Why argue with someone that is saying the only thing they can say

[apophenia]

How is it possible for a real materialiist to say anything other than "well, the theist has no more ability to freely choose to believe in theism than I have to freely choose to not, so it's pointless to argue"

Because a change in the environment can cause a change in beliefs about the world.  If the theist were forever determined to choose theism in spite of what facts are presented to him, then you might have a point.  But changes to a person's understanding of the facts can lead to changes in a person's beliefs, even if those changes are determined.  Thus the motive to present arguments, on the chance that doing so might change the theist's mind.  I fail to see how this is at all controversial.  At the moment I encounter the theist, perhaps his prior thoughts constrained him to being a theist, but when I enter the scene, it's not a predetermined conclusion that his beliefs and choices will remain the same.  Because I am an animal that feels emotions, I am motivated to do things which supposedly will further my interests.  I'm here on this forum half as a proof of concept, that the experience will not change my views, and half curiosity about what leads others to the theistic conclusion.  I am open to the possibility of being changed, but that will only occur if I am presented the right reasons for changing.  This is all still perfectly determined.  I consider it in my interests to engage, regardless of whether I was determined to come to that conclusion or not.  I cannot predetermine the outcome simply by assuming that it is predetermined.  I must go through the process to determine the outcome.

None of that addresses the fact that the atheist treats the theist as if they could have done otherwise.

The atheist treats the theist as if they could do otherwise - present tense - not that they could have done otherwise.

It also ignores the fact that on materialism you don't freely choose to do anything, so it's irrational  (on materialism) to say something like " I'm here on this forum because I ... ", on materialism you could have done nothing other.

That the ultimate cause of my behavior does not mean that the proximal causes of my behavior are not also properly viewed as causes.  Ultimate causes, no, but causes nonetheless.  I fail to see the conflict in framing the explanation of my behavior in terms of proximal causes; it's what I have access to inspect.  I fail to see why you think framing things in those terms is a denial of determinism.  You'll have to explain that one, as you're making no sense to me.

On materialism, the fact that you were going to post that on this forum was established when the initial conditions of the universe were established. Nothing else could have happened given those conditions.

And? 

[apophenia]

Much like when a theist or an atheist hears arguments for and against God, under determinism, neither party can rationally affirm the evidences and conclude what they believe in because of the validity of the argument.

I think for that to be the case one would have to affirm semantic epiphenominalism or some similar maneuver, and that's not required under determinism (or materialism).  Reasons do change minds.  Thus one can be presented with reasons which would, given the person's prior beliefs and the assumption of rationality, would change their mind.  Either that, or you're totally misrepresenting rationality.

[Rostos]

Much like when a theist or an atheist hears arguments for and against God, under determinism, neither party can rationally affirm the evidences and conclude what they believe in because of the validity of the argument.

I think for that to be the case one would have to affirm semantic epiphenominalism or some similar maneuver, and that's not required under determinism (or materialism).  Reasons do change minds.  Thus one can be presented with reasons which would, given the person's prior beliefs and the assumption of rationality, would change their mind.  Either that, or you're totally misrepresenting rationality.

Under determinism, minds do not change because of the rationality of the actual argument.

[Identity Crisis]

Much like when a theist or an atheist hears arguments for and against God, under determinism, neither party can rationally affirm the evidences and conclude what they believe in because of the validity of the argument.

I think for that to be the case one would have to affirm semantic epiphenominalism or some similar maneuver, and that's not required under determinism (or materialism).  Reasons do change minds.  Thus one can be presented with reasons which would, given the person's prior beliefs and the assumption of rationality, would change their mind.  Either that, or you're totally misrepresenting rationality.

Under determinism, minds do not change because of the rationality of the actual argument.

What's the problem with the rationality of the argument determining a mind to change. I can literally link you a post where it happened to me. I thought one way, I read a guy's post, and I saw I was wrong.

[apophenia]

Much like when a theist or an atheist hears arguments for and against God, under determinism, neither party can rationally affirm the evidences and conclude what they believe in because of the validity of the argument.

I think for that to be the case one would have to affirm semantic epiphenominalism or some similar maneuver, and that's not required under determinism (or materialism).  Reasons do change minds.  Thus one can be presented with reasons which would, given the person's prior beliefs and the assumption of rationality, would change their mind.  Either that, or you're totally misrepresenting rationality.

Under determinism, minds do not change because of the rationality of the actual argument.

I think you're attributing things to determinism which aren't necessarily entailed by it.  Under determinism, minds can be changed by many causes, including reasons that might appeal to a rational mind.  What you're proposing is something beyond determinism.

[Hawke123]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Why are you quoting this?  What relevance has it to your thread?

