Have you ever met a person that embraced determinism as true?

[john doe]

Have you ever met a person who embraces heliocentrism as true?  I mean, really true; someone who shuns words like "sunset."

FBA: do you embrace determinism as true?

 Do you embrace heliocentrism as true?   If so, do you use the word "sunset"?

If yes to both, why do you employ language that seems to contradict your beliefs?

A. This entire thread, what we see is atheists simply terrified of acknowledging determinism. In fact, as we've seen, they clearly and unambiguously want to not talk about it, and want to use words that only make sense on LFW.

Not quite true.  Apophenia has owned up to hard determinism but you seem unwilling to engage her.  I decline to own determinism because I think the question is logically troubled, though I'm certainly unwilling to let go of some aspects of determinism.  But if you say my reason is fear you deliberately misrepresent the reasons I gave.

[RichardChad]

In my experience there is are enormous differences between those who claim to hold determinism is true, and the expectations others have for them on account of that opinion. 

Not unlike the way atheists and theists often imagine it would be to change positions.  Many theists seem to think as an atheist they'd immediately lose all human feeling and empathy for others.  Atheists often seem to assume they would need to have had a lobotomy.

whateverist: do you believe determinism is true?

I think the question is vexed.  Is the opposite of determinism indeterminism and does that make free will equivalent to indeterminism?  If so I don't think free will works.  It doesn't seem to be an either/or decision.  I believe I have a free choice of possible acts but not a free choice over what my disposition toward those choices should be.  On what basis could I choose to make my choices on a basis other than that which I do?  Vexed I say.

*crosses himself and exits thread in a hurry*

I simply can not understand how so many atheists could be terrified of enthusiastically endorsing a foundational aspect of their belief system.

[apophenia]

I'm not a determinist because I don't see why there couldn't be some aspect of reality that's not determined. What I've defended in the other thread is that a determinist can consistently account for choice, deliberation, and will in their worldview. Also, I've responded to your last post in the other thread.

I am a physicalist and a hard determinist and I agree with Identity Crisis here.  There is no fundamental conflict between determinism and the language of choice, deliberation, and will. 

Oh my!
There is no fundamental conflict between:
1) determinism
2) the language of choice, deliberation, and will

A. that is simply an incoherent statement

Oh my!  That must settle it.  Because RichardChad says so.

B. it outs you as a person that wants to claim a belief, but doesnt actually hold to the belief

Bull hockey.  It does no such thing.

C. give me one example where in ANY OTHER area of human activity you embrace a view but use the language of that views negation to describe it!

You haven't demonstrated that the language of deliberation, choice, and will is the province of LFW.  Until you do, your challenge is premature.  Get cracking!

I use the language of determinism and so do you!  You speak of being influenced by desires and reasons and beliefs, of inspecting options (deliberating), of having a character which determines your predispositions, and of being a slave to sin.  That's the language of determinism.  It's also the language of LFW, as free will doesn't actually enter into the question of resolving uncertainty in favor of certain outcomes, except as a fanciful reduction which nobody seems capable of specifying.  You have free will, it just doesn't affect your decisions.  Ah, gotcha.

That our actions are sensible to ourselves is the greatest testimony to determinism that there is.  Otherwise I should be continually amazed that there is any sense to my decisions at all.

So instead of bleating about how I use the language of free will, perhaps you should explain why you use the language of determinism when talking about people's wills?


"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer

[john doe]

So, still no atheists coming forward? Aleph? Emuse? Identity Crisis? apophenia?

This is what you're basing your reality on, no vigorous defense??

If they aren't determinists, then why should they defend determinism?

As for myself, I am agnostic on the matter.  Determinism may be true, or it may not be.  But if I were to somehow discover that it is true, it would not change the way I behave.  You obviously think that it should change the way a person behaves, and this is the thesis which you have never adequately defended.

How is it possible to be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist?

That would be interesting for someone to explain : - )

Cue voluminous discussions on what "atheism" means, what "physicalism" means and what "determinism" means, and how they arent the same notion (which is true)
but
not one word on how its possible be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist (except for the "I see no reason..." ones, which aren't reasons.)

I would appear you've already decided how the discussion will go regardless of what anyone actually says.  I'm done.

[RichardChad]

Not quite true.  Apophenia has owned up to hard determinism but you seem unwilling to engage her.  I decline to own determinism because I think the question is logically troubled, though I'm certainly unwilling to let go of some aspects of determinism.  But if you say my reason is fear you deliberately misrepresent the reasons I gave.

Where? Serious question, another thread?

How can you as an atheist not embrace materialism/physicalism and determinism? How is that rationally possible?

[apophenia]

So, still no atheists coming forward? Aleph? Emuse? Identity Crisis? apophenia?

This is what you're basing your reality on, no vigorous defense??

If they aren't determinists, then why should they defend determinism?

