Article <f4b111bb8c19623ca1989a4e2bd0c003@www.novabbs.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<f4b111bb8c19623ca1989a4e2bd0c003@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!news1.firedrake.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Causal determinism and non-materialist atheism
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 09:48:21 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <f4b111bb8c19623ca1989a4e2bd0c003@www.novabbs.com>
References: <vku1po$1k8rs$1@dont-email.me> <6137078335c65548999ebb8dd396ad80@www.novabbs.com> <pK6cnSfZkL5w8On6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vl37a4$2odq0$1@dont-email.me> <wHWdnXpz6tPuLOj6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vl55no$36h76$1@dont-email.me> <w6KdnQwthYOVuev6nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <vl5dg3$37phd$1@dont-email.me> <dcqcnYxb3_yBrOf6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="65493"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 6001
Lines: 79

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 7:13:31 +0000, John Harshman wrote:

> On 1/1/25 10:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> On 2/01/2025 4:28 pm, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 1/1/25 8:46 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> On 2/01/2025 8:19 am, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 1/1/25 3:01 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/01/2025 9:19 am, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> To put it another way, even if we can't support reason in a
>>>>>>> material universe, adding God or any other non-material entities
>>>>>>> does nothing in addition to support reason. It does nothing to
>>>>>>> increase any expectation that reason exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the thing preventing reason is causal determinism (i.e. the
>>>>>> billiard balls will rebound where they must), then could not an
>>>>>> interventionist God impart the capacity to humans to override this
>>>>>> material constraint?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe he could, though it's not really a material constraint. It's a
>>>>> constraint of causality, whether the cause is material or
>>>>> immaterial. The alternative to causality is caprice, not
>>>>> rationality. Anyway, we have no more reason to believe God would
>>>>> enable rationality than to believe a material universe would.
>>>>
>>>> No. For example (and this is only my own speculation): Christianity
>>>> teaches human moral accountability. We protest that our actions are
>>>> all causally predetermined. But God has equipped us with a non-
>>>> material soul that transcends this constraint and allows us to make
>>>> free and accountable choices that in turn manifest in our behaviour
>>>> in this world.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, what does "free" mean, and what is the source or cause
>>>> of those choices made in that non-material realm? I concede mystery
>>>> or incomplete knowledge here.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, in Christian theology there is a definite biblical
>>>> tension or paradox between human moral accountability and God's
>>>> sovereign will:
>>>>
>>>> “Each of us will give an account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:12)
>>>>
>>>> “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He
>>>> turns it wherever He will.” (Proverbs 21:1)
>>>
>>> After "no", that's all non sequitur. You have faith that there's
>>> something ineffable that "transcends this constraint", but you concede
>>> that you can't even speculate about what sort of thing that might be.
>>> In defense of rationality you abandon any claim to rationality.
>>
>> No. I offer a possible third option to necessity and caprice. The fact
>> that it is speculative and uncertain is a separate issue--a real issue,
>> yes, but not one that in and of itself negates the logic and rationality
>> of my proposal. It seems you're confusing/conflating these.
>
> You haven't proposed a third option. You have merely attached a name to
> the claim that there might be a third option whose nature is both
> inexplicable and, I suggest, is so because it's incoherent.

When I read

>>>> No. For example (and this is only my own speculation):

I had a Chez Watt moment. It's quite amazing to begin with an emphatic
negative and pursue it with "... this is only my speculation".

For some time now I've been bombarded with ads for the Grammarly
software
package which is marketed to help people via an AI that suggests ways
to improve their writing. Confession: I'm offended by the program. It's
not because I think kids should walk to school through the snow uphill
both ways sharing one pair of shoes with their brother. It's because I
think that working to write clearly is intrinsically entwined with
working
to think clearly. So I think bypassing the work of cleaning up ones
writing on ones own is bypassing the work of cleaning up ones thinking.

AI to help people avoid thinking sounds like the theme for a dystopian
novel. It also feels like this modern world, as if people needed more
excuses to avoid thinking.