Is God Perfect?

[Ecurb]

Determinism and "agency" are not in conflict. If you shoot your mother-in-law, you are guilty of justifiable homicide whether your neurons made you do it or not (unless you are legally insane). Your constant complaints about determinism being inconsistent with agency are misguided.

An experimental scientist might say that an open flame is the "agent" of a hydrogen explosion. That is, when the hydrogen is simply resting peacefully, it doesn't explode, but when it is exposed to a flame, it does. The flame is the variable, and therefore the "cause" or "agent" of the explosion. We all know that the given normal conditions (i.e. a temperature above -100 degrees., etc.) the hydrogen must and will explode when we apply the match; nonetheless the "conditions" are equally necessary to the explosion as the lit match. A "cause" or "agent" is the handle that can be manipulated, sometimes called the "efficient cause".

The fact that the nature of the universe has (perhaps) been destined from its sudden start is irrelevant. It is reasonable to call the match the "agent" of the explosion irrespective of a philosophical belief in destiny or free will. You are caught in a false dichotomy.

[Ecurb]

YesNo is correct that some atheists and neuroscientists reject the notion of "free will". However they reject it because they define it in a strange way (different from, but similar to, YesNo's problem with it). Neuroscientists reject the notion that we have a "will" independent of the physical processes of the brain.

However, we should be wary of defining things out of existence. If we define the Earth as the planet that is at the center of the universe, and then discover that we are NOT at the center of the universe, we need not conclude that the Earth doesn't exist.

Asserting that the mind is the result of physical reactions in our brains does not invalidate the concepts of free will or agency any more than asserting that "life" is the result of a constellation of (inorganic) chemical reactions invalidates the notion of "life". Why would it?

A reasonable definition of "free will" (in other words, a description of what most English Speakers mean when they use the term) might be: "a set of capacities for imagining future courses of action, deliberating about them, and planning one's actions in light of this deliberation." Our capacity for such imagination and deliberation need not belong to immaterial souls outside the realm of physical or scientific investigation. The ability of neuroscientists to measure brain activity that precedes such conscious deliberation has been interpreted by some as invalidating "free will". I don't buy it. Correlation is not causation, and imagination and deliberation are conscious acts whether or not we can (as Whitman might say about astronomy) "add, divide, and measure them." The map is not the territory, and the measurement is not consciousness.

[YesNo]

Determinism and "agency" are not in conflict.

This is probably where we differ. What I refer to by agency is some psyche or will making a choice that cannot be reduced to an illusion. That choice allows the human agent to develop. A human being's character is defined by these choices. Perfect agents may not need the resultant development when making a choice. I am taking this from Robert Kane's libertarian, or incompatibilist, position on free will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A61X-5b847U As far as causes go, I suspect this agency would include a final cause idea, but I am not sure how Aristotle fits in with this.

Kane uses ideas from neuoscience, in particular, that we process input in a parallel manner. This parallel processing allows us to consider more than one possibility at a time. This allows us the opportunity for a choice. In other species the operation may be different that allows a choice to be possible. Also we can make changes at a macro level rather than needing to be conscious of and micro-manage individual neurons when we, say, choose to move our hands.

If one confuses agency, or free will, with determinism then one is missing the point and the reason why a partial human free will is central to the theist-atheist conflict. The compatibilist free will position is an attempt to cover up what is at stake.

Some atheists attempt a compromise, because they recognize that a non-subjective view of humanity lacks credibility. I am thinking of Thomas Nagel's panpsychism. As I understand his position, he would allow a limited form of indeterminate agency. Psyche would have to be at all relevant levels of the universe. The indeterminism in quantum physics provides support for this view. According to this atheistic perspective, we could have agency across a spectrum of reality from the quantum to the species level within the universe, but no further. A theist would extend it further going beyond the universe itself. The theist could use non-local quantum effects and the big bang to push the possibility of agency further than Nagel would likely want it to go.

[Ecurb]

Well, I tried listening to Kane's lecture, but after a few sentences I thought, "Why bother, when I could read the same information in half the time and with twice the comprehension?"

In any event, we'll have disagree, I suppose. We now think it reasonable to think of "life" as a constellation of vital phenomena (the title of a good Anthony Marra novel, by the way) that can, nonetheless, be described in terms of inorganic chemical reactions, instead of some mystical, vitalizing force. Same with free will and consciousness. The idea that life arises from inorganic chemistry, or that free will arises from the physical activity of the brain does not invalidate the concepts of "life" or "free will".

[YesNo]

Disagreeing is not a bad thing. If people did not have alternatives from which to choose they would not have free will. So our discussions exercise our free will and in the process we become who we are.

The main reason I do not like compatibilism is that it assumes determinism is true. That means there is only one path through the block universe. There are no alternatives on which we can ground a choice. Then it asserts mysteriously that we nonetheless have free will. Given Kane's results, I don't even have to consider it. Kane provides a rational, scientific explanation of free will that is also humanistic. I don't have to settle for anything less.

[desiresjab]

A "will" is never free of reflexive reactions to relevant parts of its past. That your momma pedagogically burned your finger, may not affect whether you go left or right at the next corner, because it is not relevant, but it does cast a shadow over a certain domain of decision making forever after. Your momma taught you all right.