As for myself, I am agnostic on the matter.  Determinism may be true, or it may not be.  But if I were to somehow discover that it is true, it would not change the way I behave.  You obviously think that it should change the way a person behaves, and this is the thesis which you have never adequately defended.

How is it possible to be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist?

That would be interesting for someone to explain : - )

Cue voluminous discussions on what "atheism" means, what "physicalism" means and what "determinism" means, and how they arent the same notion (which is true)
but
not one word on how its possible be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist (except for the "I see no reason..." ones, which aren't reasons.)

I would appear you've already decided how the discussion will go regardless of what anyone actually says.  I'm done.

He's determined, I'll give you that much....

[RichardChad]

I'm not a determinist because I don't see why there couldn't be some aspect of reality that's not determined. What I've defended in the other thread is that a determinist can consistently account for choice, deliberation, and will in their worldview. Also, I've responded to your last post in the other thread.

I am a physicalist and a hard determinist and I agree with Identity Crisis here.  There is no fundamental conflict between determinism and the language of choice, deliberation, and will. 

Oh my!
There is no fundamental conflict between:
1) determinism
2) the language of choice, deliberation, and will

A. that is simply an incoherent statement

Oh my!  That must settle it.  Because RichardChad says so.

B. it outs you as a person that wants to claim a belief, but doesnt actually hold to the belief

Bull hockey.  It does no such thing.

Of course it does! Refusing to stop using language that only makes sense on LFW MEANS you simply do not want to completely reject that position. What else could it possibly mean?

Without that language, what can you possibly discuss? Your answer to everything would necessarily be "well, you and I are just determined to believe what we believe".

If that is indeed what you do believe, why doesn't your language reflect it? Why in the world would you want to use language completely inconsistent with your world view?

[Friendly Banjo Atheist]

  Richard, all this talk of atheists being "terrified" of acknowledging determinism seems a bit of hysteria.

 Here's how it is for me.   Every time I read the philosophical discussions of compatiblism versus incompatibalism  my mind goes fuzzy and I see how extraordinarily complex the issues are. There is a very real concern that our language is barring our ability to even discuss the issue.

 So I am perfectly comfortable sitting on the sidelines and enjoying the  Academic wrestling match without feeling that my worldview is overly invested in who is winning, (not that I am competent to judge that.)

  You, by contrast, seem to feel that there is a clear answer and that you've got it.   Good for you.

[RichardChad]

You haven't demonstrated that the language of deliberation, choice, and will is the province of LFW.  Until you do, your challenge is premature.  Get cracking!

hunh?
choice is the opposite of determination, you can't rationally argue that.

I use the language of determinism and so do you!  You speak of being influenced by desires and reasons and beliefs, of inspecting options (deliberating), of having a character which determines your predispositions, and of being a slave to sin.  That's the language of determinism.

what??
influence and determine are entirely different things, clearly this can not be argued.

  It's also the language of LFW, as free will doesn't actually enter into the question of resolving uncertainty in favor of certain outcomes, except as a fanciful reduction which nobody seems capable of specifying.  You have free will, it just doesn't affect your decisions.  Ah, gotcha.

what?
The ability to freely choose is a well understood notion, it's the opposite of being determined (again, this is pretty basic stuff, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

What provides for that ability to choose is the immaterial soul.

That our actions are sensible to ourselves is the greatest testimony to determinism that there is.  Otherwise I should be continually amazed that there is any sense to my decisions at all.

On determinism EVERY thought and action is determined, including the thought that actions are sensible. Your drifting into talking as if you have the ability to freely choose..

[RichardChad]

Richard, all this talk of atheists being "terrified" of acknowledging determinism seems a bit of hysteria.

 Here's how it is for me.   Every time I read the philosophical discussions of compatiblism versus incompatibalism  my mind goes fuzzy and I see how extraordinarily complex the issues are. There is a very real concern that our language is barring our ability to even discuss the issue.

 So I am perfectly comfortable sitting on the sidelines and enjoying the  Academic wrestling match without feeling that my worldview is overly invested in who is winning, (not that I am competent to judge that.)

  You, by contrast, seem to feel that there is a clear answer and that you've got it.   Good for you.

It's extremely simple, if all that exists is the material universe, every thought and action you have is identical with material interactions, and is perfectly predictable.
On your world view, the future is as fixed as the past.

The atheist that doesn't agree with the first 30 minutes of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlQa_9pkgbg has a massive problem of explaining how it could be wrong.

[Friendly Banjo Atheist]

 I do not feel in the least bit uncomfortable with determinism being true.  It makes zero difference in my life, that I am aware of.

[hatsoff]

So, still no atheists coming forward? Aleph? Emuse? Identity Crisis? apophenia?

This is what you're basing your reality on, no vigorous defense??

If they aren't determinists, then why should they defend determinism?

