Re: Causal determinism and non-materialist atheism

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.