I believe that neuroscience tends to be deterministic. Now to be clear, I would not say that all neuroscientists are determinists but it seems that neuroscience continuously moves in that direction. This point seems to be substantiated by what I've read in one book that covers four views of free will. Furthermore, the late Francis Crick suggested that free will is an illusion created by the brain such that we have a sense of free will, which is not the same thing as having free will:
"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" (Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, page 3).
Owen Flanagan (a philosopher and Duke professor of neurobiology) appears to reject free will and views it as a disease while Joel B. Green provides evidence that science is leading us to believe "free won't" is more likely than free will: he too works in neuroscience. Many other examples could be given of neuroscientists who affirm determinism rather than free will. Even the notable Churchlands (Patricia and Paul) are known as "eliminative materialists," which means they want to replace talk of emotions (mental states) with neuroscientific terminology (brain states) and flatten any distinction between the two categories. I would be very surprised if either Patricia or Paul believed in libertarian free will.
To summarize, it is my contention that neuroscience largely tends to be deterministic and increasingly so; on the other hand, there are many neuroscientists who affirm free will for one reason or another. But none of what I say here is meant to be a repudiation of neuroscience in toto: I greatly appreciate its useful insights.
Sources Consulted: Watson, Gary (editor). Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Flanagan, Owen J. The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Green, Joel B. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008. Print.
Tuesday, May 28, 2024
Determinism, Free Will, and Neuroscience
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
130 comments:
If we reason in absolutes determinism and freewill are mutually exclusive . But if we see them both as relative they need not be thought of as mutually exclusive.
I agree and in recent years, I've tended to move in the direction of free choice, which defined a certain way, allows for Jehovah to direct the human heart without violating human freedom or human responsibility.
Dear Mr. Foster,
do yo know this book?
https://docdro.id/KDFs0eO
Btw. Philippians 2:13
The NWT dilutes God's almighty and predestining will with incorrect translations
Romans 9:17
NWT: "For this very cause I have *let* you remain..."
Greek: eis auto touto exegeira se
Literal translation: "I have raised you up for this very purpose..."
Romans 9:18
NWT: "whom he wishes he *lets* become obstinate"
Greek: hon de thelei sklērunei
Literal translation: "whom he wishes, he hardens"
Romans 9:22
NWT: "God ... tolerated with much longsuffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction"
Greek: ho Theos ... ēnenken en pollē makrothymia skeuē orgēs katērtismena eis apōleian
Literal translation: "God ... endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"
These deliberate mistranslations are not even justified by the intention to spare God from the accusation of "excessive harshnes".
Your saying these are mistranslations without citing any reputable evidence - Mr. Foster isn’t likely to take you seriously…
Romans 9:17 -“ let” is appropriate, by definition raising up pharaoh is letting him exist…
Romans 9:18 is translated similarly in other bibles… why are you not calling then out?
9:22 NASB has “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
“Made fit” if you are made fit for the police force by definition you are “being prepared” for it
I call misleading claim here
You of all people should know a literal translation isn’t always the best..
Both renderings convey the same thought once the context of the entire scriptures is accounted for
For instance Job Ch.2:3NWT "And JEHOVAH said to Satan: “Have you taken note of* my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity,*+ fearing God and shunning what is bad. He is still holding firmly to his integrity,+ even though you try to incite me against him+ to destroy* him for no reason.”" So we have the scriptural principle that what JEHOVAH literally permits can figuratively be said to have been actively caused by him in that he chose to not prevent or interrupt it though having the power to.
James Ch.1:13CEV"Don't blame God when you are tempted! God cannot be tempted by evil, and he doesn't use evil to tempt others." JEHOVAH is never responsible for unrighteousness.
Determinism is methodologically true but metaphysically false in my view. Meaning science has to rule out the subjective (where the realm of freedom is) in order to do its job, i.e. model phenomena such that one can predict empirically verifiable results from the phenomena. This generally involves some kind of determinism (even if not pure determinism, probabilistic or statistical determinism), but this obviously (or it should be obvious) does not exhaust reality, so it can never "explain" reality fully, all it can do is explain mechanisms given whatever the givens are of the model. But it's never going to actually fully account for human action, even if one associates brain states with each action and maps then on to all human action, one isn't proving determinism, merely corrolations that are modelable and can be used to predict outcomes.
Raymond Tallis makes this point lucidly:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-can-i-possibly-be-free
Btw that there are eliminativists (such as the Churchlands or Dennet) that are taken seriously in philosophy, is, to me, demonstrative that no one should take our modern prejudices as automatically superior to ancient ones.
