I am” is invalid because it’s unfalsifiable. It’s unfalsifiable in the sense that I can’t conceive any evidence that would persuade me to the contrary, yes, but a) I suspect you couldn’t either, which is exactly why I reject free will libertarianism, and b) that’s not a problem for my position, unless you’re willing to concede that the belief that you exist is also useless because it’s unfalsifiable. It’s not strictly “scientific,” I’ll grant you that — and if I ever claimed it was, I was wrong — but I am not a logical positivist so that’s irrelevant.
Determinism is relevant insofar as it is the realization that all human behaviors have causes beyond our control because a) the contrary makes no sense philosophically and b) humans are the product of cosmic and biological forces we obviously could not control. When you admit this, you are forced to admit that the retribution ethic is irrational, free will defenses against the POE (which you have not responded to me about yet) fail, the Christian doctrines about sin and our need for salvation make even less sense than they did before, and we as humans need to honestly reevaluate the way we deal with problems arising from human behavior.
Daniel,
Not if you can’t explain how this occurs in the slightest, any better than I can. This is just like arguments against naturalism based on how “evolution can’t explain altruism.” Even if it couldn’t, the alternative is just as bankrupt in explaining other evidence, so given the choice between a) a hypothesis that doesn’t (currently) explain all the evidence and b) a hypothesis that not only fails to explain much evidence but is internally incoherent and contradicted by evidence, I’ll take the former.
Let me explain that. In the determinism/FW dichotomy, not only is the latter logically incoherent for reasons I explained in depth at the cited post (and which cl hasn’t addressed at all), it also would lead us to believe people are capable of doing bizarrely uncharacteristic things beyond the influence of psychological causation. Behavior is unpredictable in a world with “free will,” and moral condemnation in the sense that I described in my comment elsewhere is useless. This is not what we see in the real world. Furthermore, the truth of free will libertarianism would imply the existence of contra-causal agents in humans for whose existence we need just as much of an explanation as you demand from determinism.
I’m not suggesting that I haven’t hated anyone since becoming a determinist — such is the force of habit and impulse — but many people seem to think that hate or actions that imply it is an appropriate response to evil even in their dispassionate moments. That’s what I’m arguing against, not involuntary emotional reactions. But we’ve been aware of apparent gene-hacking for centuries, and that doesn’t suggest at all that genes are in fact being circumvented by anything besides other genes or environmental influence.
Dale,
Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis attempt, but that’s a complete non sequitir to this discussion. My problem isn’t with orthodox opinion in principle, but with orthodox opinions that are incoherent either with themselves or with other, stronger beliefs of mine. I don’t understand why the posters here have so blatantly failed to address my argument on its own merits, instead content to (in cl’s case) assert that I haven’t made an argument at all, (Daniel) divert our attention to a red herring that ignores the many problems the antithesis has as well, or (you) go off on speculative tangents.
What I meant by the “demonizing humanity” was not a rant against orthodoxy but a contention that misunderstandings about this specious notion of libertarian free will are at least partly responsible for mistreatment of many people. But as I said, the consequences aren’t the matter here, it’s whether determinism or libertarianism is true. Indeed, I’ve noticed in cl’s syllogisms on this site that he quite frequently appeals to criteria that are irrelevant to the truth of theism, rather the “superiority” of theism.
See, thus is what I mean. Taking my words out of context and assuming you’re in the right. Classy…
dale
says...thatguy,
to quote myself
i stated everything i said within this context and i repeatedly said that this was an opinion piece posed as a question and/or speculation…not hard fact or even hard opinion. then, you reply and state that no one here understands you with condescending ‘tude. then add to that, you rant on me and everyone else with insult.
to quote you:
thanks for reminding me why i’d taken a break from commenting on blogs. i’m so corrected by your armchair psychoanalysis. thanks, doc!
cl
says...ThatGuy
A strawman occurs when I misrepresent an argument you’ve made. How / where have I done so?
Uh, if you’re going to assert to me “X is true,” I’m going to ask you to support your claim instead of handwaving. You haven’t done that yet, therefore, I’ve called you out.
