Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Ranvier]

Leontiscos

"Most atheists have a Protestant inheritance". Thank you, as I had my own suspicion this be the case but didn't find any compelling evidence to support this assertion. Do you have any such evidence?

As far as I can tell, the only aspect of "reality" that could justify the use of the term "determinism", is in the fact that "reality" is "determined" to constantly change. It's possible there might be some form of "reality" without any change but as far as I can ascertain there isn't any evidence of anything that doesn't change. However, there is no correlation of the cause and effect principle with this "deterministic" change, as the effect can become the cause for the original cause and then diverge later into another effect. Can the heat and light become a tree again? Yes, but this constant flow of change has nothing to do with "determinism" outside of that "deterministic" change. There is however, I believe, a pattern of [Reason] within "reality" that isn't "random" but has a characteristic tendency to change according to that pattern but then this is also divorced from direct relationship with the cause and effect principle.

I'm reading my own words and I imagine it won't be clear to the reader. Best I can do is to use the tired analogy of coin toss, where the [Reason] would be the probabilistic outcome of 50/50 heads vs tails but the [Reason](probability in this case) isn't part of the cause and effect for any individual coin toss.

[Sculptor1]

Educate thyself - for those without the Classical Education...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-ancient/

[Leontiskos]

Leontiscos

"Most atheists have a Protestant inheritance". Thank you, as I had my own suspicion this be the case but didn't find any compelling evidence to support this assertion. Do you have any such evidence?

Historian <Tom Holland> touches on this topic occasionally. Generally speaking the stark iconoclasm of (new) atheists is a carbon copy of the Reformers' iconoclasm; the Enlightenment Rationalism which was intimately bound up with the Protestant Reformation is a progenitor of contemporary atheism, which therefore ends up being a niece or nephew of Protestantism; and thirdly, the (new) atheists are by and large interacting with recent forms of popular Protestant Christianity, which is why they end up becoming a parody of them and imbibing many of their premises and ways of thinking. This isn't true of some of the older atheists such as Feuerbach, Marx, or Comte, who were strongly influenced by Catholicism. It has more to do with the recent waves of atheism.

[Ranvier]

Wow Sculptor1

That's a different level of offensive. The honesty of truth with a dose of sarcasm may be hurtful to some but such unnecessary perversion of religious beliefs is beneath a reasoned discourse.

[Ranvier]

Sculptor1

Perhaps you can point out a single instance of the word "Atheism" in that lengthy text...?

[Ranvier]

Sculptor1

I must confess, I didn't hold your remarks in a high regard before, but this time I couldn't even highlight your text to copy & paste. Rare even for me.

[Pattern-chaser]

"an event being random, uncaused" - This is another gem often claimed as being "obvious". I'm unaware of any event ever to be "uncaused", so I'll relegate it to the realm of imagination.

I think that's a shame. You think, because you know of no supporting example, that you should dismiss the idea? Such a lack of flexibility surely makes learning very difficult?

Is that how you interpret what I wrote: "...relegate it to the realm of imagination."

Yes, it is. If I have it wrong, how should I have understood what you wrote? You seem to me to be saying that, because you know of no example of an uncaused event, the idea should be relegated to "the realm of imagination". I.e. the idea should be dismissed. Is this not what you meant?

[Ranvier]

Pattern-chaser

It means exactly what it means. My focus is on what I can perceive and my [reason], everything else (abstract) is relegated to the realm of imagination. When one searches for the "truth", or misplaced keys, one shouldn't waste energy & time on searching first in a toilet bowl or freezer but attempt to think with one's own [reason] and retrace steps.

Ask yourself what's your "reason" for this exchange? Isn't it searching in the "freezer"?

[value]

My argument: the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic. Therefore your argument that one is either a theist or an atheist is false. Both theism and atheism are based on a dogma.

I can see you are very clever at copy paste. But that does not change the facts of the matter, nor do your quotes advance any kind of argument in your favour.

The word theist is enclosed in the word atheist. Atheism is opposition to the logic involved in theism. If it can be said that theism is based on a dogma, how could it possibly be different for atheism?

Clearly there must be an alternative. My quote of the prophecy of Albert Einstein shows that he predicts that human philosophy will some day find a method that makes it possible to venture beyond the limits of physics and logic.

"It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space."

Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz already made an attempt with his Monads in 1714.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MetLeiIde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

There is 'more' under the Sun than what is 'repeatable'. And one does not need to dogmatically accept or reject a God being because of it.

[Sculptor1]

My argument: the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic. Therefore your argument that one is either a theist or an atheist is false. Both theism and atheism are based on a dogma.

I can see you are very clever at copy paste. But that does not change the facts of the matter, nor do your quotes advance any kind of argument in your favour.

The word theist is enclosed in the word atheist. Atheism is opposition to the logic involved in theism. If it can be said that theism is based on a dogma, how could it possibly be different for atheism?