BTW, Maurice Blondel made a very interesting point over a century ago that free will actually presupposes determinism, since it requires the agent to recognize patterns in the world, of cause and effect, independent of onesself, that act on the agent, and against which the agent can act in predictable manners such that the willing will can manifest as the willed will in action. Had the world NOT been determistic at all free action would be impossible (I'm of course talking about finite agents here).
In fact all our scientific knowledge PRESUPPOSES free will since phenomena only becomes phenomena by our attending to it, and we verify models by acting on the world to elicit predicted results, i.e. we are interfering with the deterministic relations of the world intentionally in order to understand them.
(Blondel's Action was a very hard book to get through, but certainly worth the effort).
Just on Romans 9:22 (on the other two, I would just say these are likely mean to be, not formal, but equivalent translations, interpretations) καταρτίζω can certainly be rendered "made fit," especially in κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, where the vessels are being "prepared" or "made fit" for a specific end (as opposed to prepared in in and of itself), that seems to be to be a pretty literal translation.
Dear Nincsnevem, I have read his work on Aquinas, but not this one. Thanks.
aservant, if a translator is translating the bible in line with the "entire context of the bible," he/she is not really doing formal or really a dynamic equivalence ... the translator is at that point doing theology, which is problematic, because if one is doing Canonical readings, you have to see what the text is saying on its own terms and in its own historical context prior to seeing how it fits in with a larger theological construction. If you have the construction BEFORE the translation then you're just imposing a model on the text.
If there are various ways that the text can legitimately be understood we should choose the rendering most in harmony with scriptural precedent . That would be allowing the Bible to serve as its own expositor. But even a literal rendering need not be a problem we know that the Bible uses figurative language at times the same principle can help us make a distinction between literal and figurative.
The problem with that translation philosophy is "scriptural precedent" depends on how one is interpreting prior scriptures, and if those scriptures are interpreted by scriptural precedent, what you end up having to do is construct a "biblical theology" first before you translate. But when people are reading a text they generally are not reading thinking they are getting "what the text means" but rather "what the text is" i.e. what the author wrote and what the original and intended audience read, then once they get what the text is they can find out what the text means, which means (in the case of the bible) doing biblical theology (if one is theologically inclined).
Translation ought not to be exposition, translation should render the text as it is, and then let the reader interpret by whatever method he/she thinks is best.
The original author is JEHOVAH. His human secretaries were expressing his thoughts in human idiom. If done right a topical approach will progressively reveal a harmonious and divinely originated theology from Genesis to revelation. Putting human tradition ahead of scriptural precedent will always produce self-contradictionary nonsense. If your interpretive logic cannot be consistently applied it must be rejected as invalid.
aservant, translating passages with a concern to harmonize scripture together is putting human tradition ahead of scripture.
If the scripture is divinely inspired then the harmony will come from the text itself, the translator's job is not to harmonize scripture, but to translate it as he/she would any other ancient text.
The harmony should come from scripture as it is, NOT from the translator trying to determine precedent and interpret what he/or she thinks passages mean based on an interpretation of other passages.
The fact is Jehovah's revelation in scripture is a revelation in historical documents which are just like any other historical documents, written by people in specific historical contexts with specific historical interests and with a specific sitz im leben, if that's how Jehovah chose to reveal his purpose than scripture should start there. If you're translating using contexts that are not the human authors context then you're not interpreting scripture as God revealed it, God didn't drop the bible out of heaven like Isalmic theology believes about the Quran, the bible is a collection of historical documents written by people in different contexts with different purposes and different point of views.
Translating with an eye to harmonization is basically the translator not trusting revelation, but attempting to do better.
Again, interpretation is NOT translation.
Actually interpretation is an important element of translation. Especially of translating idioms. But I have already said I have no problem with a literal rendering so I don't know what you on about. And yes the text is inspired and hence yields a naturally occurring harmonious understanding of the meaning of words in any given context but often this natural reading is different from the way the dominant culture would use the same word or term. For instance the word psyche. The Bible uses that word very differently from the reductive spiritualism of the the surrounding culture.
Let me go back to my original statement. Where a word or phrase has multiple LEGITIMATE interpretations of the same term/word the one that most harmonizes with scriptural precedent is the one that must be chosen if we want JEHOVAH'S Logos to speak for itself. This has nothing to do with whether a translation is literal or equivalent the wise Bible student will find use for BOTH types of translation. This bright line that you are attempting to draw between interpretation and translation simply does not exists, while there is no one to one equivalence between the two they are both inextricably linked.
The English word set has a record 430 possible meanings how could the translator possibly render this word into another language without doing some interpreting
@Duncan Of course an unfamiliar idiom would need interpretation. If you are seeking an accurate understanding of the text you can't simply guess. What you really mean is that you don't care for the explanations you have received, that can't be helped.