No you didn’t, you went off on several related tangents. Don’t get me wrong, I liked them, but you didn’t do squat, empirically.
Vague allusions don’t cut the mustard, I’m afraid. Can you list the specific studies you allude to, and explain precisely what you think they prove?
Sorry, but that’s a terrible argument. Determinism is an inference drawn from data, an OPINION, not a realization of any fact, and the fact that you dislike the alternative doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Can you admit this? If so we can probably continue and have a reasonable discussion. If not, I don’t know where to go from here. Perhaps you have a few questions for me?
Daniel
says...That Guy,
Tell me… exactly how committed are you to the principle of sufficient reason and the principle of causality? I find that naturalists and atheists will reject libertarian free will on the grounds that it is inconsistent with causality, but then when the chips are on the table with a cosmological argument for God’s existence, suddenly none of these principles carry any more weight, and QM reveals that reality is indeterministic on its most fundamental level. Skepticism about causality and determinism should be applied equally. In other words, do you think you can you have your cake and eat it too?
The fundamental issue of free will is whether or not you accept the existence of intentional minds as non-reducible to physical matter. If the will is in any sense intentional, then there is an aspect of willing that cannot be reduced to Laplacian mechanics. And given QM, why think we should make such reductions into a cosmic billiards game. That picture is now defunct. QM doesn’t prove metaphysical indeterminacy, but it does demonstrate an epistemological gap where freedom is given some space in the system, freedom not as randomness, but as causa sui “becoming”.
Gene hacking is an interesting example of how we are applying our intentional minds to physical matter. It is literally mind over matter.
Reductionistic theories of mind have sung their swan songs more than 30 years ago. It’s time we recognize that reality must accommodate more than fizzing atoms.
Best,
Daniel
ThatGuyWithHippyHair
says...Dale,
No, you replied to my remarks assuming I was baldly asserting that determinism was true, when that was clearly not the case. If you presented a case for your religion to someone and they asked, “Why should I believe that when it tells me [I deserve to go hell without salvation]/[I inherit the sins of my distant ancestor]/[I need to renounce my possessions]/etc.?” What would you think if, after telling them, “Because it’s true,” you were accused of assertion? The double standard is embarrassing to both of us.
Since when is it insulting or condescending to legitimately criticize someone’s errors in discussion? If you can’t stand to hear civil objections to your strawmanning and attempts to psychoanalyze me, welcome to the jungle.
Logical critique does not equal reckless inference of my intentions and emotional reasons for believing what I do.
cl,
Implying that I was asserting determinism rather than pointing out your flaw in reasoning (that is, you presented a negative practical consequence of determinism as if it were a logical shortcoming of determinism) was your first strawman. Second, ignoring my argument is the ultimate form of misrepresenting it, so there’s that, too.
Are we reading the same post(s) here? First of all, I made no pretensions to having a completely empirical basis for this, and that doesn’t hurt my position any more than it does other philosophical views based on elimination of the only other possible options. That is a valid method of arriving at a philosophical position, and it is not, as you strawman it once again, merely saying “I don’t like that position, so the other position must be true.” I made the following points:
a.) If we explain certain human behaviors not as results of our genetics-environment interactions, but as the choices of a free spirit, we must explain why it is in the nature of such a spirit to make the choices it makes. In what sense can a human be considered truly free to have done otherwise than it did in fact do (as opposed to just feeling as if that’s the case) when we have no explanation as to how this occurs uncaused, much less as to how this magically creates a “moral responsibility” that is somehow superior to the kind I propose?
b.) Free-will libertarianism assumes substance dualism, with is a problematic philosophy in its own right.
c.) Regardless of whether God exists, its clear that if humans do have free spirits, those spirits are not uncaused causes. If God exists, he created human spirits and knew with his omniscience what the nature of each human spirit is, thus these created spirits have a nature that will act as they do based on what they were created to be — to say that the spirit initiates its own actions is not an indication of free will because this really just means the spirit is acting according to the nature of its executive functions. In a word, the “I” that chooses to do something freely from my perspective is itself an environmentally/genetically/divinely shaped entity.