Clearly, he is in dire need of a trip to the atheist reorientation camp. ;p

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have been so flippant in the other thread.

I wasn't bothered by it.  We could use some humor around here.

[Rostos]

"Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. When you think about it – there is a sort of dizzying self-defeating character to determinism. For if you come to believe that determinism is true, then you have to believe that the reason you have come to believe it is simply because you were determined to do so. You haven’t been able, in fact, to sift through the arguments and the evidence and to freely weigh them and make up your mind on the basis of the argument and the evidence. It is just that you have been causally determined to believe in determinism.[1] So, the difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and becomes a determinist and the person who weighs those arguments for determinism and rejects them is simply that the one was determined to believe in them and the other one was determined not to believe in them. So when you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and even your present realization of that fact – you come to realize that your belief in determinism is itself determined – then there is a sort of vertigo that sets in. Everything you think – even the very thought that you are thinking about that – is itself determined. It is outside your control. You were just determined to believe in it. So while it would be the case that determinism could be true – maybe determinism is true – nevertheless it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed. Determinism is literally self-defeating – it is rationally unaffirmable – because its very affirmation would undermine the rationality of that affirmation. In affirming determinism to be true, you are in effect affirming that that decision is not rationally made but simply determined to be true. So universal causal determinism, it seems to me, cannot be rationally affirmed."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s8-10#ixzz42Yg5JFTe

[RichardChad]

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.

1. That doesn't address the issue of treating a person as if they could have done otherwise to begin with

2. There is no "could bring about" as if the person has the ability to freely choose, one would either be determined to or not and the result was established as what was going to happen when the initial conditions of the universe were established.

[Identity Crisis]

"Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. When you think about it – there is a sort of dizzying self-defeating character to determinism. For if you come to believe that determinism is true, then you have to believe that the reason you have come to believe it is simply because you were determined to do so. You haven’t been able, in fact, to sift through the arguments and the evidence and to freely weigh them and make up your mind on the basis of the argument and the evidence. It is just that you have been causally determined to believe in determinism.[1] So, the difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and becomes a determinist and the person who weighs those arguments for determinism and rejects them is simply that the one was determined to believe in them and the other one was determined not to believe in them. So when you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and even your present realization of that fact – you come to realize that your belief in determinism is itself determined – then there is a sort of vertigo that sets in. Everything you think – even the very thought that you are thinking about that – is itself determined. It is outside your control. You were just determined to believe in it. So while it would be the case that determinism could be true – maybe determinism is true – nevertheless it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed. Determinism is literally self-defeating – it is rationally unaffirmable – because its very affirmation would undermine the rationality of that affirmation. In affirming determinism to be true, you are in effect affirming that that decision is not rationally made but simply determined to be true. So universal causal determinism, it seems to me, cannot be rationally affirmed."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s8-10#ixzz42Yg5JFTe

Is this a response to me? You already posted this.

[apophenia]

"...For if you come to believe that determinism is true, then you have to believe that the reason you have come to believe it is simply because you were determined to do so. You haven’t been able, in fact, to sift through the arguments and the evidence and to freely weigh them and make up your mind on the basis of the argument and the evidence..."

This is a false dichotomy.  That you are determined to come to a certain conclusion may very well have been because you were able to weigh the arguments rationally.  There is no conflict here.  Dr. Craig is simply wrong on this point.

Do you have any of your own thoughts to contribute on the matter?

[RichardChad]

The atheist treats the theist as if they could do otherwise - present tense - not that they could have done otherwise.

1. That's not consistent with materialism, on materialism both your actions and my actions were cast in stone at the origins of the universe. We can not "do otherwise".

2. Atheists don't treat theists as if they could not have done otherwise. I've yet to hear an atheist say "I'm so sorry your determined to believe that way", instead, we hear a great deal of "why would you think that!!"

It also ignores the fact that on materialism you don't freely choose to do anything, so it's irrational  (on materialism) to say something like " I'm here on this forum because I ... ", on materialism you could have done nothing other.

That the ultimate cause of my behavior does not mean that the proximal causes of my behavior are not also properly viewed as causes.  Ultimate causes, no, but causes nonetheless.  I fail to see the conflict in framing the explanation of my behavior in terms of proximal causes; it's what I have access to inspect.  I fail to see why you think framing things in those terms is a denial of determinism.  You'll have to explain that one, as you're making no sense to me.

ah yes, "I would prefer to operate under the illusion that I have free will and am significant than face the hard facts of what my worldview implies."

On materialism, the fact that you were going to post that on this forum was established when the initial conditions of the universe were established. Nothing else could have happened given those conditions.

And?
[/quote]

Well, if you are committed to the truth of materialism, why don't you act as if it's true?

