Determinism and atheism

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Determinism and atheism

asked 7 months ago

peace.
Isn’t determinism a paradoxical position? After all, those who support it on the one hand think that it is correct, but on the other hand, according to determinism itself, human thinking and its conclusions are merely a product of their psychological, social, etc. influences. Circumstances unambiguously dictated the result – that is, the deterministic position. And if so, how can one claim that it is correct? After all, even on a principled level, they could not hold any other position.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 7 months ago

This should be discussed. Suppose I have reached a deterministic conclusion. Now what do you think: if I am wrong, then my conclusions are incorrect, that is, I am not a determinist. But then there is no reason to doubt my conclusions. And if I am right – then determinism is indeed true. Of course, there is an outlet for this: I am wrong, but not because I am a determinist. Just an error in judgment. In general, determinists claim that our judgment is a calculation, but that does not mean that the calculation is wrong. On the contrary, the calculation is correct because we are built correctly (evolution). Take the AI that reaches correct conclusions despite being a deterministic machine. It simply makes a correct calculation. The question is how can you even claim that your calculation is correct, since you have no access to another alternative. You did not consider it and decided to reject it, because you do not have judgment. The second-order statement that my calculation is correct is a statement about the calculation. Is it itself the result of a calculation? If not – no problem. If so – then the question goes back. Consistent determinists will tell you that they are not concerned with the question of what is true (in the sense of what is in the world), but rather with what I should think. See the column on deterministic illusions.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

יהונתן ש. replied 7 months ago

I didn't quite understand. I'm talking about the very epistemological justification for believing in the correctness of determinism. After all, even if determinism is true (ontologically), there is no epistemological justification for believing in it, since this belief itself is not the product of judgment. Your claim is that such a justification exists, in a situation where the deterministic conclusion is false?

מיכי Staff replied 7 months ago

I don't see anything here that I haven't answered.

קושיא אלימתא replied 7 months ago

The same question is raised about the Libertarian of third-order reasoning, i.e., who said that my reasoning is correct?
Just as there you are not afraid of making a mistake (skepticism)

So the determinist stops at a second-order question.

Why does the Rabbi prefer to stop at a third-order secondary one? The skeptical argument cuts both ways, and if you are not skeptical, then to your health 😉

מיכי Staff replied 7 months ago

This is not the same problem at all. It is a lack of understanding in my heart the difference between a problem and a question. I can raise a question about the libertarian: How do you know that you are right? About the determinist, this is a problem: You have no way of knowing that you are right because you are forced into a mechanical calculation. According to his method, this is not reasonable. The libertarian method has no problem, because I think I am right and that is it. At most, you can raise a skeptical question about whether this is true.

משיב כהלכה replied 7 months ago

According to him, it is very likely that there is evolution. It is like a programmer who designed ChatGPT. Is it because it is a mechanical calculation that his answer is probably wrong??? Is the answer of a calculator probably wrong?
And if he is a determinist who believes in God?

Liberatan is in the same exact situation, the output of reasoning means that the thought is probably correct, but this is only from being inside the thinking.
Also, according to you, an atheist Liberatan can not accept the epistemological view of God – It is true that most worlds will produce people with poor judgment, but I am in the "correct" world.
But you do not accept this rejection of the epistemological view

מיכי Staff replied 7 months ago

There is no evolution. It is a hallucination of his mind. I explained the difference from the Libertarian.
I don't know what evidence you are talking about and how do you know what I think about it.