Syphor

I posted this a few months ago, and recently had a re-read of it again. I like to think it makes sense, but I’d like to know what others think of it. Is it a good argument against the theist pro free-will position or is it flawed in some way that I have failed to see. Included are quotes of the poster I was debating with, to show what I was replying to.

You can view the entire thread that this was posted in, right <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=1130982214& p=1" target="_blank">here</a>.

----------------------------------------

While you may never have been given the opportunity to act out such events, you would still learn of what you would have done if you had lived from an omniscient being. As I've said, if the Christian God is truly knowing of all things past, present and future then life is irrelevant since the outcome has always been predetermined by that God. Is the Christian God so insecure that he still needs to see an event happen in order to pass judgement even though he is aware of the outcome well in advance?

Your analogy is incorrect because it is not what I mean when I claim free-will to be a fallacy. You're basically getting at an educated guess, learning the habits of children and drawing a conclusion as to how they may react given a certain situation. I probably haven't explained my position clear enough so I'll use a few analogies of my own.

Firstly, imagine a coin toss (I believe I’ve used this before on Ars). If you flip a coin the chances of flipping heads are 50/50, so you assume flipping a coin is purely based upon probability. However, what if you knew the variables of that coin toss, the force of gravity, the coins torque, the velocity and acceleration of the coin, the wind resistance and the coins reaction to the surface it lands on. Could you then not pick the correct result of that coin toss 100% of the time? By doing so you remove the chance factor and make a coin toss totally predictable.

Lets say someone knew all the variables regarding the actions of a human being. Of course human beings are incredibly complex so I'm talking very specifically such as the firing of each individual neuron in the brain or even the molecular makeup and how individual molecules react to one another. If somebody knew such information and knew how to use it could they then exactly predict how an individual would act given a certain situation? I know it is far more complex than this and I'm no doubt making it sound way to simplistic but as I said with the coin toss example, if you know all the variables then you will know the result.

He doesn't and I don't believe I said that he would. Because of the sheer complexity of human behaviour it may well appear that the child is making a choice to lash out (which is why I said before that free-will is an illusion); however, the child is only acting within the boundaries of his limitations. Because of those limitations his actions are predictable therefore contradicting the definition of free-will.

Now say I create three robots, I program them so that two are placid and peace loving and the third is aggressive and murderous. Because I programmed them I know that the third robot will attack and destroy the other two. I activate them within a controlled environment and let them operate as they wish and sure enough the third robot destroys the other two. Who is responsible, the creator (me) or the created (the robot)? The aggressive robot had the free-will to do as it pleased but could only operate within the boundaries of its program and thus its instinct was aggression. Had I programmed it like the other two robots then no robot would have been destroyed. Likewise, Humans can also only operate within the boundaries of their own limitations, such limitations (according to theism) set down by a God. If an individual is created in a manner that makes him more prone to aggression and murderous intent (like the third robot) then how is that individual responsible for his actions?

Theists skip around this by saying he has free-will, the option to choose his actions and consequences, but this assumes that everyone is created perfectly equal and can only make choices and decisions based on that equality. In reality we are not equal, some people are calm, others are aggressive, and some are more prone to commit certain acts than others based upon their own personally traits and outside influences. Individuals only have free-will, the option of choice and decision within the limitations that they were created with. And if that creator is God, then how does that not make him responsible for his creations actions?

You're painting your God in a human context here. I fail to see how an omniscient being will hold somebody in a different light when he actually sees the action occur since he would know beforehand how he would react anyway.

----------------------------------------

DRFseven

Very nice post, Syphor; you have a good way of explaining determining factors.

ShottleBop

From <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clark_22_2.html" target="_blank">Council for Secular Humanism</a>

Excerpt (from "APPLIED ETHICS: Science and Freedom"
by Thomas W. Clark, in "Free Inquiry," Spring, 2002 Issue):

luvluv

Hi Syphor:

First off much of your position hinges upon us knowing that human behavior is a function of humans being "made" a certain way. I am not a psychologist, but I was under the impression that the nature vs nurture question is very much still undecided. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that children are "born" aggressive.

Next, I would like to propose that the free will argument does not include the belief that people are free from the results of the freely made decisions of other people.

