Re: Causal determinism and non-materialist atheism

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.

There remains the question of what is imparted exactly, and how does this provide the ability to truly reason?

>
And why isn't it a contradiction in terms? If causality can't result in rationality, how could caprice? You're looking for an uncaused cause that is nevertheless influenced by input information. That's incoherent.
>

Also, I'd be wary of pressing this to a kind of dualism, whereby (crudely) our physical brains are just a front for the immaterial soul which is the real brains behind the operation. Equally (as a theist), I'd be wary of denying the existence of an immaterial soul.

>
An immaterial soul solves nothing. It still confronts the same problem of causality, caprice, and no third source of rational thought.
>

You may have detected that I'm somewhat uncertain of these things.
>

>

>

>