Internet Sophism

Last week I had a great conversation with some friends about the old debate over free-will and determinism. Actually, it was framed as a theological debate between free-agency and predestination. Technical terms aside, these are just different ways of discussing the same fundamental issue.

So why is this a fundamental issue? Why does this question bother us so much? Since the days of Socrates (and probably before that) mandatory Introduction to Philosophy courses have generated many a rivalry over this issue (along with the resulting casualties who vowed to never take a philosophy course again!). Whole church denominations have formed solely as a response to this debate.

The debate itself seems impassable.

On the one hand, when one looks at the world from a macro perspective, there seems to be undeniable proof that all of our actions and the actions of the people around us have been determined from the very beginning of creation. The deterministic stance is argued from the grounds of Evolution, Historicism, Theistic Omniscience, etc. The evidence staggering.

And yet…

That is not what our experience tells us. When I have a decision to make, I have to make it and there are tangible consequences for whichever option I choose. So I deliberate. If it is a big decision I mull it over for days, even weeks. And at the end of that period, my genes, environment, divine election, etc tell me it was inevitable that I would make that choice. But for me, this idea of determinism holds no practical value. If determinism had something of substance, something real to offer, it would have helped me make my decision. As it is, deterministic theories are just so many words – nonsensical. The epitomy of why college freshmen dread Philosophy 101.

So what do we do? From a practical perspective, perhaps we should just throw this out with every other pointless philosophical banter. But however we try to quell it, the debate keeps rearing it’s head.

***

It seems to me that this question has several psychological implications that make it difficult for us to come to terms with. On the one hand, determinism is what provides our stability. It’s what gives us methodology and allows science to happen. It allows me to know that when I set my alarm at night, it will go off just as I set it (assuming no power outage like last night!) and the sun will be in the sky just as it was yesterday morning and every morning before that. Determinism coupled with divine foreknowledge of a good God, provides the blessed assurance that this world, though troubling to us from our limited perspective, is all under control. This is great comfort to me on days when I need rest. Relaxing in divine providence and finding a zen state of peaceful consciousness is a required solace at times from the everydayness of life.

But then if I stay in this state too long, I begin feeling trapped, suffacated. Am I not my own man, with my own intentions, separate from what culture and whatever cosmic forces are at work? I want to break out with the kind of radical existential freedom particular to 20th century French activists. But it is not just a selfish sentiment. Saddened, ennobled, then enraged by the injustices around me, I feel the need to stand up to the social herdsman
and change the course of history, in company with so many revolutionaries that have gone before. As James Joyce wrote, “History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.”

***

The point I hope to make is that there are underlying, pre-scientific, pre-logical, (pre-conscious?), conditions that often color our thinking, and this is often evidenced by the questions we value. Is there an answer to this question? Probably. Can we ever know the answer? I’m doubtful, particularly due to the all of the “pre-” conditions that are involved. Of course, there is always the strong possibility that we are asking the wrong question.