As such, even the characteristics of a child are contingent upon the free will of his parents in choosing a mate. Assuming for a moment that behavior or predisposition to behavior is genetic; then a child's genetic predisposition is largely determined by the free decision of his parents to mate. If two aggressive people decide to have a child, the natural result of their choice is the potentiality of an aggressive child. In such a case, it would not be God who "created an aggressive robot" it would be the two aggressive parents who decided to mate. If behavior is genetic, then it is the combination of genes that determines behavior and those gene combinations are determined not by God but by those doing the mating. Thus, even the childs genetic predisposition is the result of the free will decision of his parents.

This argument also covers whatever care the child's parents provide for him. Assuming that a persons predisposition is founded in nurture and not nature, then obviously the decision of a parent to either love or abuse a child will have an effect on that child's outcome. But here again, the free will doctrine only frees you from God's immediate interference, not from your parents.

In short, whether predispositions to behavior are genetic or the function of environment, they are both the result of human choices and not of God's intervention.

Moving on, I think your predisposition arguments may be slightly overstated (though again, I have absolutely no training in psychology). I don't think that there is any consensus in the psychological community that predispostions (be they the result of nature or nurture) are so determinative that the behavior of an individual is a forgone conclusion. I can name you dozens of Christians (and others for that matter) who I know who came from rough backgrounds, both genetically and environmentally, and yet escaped unscathed as a result of consistently applying their faith. If behavior is so unalterably predetermined in infancy, why is there a field of psychology to begin with? If it is impossible for people to overcome their behavior, then why is there an entire field of science dedicated to helping them do that? I am weak in many areas, but I have more control over them now than I did before I was a Christian and will have more over them at a later date. I am not suggesting that this kind of self-control is exclusive to Christianity, I am just stating my opposition to the opinion that ones weaknesses are fixed and unalterable by effort.

The crux of your objection seems to be that it will be harder for certain people to be Christian than others. Of that I have no doubt. But that does not at all eliminate the doctrine of free will. Free will does not guarantee everyone an even shot, but it does gurantee them a shot that is fair enough to make the right decision.

Martin Luther King said that we are all caught up in an "inescapable network of mutuality"; everything we do effects other people. The doctrine of free will does not save people from this fact. Certainly people will be helped or hindered on their roads by the actions of other people, but that is a result of others using (or abusing) their free will. It is not a result of God's intervention.

Also, I am interested in what you guys will think about the new movie "Minority Report". Do you think that if God acted in that way, punishing people for crimes he KNEW they were going to commit before they committed them(I don't believe He does that, by the way) that He would be more just than He is for allowing the situation to play itself out?

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

DRFseven

The view that human behavior is a result of either nature or nurture is false; I would think that almost the whole world now knows that human behavior is attributed to an interaction of both factors. It is useless to speak of the vast repertoire of human behavior in terms of the impact of only one of the two. What is unknown is which gene combination involves what behavioral factor in light of what experience.

No one [/i]knows for sure[/i] what will happen because even the subject has no insight into many of his/her mental constructions. But even with our limited knowledge, we are still able to make some valid predictions based on broad tendencies; i.e., criminal profiling (details of a crime might indicate the race, age, occupation, gender, and mental health, and quality of certain relationships of the perpetrator).

It's not that a person's behavior is somehow scripted in infancy; it's that the forces that determine genetics and the personal experiences of the individual have already been set in motion long before the individual is there to make any behavioral choices. A dog bites you and becomes one of the millions of personal experiences that adds up to motivate the biological conglomeration that is you. What caused the dog? We go back through the dog's ancestry, but that is not enough to explain the dog; we must go back through the evolution of wolves, and then a common mammalian ancestor, etc., etc., back as far as we can to the coming together of universal elements and the dynamics of the universe. Multiply this by the millions to trace back other factors. This is what is meant by determination; not some planned script that someone wrote or knows about. It's all happenstance.

Syphor

I meant to reply earlier but I’ve been busy and unfortunately haven't got around to it. DRFSeven summed up my position very nicely regarding human behaviour as a result of genetics and environment.

luvluv,
Behaviour is not just genetic; it is the combination of both genetics and environmental influences that determine human behaviour. In this regard the parents in your example cannot be responsible for their actions since they have no control over either their genetic makeup or their environment. If the parents are not responsible, then it must be the one responsible for the creation of both genetics and the environment. For me personally it is no one, since I do not believe we exist because of the will of an entity. For you it must be god, since it is god that created the universe.

Now the majority of my original post, and the 'robot' analogy, was in reference to an omniscient god and freewill. Omniscience is a typical quality given to a monotheistic god, whose followers in an attempt to explain 'evil', say we have freewill. Freewill and omniscience cannot co-exit, meaning that we cannot choose our fate and have our fate set in stone at the same time.