As for myself, I am agnostic on the matter.  Determinism may be true, or it may not be.  But if I were to somehow discover that it is true, it would not change the way I behave.  You obviously think that it should change the way a person behaves, and this is the thesis which you have never adequately defended.

How is it possible to be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist?

That would be interesting for someone to explain : - )

Cue voluminous discussions on what "atheism" means, what "physicalism" means and what "determinism" means, and how they arent the same notion (which is true)
but
not one word on how its possible be an atheist and not be a materialist/physicalist/determinist (except for the "I see no reason..." ones, which aren't reasons.)

There are many such ways. For example, I am an atheist and subjective idealist. Others are dualists. Still others are physicalists who just don't accept determinism. Why do you ask?

[apophenia]

B. it outs you as a person that wants to claim a belief, but doesnt actually hold to the belief

Bull hockey.  It does no such thing.

Of course it does! Refusing to stop using language that only makes sense on LFW MEANS you simply do not want to completely reject that position. What else could it possibly mean?

It could mean that you're simply wrong about the entailments of determinism.

It's interesting how you feel that my beliefs should cause me to act a certain way and that when I don't act in the way you feel I should be caused to behave by my beliefs, you find that inexplicable.  You betray your determinist logic by your very outcry.

Without that language, what can you possibly discuss? Your answer to everything would necessarily be "well, you and I are just determined to believe what we believe".

That's nonsense and betrays a total misunderstanding of determinism.  Determinism doesn't mean that we are "just determined to believe what we believe."  Determinism acknowledges the role of deliberation and the uncertainty which faces each of us with every new encounter.   That you feel the way you do is to me inexplicable.  But as a determinist, I fully believe there are reasons that have caused you to come to the position you have.  I don't accept that it's "just RichardChad's free will announcing itself with an arbitrary judgement."  You have reasons and beliefs about the matter, and if you didn't, then your behavior truly would be inexplicable.  Do you have reasons for your position which might cause another to adopt the same position as you or not?  If this insistence on the language of LFW is your way of communicating that you have no reason for believing as you do, just say so, and I will accept it.  It's just another "crazy" inexplicable choice made by a totally free will.

If that is indeed what you do believe, why doesn't your language reflect it?

My language does reflect it.  And so does yours.

[RichardChad]

I do not feel in the least bit uncomfortable with determinism being true.  It makes zero difference in my life, that I am aware of.

On determinism, your future is equally as fixed as your past. It cannot be changed.

Every thought and action you will ever have, is fixed, determined, can't be changed.

Does that correspond with reality as you know it? Do you perceive that to be true? That you have no ability to do anything else?

[RichardChad]

B. it outs you as a person that wants to claim a belief, but doesnt actually hold to the belief

Bull hockey.  It does no such thing.

Of course it does! Refusing to stop using language that only makes sense on LFW MEANS you simply do not want to completely reject that position. What else could it possibly mean?

It could mean that you're simply wrong about the entailments of determinism.

Where? how? please provide some information on that.

It's interesting how you feel that my beliefs should cause me to act a certain way and that when I don't act in the way you feel I should be caused to behave by my beliefs, you find that inexplicable.  You betray your determinist logic by your very outcry.

What?
What I've claimed is that you aren't acting in line with your professed beliefs.

I can't make any sense of your claim that I'm a determinist. That just seems like like a red herring on your part.

I notice that you didn't bother to respond to the substantive portion of my post.  If all you're interested in is a war of sound bites, you can count me out.  If you don't want to substantially engage, say so, and I will depart.

which portion? note that I responded in two different posts.

Without that language, what can you possibly discuss? Your answer to everything would necessarily be "well, you and I are just determined to believe what we believe".

That's nonsense and betrays a total misunderstanding of determinism.  Determinism doesn't mean that we are "just determined to believe what we believe."  Determinism acknowledges the role of deliberation and the uncertainty which faces each of us with every new encounter.

1. That's nonsense if you're claiming that deliberation can lead to doing something else. That is not what determinists believe.
2. "uncertainty which faces each of us with every new encounter" all that means is that one doesn't know what one is determined to think and believe, red herring.

Determinism absolutely means that we are "just determined to believe what we believe."

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law - stanford

That you feel the way you do is to me inexplicable.  But as a determinist, I fully believe there are reasons that have caused you to come to the position you have.  I don't accept that it's "just RichardChad's free will announcing itself with an arbitrary judgement."  You have reasons and beliefs about the matter, and if you didn't, then your behavior truly would be inexplicable.  Do you have reasons for your position which might cause another to adopt the same position as you or not?  If this insistence on the language of LFW is your way of communicating that you have no reason for believing as you do, just say so, and I will accept it.  It's just another "crazy" inexplicable choice made by a totally free will.

- equating LFW with arbitrariness is a red herring
- having the ability to deliberate and reach a decision when one could have decided to take a different action is possible only under LFW. That simply can not be argued.