parresia

Determinism: Issues for Christians and

Determinism: Issues for Christians and Atheists

Most would not disagree that the contemporary position within both Philosophy and modern Physics is the explanatory presupposition that we (we meaning EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD) are causally determined by the laws of nature (electrons, protons, etc). These same persons would define "determined" as an agent's inability to do anything different from what he actually did. For example consider a rock that falls from my reading desk (yes there are rocks on my desk); we would have to admit that according to the laws of physics a rock with a given weight, mass, velocity, etc would ALWAYS fall in exactly the same place, at the same speed (assuming that ALL the conditions were exactly the same). Well, according to the determinist so too is human behavior: just as a rock falls to the earth, so does a man buy a cup of Coconut milk from Mr. Noodle. So what motivates such a seemingly strange position?

The determinists argue that science is simply too powerful, too explanatory to be thrown out. The determinist claims that any attempt to bring "free will" into the conversation necessitates "throwing out" all of physics and related sciences. As they argue: since we know that the laws of physics are reliable even to the point that we put men on the moon, and send probes to Mars, so it seems ridiculous to think that sometimes (namely everytime someone DECIDES to listen to Radiohead, or DECIDES to buy a LAD compact-disc) the laws of physics are in some way altered to afford the agent's ability to bring about what he decides. In other words, the determinist views the entire world (from the big bang on) as opperating according to the laws of physics such that our evolutionary story is COMPLETELY explained by electrons and protons-- just as is a rock's history is explained. According to this assumption (theory) every action we as humans partake in is determined by a cause that occured before: consider the movement of an arm being moved by a muscle spasm, being moved by a electric charge from the brain, being moved by a stimulus seen by the eye, etc etc. This causal story goes back all the way to the big bang, so they say. The result is that mine and your actions are the direct result of electro-chemical reactions in the brain, which are a direct result from our organic history that began at the beginning of time.

This story is not easily combatted. For a Christian philosopher wants eagerly to hold onto the laws of physics, knowing the grave cost to the faith if nature were to simply be a random chaotic place. There does in fact seem to be a very strong case for the laws of physics to be "set" "reliable" and indeed "lawlike." It is mere fact that when we fire a bullet, for instance, at a certain velocity, a certain angle, with a certain environment, with a certain this and that we ARE able to predict exactly where it will end up-- this ability of science cannot be taken lightly. There is something "determined" by physics about the natural world, the question is how does this fact work with HUMAN action that takes place inside the physical world? For instance, when I slap my girlfriend across the face, am I responsible for doing such, or am I merely reacting to the chemical processes in my brain? Certainly scientists, physiolgists, and neurologists will be able to give me some type of story that will be comprehensive in explaining HOW it was that my arm reached a certain speed, and propelled my hand across the person's face across from me. They will even be able to show my mental activity on a cat-scan showing what parts of my brain were active in my assault; they could trace the electric stimulation that led down my arm and into my hand; they would be able to give a purely scientific explanation. So, is this the whole story? Simply put, no. There is much more to be said.

So what the Christian philosopher is faced with is a disbelieving world that is all too prone to place all their faith in the "miracles" of science. The Christian philosopher must attempt to explain how it is that the laws of physics are valid and reliable while at the same time we, as humans, are able to make decisions either for, or against particular actions, without being "controlled" by our physiology. Before I attempt to give a Christian response to this argument I want to even the playing field a bit. Thus far it might seem that the determinist, or "scientist" has the upper hand and that the Christian is scrambling around searching for answers to this gigantic problem. It is not such. Rather, the determinist and "scientist" have their own issues, thus far left alone, that once revealed suddenly make it seem as if the scientist is the one out there scrambling for answers. Consider just two difficulties that arise from a deterministic stand point.

First, the moral problem. Above I chose to illustrate one of my points with an analogy that might have incensed some of you; I used the example of slapping my girlfriend. I am glad if it did trouble you, for that is part of my point. I used an example that would be "harsh" for a reason. You see, if the determinist school of thought is correct then the slapping of girlfriends by their boyfriends would not be wrong, bad, immoral, nor even rude. According to the determinist, who believes that all action is merely caused by prior physical actions, there is no difference in bobbing your head to the beat of "fading" then in slapping an innocent girl across the face. Likewise for the determinist, even acts such as murder, rape, incest, and robbery are merely human actions that can neither be considered good nor bad. Remeber your initial disgust that I would use such an example as slapping the girl I love? Well, according to the determinist, that reaction you had was a mere illusion, nothing but a mystery to perhaps be explained by some scientific study in cognitive emotions years from now. Again for clarity's sake, the moral problem for the determinist is that he cannot give any explanation, nor justification other than to say that murder, slapping girlfriends, rape, and incest (among all the other moral "wrongs") are merely THOUGHT to be wrong: we are all under some great illusion which makes us think those things are wrong, nothing more.

The second and more powerful difficulty that arises from determinism is their difficulty (or shall I say impossibility?) in explaining how it is that a physically determined being (as they claim humans are) can have true thought. You see, if we are causally determined from the big bang to have the chemical reactions in our brain that we are currently having then I am not responsible, either positively or negatively, for these perceptions that I call thoughts. What do I mean? I take it being responsible in the negative sense is like being responsible for not washing the dishes when my momma asks. If I don't wash them I'm going to be in trouble, that's being responsible in the negative sense. Being responsible in the positive sense is the point I want to bring out in relation to our deterministic friends. To be responsible for my thoughts in a positive sense is like saying that I'm responsible for writing this blog. I can say that I thought about these topics and I'm doing the writing-- in a sense, I own these thoughts, by contrast I cannot claim to have written Brothers Karamazov, therefore I am not positively responsible for Brothers, The Author is. In the same way, according to a determinist view of the world, there can be NO, absolutely no claim for any positive responsibilty of thoughts. What does this entail? First off, it means that those determinists who have spent years studying these topics and believe that they have "thought" about these issues and come to the conclusion that determinism is THE correct explanation of the world; it means that they are merely under a grand illusion. Their conviction that determinism is true is no more valid than a tree growing in such a way that it appears to resemble a cow in the way the leaves were formed and the shade hit the trunk etc. If a tree were to do such, certainly we wouldn't claim that the tree was "trying to tell us something" rather we would conclude that it was a strange coincidence and nothing more. The determinist is in the same epistemological boat. His thoughts are not to be trusted anymore than he would trust the tree telling him a message about bovine existence. In short, the determinist's position is self defeating: internally inconsistent. If his theory is true than it could not make sense of our thoughts, hence we would never get on to the fact that it were true or not. If his theory is not true, well, you know the rest of that story.

Next I'm going to explain a positive Christian response to determinism. Thus far the reader should see that there are difficulties on both sides of the spectrum, but it seems that the determinist has a much more difficult road to hall, than does the Christian. This should not come as a surprise.

Godspeed, and may God bless.

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Here is an interesting Tidbit somewhat related to this debate, (and it mentions one of the authors of our generation)-- can you tell me how this would relate to my discussion above?