Let me repeat my prior point: I am not proposing an argument for fatalism that denies the subjective experience of freedom. An apt analogy would be that the book of all occurrences has been written inevitably from the beginning, but we humans are currently unable to read it; hence even though what we will do, we must do, we generally don’t feel as if we must do it, and if I may paraphrase Wittgenstein on heliocentrism, what would you expect determined humans to look like? To answer “androids” would be to miss the complexity of human psychology and action completely, although I don’t think androids identical to humans are impossible in principle.
What I am arguing for is nothing more than that since this notion of “free will therefore ultimate moral responsibility” is untenable, not only is your caricature of “determinism” in this sense (more on that later) inapplicable, you also have your work cut out for you to explain what exactly the difference in “wrong”ness between Lanza and a natural disaster is — and how is it relevant?
Daniel,
I don’t reject the principle of sufficient reason or causality in regards to cosmological arguments. Cosmological arguments suffer regardless in the following ways:
1.) If the argument’s premise is that “everything that exists has a cause,” then this shoots the theist in his own foot by requiring that God have a cause. Some theists will move the goalposts here and say, “No, I meant that everything that begins to exist has a cause! God obviously could not have begun to exist, so God requires no cause.” That doesn’t fly either because it has not been proven in the slightest. Material effects insofar as those effects are rearrangements of matter in space-time do seem to universally need causes, but a) such causes are universally material themselves, and b) we have no such evidence that a cause is necessary for something to begin to exist in a very literal sense — to exist in some finite past rather than to have always existed, which applies to our universe based on abundant scientific evidence. Indeed, the notion that everything’s (the universe’s) beginning to exist ex nihilo should have required a cause is incoherent, for not only is it inconceivable how creation ex nihilo by a god would work, the concept of causality is essentially temporo-spatial. The cause of something always precedes it in time, but space-time itself cannot be “preceded” by anything. To ask what caused the origin of the space-time is like asking what is north of the North Pole.
2.) Cosmological arguments are impotent to prove anything about what this first cause is like, even if they succeed. William Lane Craig has tried but failed miserably to show that the first cause must have been personal, relying on a total non sequitir.
The principle of sufficient reason only applies when the proposed sufficient reason answers more questions than it raises, and when that reason is consistent with the evidence — both of which I’d say the God hypothesis doesn’t do, but let’s settle what we’ve already gotten into.
As for the quantum mechanics remark, perhaps I should have been more precise with my terminology. I am not a Newtonian determinist, if that’s what you’re arguing against, but I use the term “determinism” in this context as the rejection of free will libertarianism. Quantum mechanics lends absolutely zero credence to free will, because if human choices are macro-indeterministic and probabilistic because of micro-scale QM (and I don’t see how that necessarily follows), then our choices are still anything but free. They are as random as the state of Schrodinger’s Cat, so ironically free will seems to be the death of moral responsibility here — how can you justify sending a murderer to jail if you have no reason to believe he/she will murder again on related grounds and psychological instabilities?
I’m sorry, you’re going to have to clarify this statement because I have no clue what you are getting at. How do you make the leap from quantum mechanics to humans’ being the ultimate authors of our actions, without genetic and environmental causes beyond our control?
Try actually demonstrating that assertion and come back to me. If you’re going to tell me contra-causal free will exists because of your dualistic premises, then first explain how dualism explains how the mind works any better than reductionism does.
cl
says...There was no flaw in my reasoning, and you *DID* simply assert that determinism was true. At best you’ve given passing allusion to the Libet data, while practicing neuroscientists like Marcel Brass caution against such overconfidence. Same mistake Luke Muehlhauser made.
False. I simply asked, “why believe such a thing?” and you have yet to present any compelling reason aside from the bald assertion that “it’s true.”
Only if you have a problem with a causal terminus. I don’t.
Says some people, many others disagree. Your point?
I didn’t say you were. I’m just a little discouraged because you started out very much worth interacting with, but now, when challenged to provide some evidence for your assertion that “it’s true,” you’re flankering all over the tank like a flounder. Why should I believe “it’s true?” Tell me.