[Rostos]

"...For if you come to believe that determinism is true, then you have to believe that the reason you have come to believe it is simply because you were determined to do so. You haven’t been able, in fact, to sift through the arguments and the evidence and to freely weigh them and make up your mind on the basis of the argument and the evidence..."

This is a false dichotomy.  That you are determined to come to a certain conclusion may very well have been because you were able to weigh the arguments rationally.  There is no conflict here.  Dr. Craig is simply wrong on this point.

Do you have any of your own thoughts to contribute on the matter?

How can you weight the arguments and come to the conclusion based on the rationailty of the argument?

Consider oil and water. They do not mix. When you mix it, bubbles occur. This is simply the laws of chemistry that are determined to act that way.

The same with humans under determinism, the mind when reacting to the external stimuli will result in a certain act or conclusion, just like oil and water. It was determined to do so.

If i get presented the arguments and evidences for evolution, and i reject it, did i have a choice to accept or reject it based on the rationaility of the argumnts? Or did i reject it simply because of the way the chemicals in my brain reacted to the external stimuli (the evidences)? That is, under determinism, i am merely a passenger.

[Identity Crisis]

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.

1. That doesn't address the issue of treating a person as if they could have done otherwise to begin with

2. There is no "could bring about" as if the person has the ability to freely choose, one would either be determined to or not and the result was established as what was going to happen when the initial conditions of the universe were established.

1. Well yea, the determinist doesn't think they could've done otherwise without a determining factor. So if a determinist does treat a person as if they could've done otherwise to begin with, without a determining factor, then I guess they're mistaken. We all make mistakes, so I don't see what the big deal is. Or there's also the possibility that you're mistaken in thinking that the determinist believes they could've done otherwise without a determining factor.

2. You've just misunderstood what I meant by could bring about. I don't mean the determining factor might or might not bring it about, I mean that that particular argument could be that very determining factor that does. This leads me to think you might actually be misunderstanding the determinist.

[apophenia]

The atheist treats the theist as if they could do otherwise - present tense - not that they could have done otherwise.

1. That's not consistent with materialism, on materialism both your actions and my actions were cast in stone at the origins of the universe. We can not "do otherwise".

I think you've hitched your wagon to an empty slogan here.  That ultimately things are going to turn out the way they are going to turn out doesn't mean that in a situation of epistemic uncertainty that I am being inconsistent in acknowledging that uncertainty.

2. Atheists don't treat theists as if they could not have done otherwise. I've yet to hear an atheist say "I'm so sorry your determined to believe that way", instead, we hear a great deal of "why would you think that!!"

I see no conflict between the two.  If you do, would you be so kind as to point it out.  Proximal causes are called proximal because *ding* *ding* they are near to the effect in the causal chain.  Ceteris paribus, if I know your proximal causes for believing something I stand a better chance of intervening to alter your beliefs than if I talk about ultimate causation. 

It also ignores the fact that on materialism you don't freely choose to do anything, so it's irrational  (on materialism) to say something like " I'm here on this forum because I ... ", on materialism you could have done nothing other.

That the ultimate cause of my behavior does not mean that the proximal causes of my behavior are not also properly viewed as causes.  Ultimate causes, no, but causes nonetheless.  I fail to see the conflict in framing the explanation of my behavior in terms of proximal causes; it's what I have access to inspect.  I fail to see why you think framing things in those terms is a denial of determinism.  You'll have to explain that one, as you're making no sense to me.

ah yes, "I would prefer to operate under the illusion that I have free will and am significant than face the hard facts of what my worldview implies."

No, I do not see the conflict between my behavior and my worldview which you seem to claim exists.

On materialism, the fact that you were going to post that on this forum was established when the initial conditions of the universe were established. Nothing else could have happened given those conditions.

And?

Well, if you are committed to the truth of materialism, why don't you act as if it's true?

I do act as if it's true.  You believe that I should act otherwise if materialism is true and I believe it.   You've yet to give me a good reason why I should act otherwise and in exactly what that acting otherwise would entail.  My actions, in the face of epistemic uncertainty, make perfect rational sense under determinism.

[apophenia]

If i get presented the arguments and evidences for evolution, and i reject it, did i have a choice to accept or reject it based on the rationaility of the argumnts? Or did i reject it simply because of the way the chemicals in my brain reacted to the external stimuli (the evidences)? That is, under determinism, i am merely a passenger.

Both.  As I said, you've erected a false dichotomy and you continue to argue as if semantic epiphenominalism were entailed by materialism.   Choosing to accept or reject it rationally is just looking at the behavior of the chemicals in your brain from another perspective.   Rationally evaluating things is changing the chemicals in your brain, and vice versa.  There is no conflict because they are the same thing.