No the context always at least partially illuminates the meaning and the reason why the religions of the present age are confused re:their grasp of the text is that they have all adopted your scatter brain atomistic style of analysis rather than the more topical approach endorsed by the scriptures themselves. Also a lack of humility the taming of ego is important to courting the favor of the sacred document's true author which is an absolute necessity to a deep understanding of said document
Luke Ch.10:21NIV"At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."
You can't see the obvious relationship to translation. In the fact that there often there is no word or even concept in a target language that is equivalent to the word ir concept one is attempting to translate from the source language, you need to need to think some more.
I see more of your own denialism or forgetfulness. I gave you an explanation for inspiration obviously you weren't satisfied with that explanation, I suspect Edgar would gave given his thoughts on the issue of inspiration those failed to impress you,but that is different from not having received any explanation.
I advocated letting the overall context of the sacred document do the interpreting as distinct from "interpreting directly" but without the blessing of the true author of sacred text all attempts at a progressively accurate understanding of the text are doomed.
JEHOVAH'S Purpose can't help but triumph the denials of the haters notwithstanding.
You drew first blood ,don't come playing innocent victim here.
I have conversations with people I disagree with all the time with neither party getting disagreeable ,you seem incapable of that.
So basically I had it right you found the explanations you received unsatisfactory ,it was not the case that you received no explanation.
I don't know why you think this supports the kind of atomism you are advocating, it clearly doesn't. And this doesn't even seem to be addressing the issue of translation just comprehension or analysis.
Again atomism exposes one to increased risk of misapprehension. One can never have too much context.
Context remains king
I have no problem with either
This man RUNS from New York to New Jersey.
This road RUNS from New York to New Jersey.
The program RUNS on Samsung gadgets alone.
The show RUNS from 1p.m to 3p.m.
The road flows? The man flows? The computer program flows?
That's right explained the position of many who believe in divine indpirstion
The man flows?the roadflows?the computer program is certainly not flowing in any particular direction.
John is RUNNING a marathon.
John is RUNNING a company.
They both the same to you Right?
It's not the same thing as a road or a man running Duncan,it's abstract no actual quantity is streaming as is the case with a river. Streaming is conceptually different from a man running or a road running, and of course if you had to translate these statements into a another language those conceptual distinctions would have to be taken account of.
And context is the only way that words with multiple senses (most words) could be accurately understood. The flow concept is not enough to accurately distinguish between a road running,a man running and the streaming that you are obsessing over,only context can do that. What about idioms that have no modern parallels,
The term is not circular either the thoughts/ideas originate with JEHOVAH or they don't there is nothing circular about it.
A literal streaming of a quantity is conceptually different to traveling a course or managing an organization.
You mentioned a river Duncan that is what a river a streaming of a quantity of liquid,so I am not twisting anything. A program running or a road running is conceptually distinct from a river running
Any time I used the term inspired it would not be of any particular translation, the thoughts and ideas are inspired . No translation is inspired.
Okay Duncan, I've stayed out of this conversation and I believe that aservant can handle himself, but I've got to say that the comment about divine inspiration is simply false. The Bible more than once attributes the sacred writings to the influence or activity of God's spirit. But maybe you mean something else because that concept is certainly there.
As distinct from RUN which may or may not involve some to type of flow literal or abstract.
The concept of inspiration is there.
But this discussion is about the supremacy of context in successful comprehension/interpretation. So far you've just kept making that point over and over
2Timothy Ch.3:16NIV"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
Matthew Ch.4:4NIV"Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
I interjected but figured you already knew the pertinent scriptures that deal with inspiration. Respecting your question, I don't remember a commentary making that connection but I would not doubt it.
People in ancient times knew way about inspiration before the Trinity's inception. To me, it's a fairly straightforward concept.
Hebrews Ch.1:1NKJV"God, who [a]at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by(Dia) the prophets, "
1Thessalonians Ch.2:13NKJV"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it NOT as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe."
Duncan, maybe you're working with a different definition of inspiration than others, but it's not an assumption but fact that the Bible writers and readers in ancient times recognized and affirmed divine inspiration. And Poirier believes that Irenaeus didn't affirm inspiration? I find it hard to believe that Irenaeus thought Scripture is man's word, not God's.
Btw, I don't accept Pooirier's view of theopneustos.
If you could point out where the translation Misrepresents the source material(if that is your claim) instead of grandstanding, I would have some basis for regarding your response as an argument,instead of yet another case if your merely being argumentative.
https://kingdomcruciformity.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/the-biblical-theology-of-saint-irenaeus-by-john-lawson/
https://petra.church/blog/what-did-the-first-church-fathers-believe-about-the-scriptures/
How is 2Samuel chapter 23 an argument against inspiration?