You were not free to stop her then, and you are not free to stop the affects of what she did now. You are free to deal with them the best you can. You are never free to give a guarantee that those affects are gone.

If I knew what randomness was to the gods, I would not understand it. Contradictory as it sounds, the gods may have formulae that guarantee various "flavors" of randomness.

[YesNo]

I don't think anyone who supports the existence of real, non-illusional free will thinks it is absolute. There are other agents besides ourselves restricting us. Kane talks about "self-forming actions" for which we are "ultimately responsible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kane_(philosopher)

The question is: Can you make a real choice, even if it is just once, between alternate possibilities? In a deterministic block universe there are no alternate possibilities and so no real choice is possible which is why compatibilism is unreasonable. However, do we really live in a block universe? That is an assumption based on people who take axiomatic systems such as mathematics too literally. Taking things too literally is a form of "idolatry" which claims we can completely objectify our subjectivity.

If you acknowledge that human beings are free agents with free will, what else might be a free agent? Atheists will want to limit the number of agents to avoid having to ultimately posit a perfect agent. Doing so, however, opens them to a charge of dehumanization if they attempt to deny that people have any real free will whatsoever.

[desiresjab]

Onward conscious a-a-a-agents, marching as to war...

Agents are conscious quantum particles wrapped in your new trojan horse. They are even more general and nebulous, so worse.

The metaphor is ghostly and nebulous. Is the memory of your mother holding your fingers over a flame an agent? It is conscious.

Just any old cause is not enough, if I take you right, there has to be a consciousness of high enough order behind that cause making a basic decision rather than simply being led deterministically by the forces of physics.

Now this would entail a large number of quantum particles getting together and acting in concert "accidentally" and unconsciously to affect your decision making so that it becomes free, or anything on your scale. Two contradictions.

1 The quantum particles that have to affect you unconsciously are already assumed conscious.

2 If they affect your decision making machinery, how are you free?


I might agree that the gods keep you free by pumping a constant stream of mysterious "free will" into your mental apparatuses and environment, the way doctors keep oxygen coming to a patient under a tent. I do not need to posit any conscious agents other than the gods to keep mankind thinking freely, in that case. Why does it take all these conscious agents to provide free will, as if the oxygen coming to the patient needs to be conscious?

[YesNo]

The metaphor is ghostly and nebulous. Is the memory of your mother holding your fingers over a flame an agent? It is conscious.

Do you think you are not conscious? Rather than free will we could approach the subject from consciousness or subjectivity. It would still be centered on human beings, not perfect agents.

Just any old cause is not enough, if I take you right, there has to be a consciousness of high enough order behind that cause making a basic decision rather than simply being led deterministically by the forces of physics.

Quantum physics is indeterministic. If you look closely enough the determinism breaks down.

Now this would entail a large number of quantum particles getting together and acting in concert "accidentally" and unconsciously to affect your decision making so that it becomes free, or anything on your scale. Two contradictions.

1 The quantum particles that have to affect you unconsciously are already assumed conscious.

2 If they affect your decision making machinery, how are you free?

The metaphor of individualism also needs to be re-examined. Acting in concert reminds me of sending "individual" quantum "particles" through a double slit one at a time. The ending result on the detection screen is still the wave pattern, not a random, "accidental" pattern. Did they work together to produce that pattern in some way?

I might agree that the gods keep you free by pumping a constant stream of mysterious "free will" into your mental apparatuses and environment, the way doctors keep oxygen coming to a patient under a tent. I do not need to posit any conscious agents other than the gods to keep mankind thinking freely, in that case. Why does it take all these conscious agents to provide free will, as if the oxygen coming to the patient needs to be conscious?

Given Kane's approach to free will, I don't need to accept anything less. That means any competing explanation needs to be (1) rational, (2) scientific and (3) humanistic.

Consciousness is related to free will. Atheists need to remove it in human beings so that it doesn't lead to consciousness everything and ultimately require perfect agents. However, asserting that humans are not conscious is a form of dehumanization.

[August Guelfen]

Why everyone seems to think Alpha and Omega are so different to each other ? Is it so difficult to accept the decay of Adam and Eve was their own fault ? God wanted to proof their purity and value and if they realy love him on their own, or because of the privileges he gave to them. He knew that this little ignorant angel, who will become satan, would try to hurt him and also how. So he made things a bit more easier and more visible by creating this tree of delight out of satans instable illness, which the world call sin today. After that God look on all that and saw, that this little defect inside of that little stupid angel is also presented inside of Adam and Eve, so he let all that happened, what we call the fall of evil. Every bad angel was pushed out of heaven and by their impact, god created the circles of hell, where nothing comes out or in without god's will. Perhabs Dante or Hieronymus Bosch can help you to understand that.