Well we are not, and can not be responsible for our genetic makeup. I suppose you could argue that our human environment is shaped based on the choices and decisions of others which is somewhat true. However, it is genetics and our environment that shape these choices and decisions. As you can probably see, choices are made based on earlier events, which are also based on earlier events...and so on ad infinitum. This is cause-and-effect or determinism, and because of it true choice or freewill cannot exist.

This 'decision' is the result of cause and effect, and is made on the basis of cause (the outside influences affecting the decision) and effect (the consequences of the decision). The outcome of the decision is basically set in stone long before it is made (at the creation of the Universe as far as I'm concerned). The individual making the decision has no choice in the matter because it is made based on the very two things the individual has no control over, genetics and environment.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Syphor ]</p>

luvluv

Again, I think you are confusing the doctrine of free will.

First of all, omniscience and free will can exist. Simply because God knows you are going to do something does not mean he is causing you to do it. The Christian concept of eternity means that God is present in every moment in history simeltaneously. He experiences in every moment the experience we call "now". Therefore, God doesn't simply "know" what we are going to do, He is, presently, watching us do it. He is present in all time past and all time future. But the fact that He can see us doing something, and know our choices, does not make them any less ours. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Also, while an individual may have no control over his own genetics, God certainly did not have control over them either. His parents did. And their parents before them. And so on. We choose with whom we will mate. The genetic combinations that show up in a child are the result of the combinations in their parents. That IS an environmental effect, and it is chosen by humans and not God.

Again, you seem to be confusing the doctrine of free will with the belief that you will have UNINFLUENCED decisions. Again, that is not the Christian position. Your decisions will not be directly influenced by God. That is all the freewill doctrine means. HE has promised not to make you obey Him. No one else has made you such a promise. You may get bad genes. Basically, that's tough luck. You can still decide to make something better out of your life and if you don't it is nobody's fault but yours. Yes, there are causes and effects, but one of the causes is my will and my ability to change the course of my own life. If I decide to, I can change anything about myself. That is the gift of free will. Yes I am effected by my genes and by my environment, but I can still determine the course of my life given my options with my free will. The fact that there are genetic and environmental influences does not in the least interfere with the free will doctrine. Your will is going to be interfered with and influenced, but the influence is not absolute and you retain the power to make real choices.

Syphor

This does not disprove my proposition that omniscience and freewill cannot co-exist. It is irrelevant what god is doing, the simple fact is every choice and decision we make is caused by factors outside of our control. I never claimed or meant to intend that a god would have a hand in any of our decision making or 'freewill'.

How can a god exist in every moment in past and future yet not know what we will do? This is like not knowing what you did yesterday because yesterday isn't today or 'now'.

If there is something unknown to god then god is not omniscient. If god is not omniscient then he can not know if he is omnipotent and omnipresent. Christians, of course, usually suggest all three, and omni benevolence as well.

Yes, but it is when omniscience is brought into the picture that everything changes. If god knows exactly what you will do then how can you do otherwise? If god knows of all future choices you will make then how do you have true freewill?

What I am saying is that every decision, every choice any individual makes is 100% influenced by outside factors which that individual does not have control over. Even simple choices like eating an apple or orange are due to things like brain chemistry and so on. This means that an individual is not truly free in any decision making process. If they are not free to make decisions then they do not have freewill.

So what influences this 'will' to change your life? Does it just come from no where? Perhaps it is because that you, unlike others, have more incentive to make an effort to do something (genetics). Or could it be that seeing other people do fascinating things with their lives has spurred you into action (environment). Either way, your decision to do something with your life is not a true 'free' decision, but a result of many different variables.

Answerer

Guys, allow me to say something, first, Jehovah is well-known for his 'wisdom' and 'compassion', so if he knows that in the end of times(if there is)there is only 33% of the total human population will believe in him, why do he make such a golden rule that a person will have to believe in him first before going to heaven.
On the other hand, since he is omniscience, he surely knows who are the ones who will not be chrisitans and in the other words, he is indirectly condemning 67% of the total human population when he ask Jesus to state the golden rule. So much for a compassionate God who knows and cares for everything. And so much for giving us free will when he knew that we will suffer from that gift.

Syphor

Absolutely.

A being that knows in advance of the choices you will make in life and consequently bases judgements on them, defeats the purpose of letting you live in the first place.