Josephus: "And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them. But it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines; and to persist in them: and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them."
The Bible is being circular? 2Samuel ch.23 is being circular?
Yet more arguing minus any actual argument
The verses that I quoted are in line with the vast majority of English translations so as usual you have no point
Duncan, are you telling me yoou don't know the verses often cited for inspiration? Have you also forgotten our past discussions on this topic? I thought you read The Enduring Authority book which is hundreds of pages about inspiration.
Yoour statement to me above concerning Tanakh is not that clear, but I think Josephus has more than five books in mind (Torah). Read Against Apion for yourself, but here's some of the context for the quote I shared earlier:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. (8) And of them five belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life. ’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time.
As for Poirier, you're dead wrong if you think I reject his opinions for theological reasons or because I haven't done the work but he has. I do not agree with him for philological reasons and I'm not alone. Just consult about any Greek lexicon.
If we're going to talk about Irenaeuus, can we stick to the point, please? Did he beliieve in divine inspiration oof the OT and NT or not? I'm not going to be distracted by irrelevant details.
There is a perceptive critical review of Poirier's book here: https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Inspired-Text-Philological-Theopneustia/dp/0567696731
Btw, I have Poirier's book and have read enough to know that his case is far from solid.
Some parts of the Bible that Irenaeus had. See https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103307.htm
My point about Poirier is that he's setting forth a minority view that has not been established as fact. I don't know of any lexicon like you describe, but you probably know there are lots of online lexica: https://www.lexilogos.com/english/greek_ancient_dictionary.htm
I wasn't asking you to praise or agree with The Enduring Authority, but that book or other works about inspiration would help you understand the subject better and expose you to verses commonly used as proof for inspiration.
Chester Beatty: https://danielbwallace.com/tag/chester-beatty/
Nevertheless, evidence for early copies of the Pastorals is still available and we have other papyri collections besides Chester Beatty.
Are you also saying that Irenaeus used apostolic authority to determine the complicity of the OT books?
Wikipedia entry for Pastorals: Two papyri contain parts of the Pastoral Epistles: 𝔓32 and 𝔓61.[6] Pao considers Codex Sinaiticus to be “one of the most reliable witnesses for the [Pastoral Epistles], though it contains a series of unintentional omissions (1 Tim 2:6 [τό]; 3:8 [σεμνούς]; 4:8 [πρός]; Titus 1:13 [ἐν]).”[7]
https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste/
https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace?docID=10061
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=47&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
1) A book is not canonical unless it's inspired. The word "canon" basically has two meanings in early church history/biblical studies. One meaning is that a book is "divine" or inspired and beneficial for faith and doctrine: so no conflation is required.
2) Judging the OT to be canonical by apostolic authority would be silly? Yeah, so either Irenaeus was silly or he judged the OT books to be canonical for some other reason. How about, he thought they were inspired by God's holy spirit??
3) Since when did DSS become the standard which everyone else is supposed to emulate? The DSS community was an outlier that just happened to get some things right.
https://w.bibleodyssey.org/articles/the-dead-sea-scrolls-community/
Believe me, I don't feel like discussing DSS again either, but nothing links the community to Qumran? See https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5707/
I also don't see the money to create these scrolls being a problem in a society like that one.
You know the content for P61, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_61
Some of the material is for the Pastorals. My point is, why privilege the Chester Beatty collection when papyri are scattered all over the place? You have a problem with Evangelicals; I have a problem with those who have no respect for the sacred text and who use their secular attitudes to cast doubt on it.
You want proof that Irenaeus believed the OT to be inspired? See https://repository.sbts.edu/handle/10392/6980
For Irenaeus, see also https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.all.html
https://tyndalebulletin.org/api/v1/articles/29324-the-definition-of-the-term-canon-exclusive-or-multi-dimensional.pdf
Dead Sea Community and Wealth: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=classicsjournal
Duncasn, I'm taking a break, but some of your comments surprise me. I kknow the assigned date for P61, but you realizze that even if the date is correct, it doesn't mean that the contents of the papyrus originated then. Let's make some necessary distinctions here and it's not irrelevant. Just ask some papyrologists.
I did not bring up a book being self-evidently canonical, so I'm not going there today.
What's on the UNESCO page can easily be found elsewhere: it's what one standardly reads in many other scholarly sources. What a copout. :-)
Focus on the material, not that it's from UNESCO. Ok, I really need a breakk now.
You know the backstory behind the Chester Beatty collection, right? Do you believe that all those papyri in the collection came from the same pile? Let's just forget the papyri at Duke or the ones in MI.
pastoralepistles.com/2007/04/19/papyrus-evidence-of-first
Post a Comment