[YesNo]

Why everyone seems to think Alpha and Omega are so different to each other ? Is it so difficult to accept the decay of Adam and Eve was their own fault ? God wanted to proof their purity and value and if they realy love him on their own, or because of the privileges he gave to them. He knew that this little ignorant angel, who will become satan, would try to hurt him and also how. So he made things a bit more easier and more visible by creating this tree of delight out of satans instable illness, which the world call sin today. After that God look on all that and saw, that this little defect inside of that little stupid angel is also presented inside of Adam and Eve, so he let all that happened, what we call the fall of evil. Every bad angel was pushed out of heaven and by their impact, god created the circles of hell, where nothing comes out or in without god's will. Perhabs Dante or Hieronymus Bosch can help you to understand that.

One can approach free will in many ways. One does not have to use neuroscience or limit oneself to arguments that atheists might accept. Your approach is (1) rational, (2) potentially scientific since you can reference the big bang or quantum physics for justification and (3) humanistic since it fits common sense. It would be an explanation of free will.

What your position does introduce are many other agents such as angels and God that people like Ecurb or desiresjab probably don't accept. The fact that they don't accept those agents does not mean they do not exist.

Robert Kane's position on free will that I have been referencing restricts itself to realities that atheists are likely to accept. However, I suspect there is a lot more to free will than Kane has addressed. For example, when atheists hear about quantum indeterminism they are quick to try to limit that idea to stuff at the quantum level. But there is no reason to do that. Given that determinism breaks down at that level implies that we need to keep an open mind about determinism at all levels. Determinism may not exist at all. That is, it could break down at all levels not because everything is made out of quantum stuff, but because each level of reality has its own indeterminateness.

[August Guelfen]

I feel a lot of sympathy for you, realy. You seem to try to see without your eyes, which are there on your face. I am nearly blind as a consequence of anasometropy, which I get as a result of genetic degeneration on both sides of my family. My lung is nearly 40% dead and I get an anaphylactic shock some weeks ago. On the other hand, I realy can see, hear and understand quantum fields, when they are breathing and I can't stop that kind of gift. My real eyes never sleep

[Ecurb]

Just to clarify my position (which YesNo misstates): I have no idea whether the universe is "determined" or "indeterminate". I just think it's irrelevant to the question of whether we humans (or other agents) have "free will". It's a matter of definitions: as I explained before, the murderer "freely" chooses his crime (and is therefore morally and legally culpable) whether or not his neurons made him do it. What we mean by "freely chooses" is that the murderer is not constrained by physical bonds or threats, or by abnormal delusions (insanity). Whether he is constrained by the foreknowledge of God, or by the physical laws affecting neurons is irrelevant to the legal and moral question of "free choice".

It sounds like a contradiction to claim that agency is possible given determinism. But the concepts of "freedom", "will" and "agency" are coherent and meaningful in a (real or imaginary) predetermined universe. For example, (to return to literature) we can, and often do, talk about a character in a novel making decisions, about what led to those decisions, and about about whether he "chose" a certain course of action. Of course, the novel's author actually determines all of the decisions. Nonetheless, our discussion about the character is reasonable and meaningful. Same with real life. The concept of "free will" is meaningful in a universe in which an omniscient God knows what all of our choices will be, and it is meaningful in a universe in which no such foreknowledge exists.

[August Guelfen]

Why do you think I would care about laws made by blind invalid humans ? Do you realy think that social ethics care me or god ? What would you do, if someone would invade all the data, which was ever recorded over you, for example in the servers of one gouverment or other big organisations like fbook ? Imagine that funny thing. But, what would happen, if this asocial hacker would place all that great stuff to the friends, fellows, sons and daughters and love of your life, only for love to truth. What would you be without your great suits of money and lies.. I tell you, you would be the same helpless person, only living as a homeless. So don't try to talk about things you can't understand.

[YesNo]

It sounds like a contradiction to claim that agency is possible given determinism. But the concepts of "freedom", "will" and "agency" are coherent and meaningful in a (real or imaginary) predetermined universe. For example, (to return to literature) we can, and often do, talk about a character in a novel making decisions, about what led to those decisions, and about about whether he "chose" a certain course of action. Of course, the novel's author actually determines all of the decisions. Nonetheless, our discussion about the character is reasonable and meaningful. Same with real life. The concept of "free will" is meaningful in a universe in which an omniscient God knows what all of our choices will be, and it is meaningful in a universe in which no such foreknowledge exists.

Maybe we only disagree on definitions, but it could go deeper.

If we have a deterministic universe, then we have a block universe, a mathematicized idol. There is only one path for any of us to take. If that is what you mean by determinism, then claiming that anyone in such a fantasy universe has free will is a contradiction. It is irrational to maintain that contradiction is acceptable. I would say the same thing goes for an omniscient God. If that God created the universe as a block universe, then any free will we think we have is an illusion. We do not have any. Given the indeterminism in quantum physics one can say that we are not in a block universe.

On the other hand, you may be referring to constraints that we all experience. Here I would use the word "disposed" rather than "determined". We are disposed to act in a more or less predictable way given those influences. We are not determined by them. We can still make choices. In that case, a dispositionalist position would allow free will since a choice was made. It is essentially what we observe with quantum particles. We can only predict probabilities associated with them not because we do not have all the data but because there is no other data to go on.

Kane uses a novel to illustrate his position as well. In Kane's case we are the authors as well as the characters in the novel of our lives.