No this is incorrect.
THe "a-" prefix indicates an absence, not an opposition. As you, yourself have employed the term antitheist you may now realise this.
Traditionally Atheist, or atheism was use to indicate god less persons of many kinds, including Catholics of Protestants, Protestants of Catholics and "savages" untutored in the Knowlege of the CHristian God, as well as Muslims, Jews, Hindoos, and Buddhists. Though it might also include antitheists and those who are logically opposed to your god the terms only indicated an absence of belief.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser

It means exactly what it means. My focus is on what I can perceive and my [reason], everything else (abstract) is relegated to the realm of imagination. When one searches for the "truth", or misplaced keys, one shouldn't waste energy & time on searching first in a toilet bowl or freezer but attempt to think with one's own [reason] and retrace steps.

Ask yourself what's your "reason" for this exchange? Isn't it searching in the "freezer"?

So when you said "I'll relegate it to the realm of imagination", you added no useful meaning to the immediate discussion? I'm sorry, I hadn't considered that possibility. We are indeed searching in the freezer.

[Good_Egg]

Calvin thought man's acts were free albeit determined because choice is "moving of its own accord." Sculptor thinks that man's acts are free albeit determined because decisions are "determined by us alone." Both are silly positions, of course. No amount of quibbling will undo the fact that necessitated acts are not free.

What's silly about it ?

Having freewill or agency means that the decisions you make are not determined by factors outside yourself.

I haven't actually seen the film Groundhog Day, but I understand it to be based on a thought-experiment. What if one could somehow loop back in time by 24 hours and become one's earlier self but with all the memories of having lived that day already ?

Would one be imprisoned inside oneself, observing oneself go through all the same conversations and experiences, powerless to do anything different ?

Or would one be just as in control as one was the first time around, able to make different choices because of one's additional knowledge of the choices made previously and how they turned out ?

(The film obviously chooses the latter, as the more cinematically interesting possibility).

You may say it's a silly film - I couldn't comment on that. But it's exploring the difference between decisions where the external factors are identical but the internal factors - the state of mind of the actor - are different.

The distinction is between
- a crude determinism where external factors dictate the decision, which is opposed to freewill (a prisoner is not free to walk out, because of constraints external to themselves)
- a philosophical theory of determinism, where free decisions are determined by the operations of the mind which are themselves ultimately determined.

We are free agents, but are not free to not be ourselves. We are free to choose to act uncharacteristically, but the capability of doing so is just another part of who we are.

All this treats a mind as a single entity. If we delve within, we may find that one part of the mind is not free to over-rule another part. An addict may be unfree - powerless to act contrary to their addiction - because although one part of their mind wants to, another doesn't.

[Ecurb]

Calvin thought man's acts were free albeit determined because choice is "moving of its own accord." Sculptor thinks that man's acts are free albeit determined because decisions are "determined by us alone." Both are silly positions, of course. No amount of quibbling will undo the fact that necessitated acts are not free.

Much as I hate agreeing with Sculptor about anything. I don't get it. The villain (along with Calvin) in the piece, Martin Luther, allegedly said, "Here I stand and I can do no other." Was this -- somehow - not a "free choice" on his part? He "could do no other" because his conscience forbade it. Of course there are "cuases" for all our choices -- but that doesn't mean they aren't "free."

It depends what we mean be "free" and "choice". I commented earlier in the thread (which you may have missed) that, "I opted to go to the store yesterday" is both a reasonable and meaningful statement. Yet no other option exists. We make free choices if they are unconstrained by outside forces. Is an omniscient God's knowedge of the future an"outside force"? I think not. He knows what we are going to choose, but doesn't force us to choose it. That, I think, is not a contradiction. If it were, the past tense of "opt" or "choice" would be either silly or meaningless. But it isn't.

[AgentSmith]

Well, it's at least odd that we have the notion of choice if determinism is true. So I'm in a parking lot and mulling over my decision to park at the spot where I am. I could've parked anywhere of course but I made a choice to park close to the wall and not somwehere in the center where, incidentally, there was more space for my car. Why? I chose to?! A simple scenario that many can relate to, it's just an ordinary day in the life of an ordinary human in a regular city/town.

[xristos181]

We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real.

How is thinking a pause.You don't pause you use instinctive functions to create new functions and then use these functions to solve new problems and so on. It's just that every human has different instinctive functions and is introduced to different parameters that leads to individuality.Individuality is unfinished calculations from different starting points.Look at AI in computer science they are given their instinctive functions by humans and use them to create new and evolve.We are AI and our instinctive functions are given to us by evolution.It just that computer AI have stronger processing capacity(and memory) than us so we will not be able to keep up with them.The whole theory of determinism is that an AI with limitless processing power can calculate reality.
Thinking is acting and acting is a reaction and every action has a reaction.