Defining Choice - Response to Paul Manata
Calvinist Paul Manata expresses his concern that reasoning in this way is “stacking the deck” and acting as a “duplicitous atheist or cult member”. In answering the objections that:
we frequently hear that "choice" just means some kind of libertarianism about the will. The second is like unto it: "You Calvinists must necessarily go against laymen, common sensical understandings of certain terms. Your position is counter-intuitive. Ordinary folk laugh at you." (link)
Paul cites two books written by libertarian philosophers to demonstrate that choice doesn’t demand a libertarian understanding of the term.
In response, first off quoting philosophers is helpful, but the dictionary is better at establishing the laymen, common sensical understanding of terms. So the response doesn’t make contact with the objection. Second, it doesn’t seem that the quotes Mantra provides support his position.
Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro in their book Naturalism say choice is an undetermined mental action and when we make choices we typically explain our making them in terms of reasons, where a reason is a purpose, end, or goal for choosing. Paul’s quote omits the word “undetermined”1, so contrary to Paul’s conclusion, Goetz and Taliaferro were teaching a libertarian understanding of the term “choice”. Then Paul confounds an explanation for a choice with a definition and entire understanding of choice (i.e. what a choice is vs. why it is).
Next Paul quotes Kane’s essay in Four Views on Free Will: A choice is the formation of an intention or purpose to do something. It resolves uncertainty and indecision in the mind about what to do. (Kane, For Views on Free Will, ed. Sosa, Blackwell, 2008, p33)
While Kane certainly adds a lot of insight into the discussion about determinism and freewill, his theory is somewhat exotic, so I have to come back to the point that perhaps this is not the best way to establish the common sense understanding of choice. In short, Kane’s theory is that while we are simultaneously making efforts to choose two different things, indeterministic chaos in the neural networks of the brain hinders both efforts. The “winner” is the choice. For Kane, the indeterminism isn’t in the source of the choice, but rather it’s an obstacle to making choices. (35)
While I don’t intend to give a full examination of Kane’s essay, here are a few quick points.
- Kane’s theory seems to be motivated by his fear of the “intelligibility problem”. (22-23) But no Christian who believes God is the First Cause should fear that libertarian free will is unintelligible.
- Kane’s explanation is overly physical as opposed to relying on an immaterial soul. (25) But Christians hold that man’s will is part of his immaterial soul.
- Based on 2 & 3, Kane locates indeterminism as an obstacle to choice, as opposed to the source. (35)
- Kane admits his theory diminishes our control over which choice we make (38) and that are choices are somewhat arbitrary. (41)
- Kane maintains that despite our lack of control, we are still responsible, but supports it with an example of post-volitional indeterminism in the execution of our choices, rather than in the formation of our choices. (37-38)
So Kane’s definition of choice seems motivated by his exotic theory. In fact, while I wouldn’t be dogmatic about this, it seems that for Kane, the choices themselves are somewhat deterministic and something outside the choices are the reason for the indeterminism. So again, Paul’s response doesn’t make contact with the argument and also the sources he cites don’t support his case.
Comments
The common sense view is the Biblical view. I was discussing the same thing on Billy's blog today. Deut 30:19-20 states that (bold mine)"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
In the words of scripture, free will is the ability to chose or reject what is set before us. The common sense view. There is nothing in this passage to support or even allude to the deterministic concept of choice. It is also a God centered view. We are urged to choose God, to listen to his voice, to hold to him, for he is our life.
What's amazing is that the Apostle Paul quotes this same passage (Deut 30) to explain the meaning of faith in Romans 9:30-10:15.
The Calvinist's favorite passage (Romans 9) references faith as a choice! :)
Psa 34:11 Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.
Psa 34:12 What man is there who desires life and loves many days, that he may see good?
Psa 34:13 Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.
Psa 34:14 Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
Psa 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry.
Psa 34:16 The face of the LORD is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
As for choice again. It doesn't get any better than God speaking directly to the hearers, hearers that is "if" God gives them ears to hear?
Psa 81:10 I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Psa 81:11 "But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me.
Psa 81:12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.
Psa 81:13 Oh, that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!
Psa 81:14 I would soon subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their foes.
Psa 81:15 Those who hate the LORD would cringe toward him, and their fate would last forever.
The ordinary meaning of free will in most people’s minds is quite simple: it means that we both have and make choices. I say **both** because a determinist can argue that we make choices, what they cannot argue for, what they cannot allow, what they have to argue against is us EVER HAVING CHOICES. Talk to the “guy on the street” and when you talk about choices they will think of some situation where multiple alternative possibilities were before them, and they chose one of them while simultaneously not choosing the other possibilities. Now this is common sense and common experience. But the person who believes in exhaustive determinism has to argue against this common sense and common experience, has to argue that we never ever have a choice (though they will concede that we **make** choices).
“Since the bible states that we have wills and choose, determinism isn’t consistent with the bible.”
Actually the bible not only states that we have wills and make choices, it also presents situations where people **have** a choice (I know one of your favorites is where Jesus says that he could call legions of angels to deliver him, but chooses not to do so).
“Calvinist Paul Manata expresses his concern that reasoning in this way is “stacking the deck” and acting as a “duplicitous atheist or cult member”.”
It is not “stacking the deck” to claim that the ordinary meaning of “free will” is closely tied to what people ordinarily mean when they speak and think about having and making choices. The reality is that most people believe that in fact we sometimes **have** choices. The issue between the determinist and the libertarian is whether or not this common sense understanding actually corresponds to reality or not (the determinist says that it does not). If everything has been exhaustively predetermined so that we never ever have a choice, then the common understanding is mistaken and determinism is true. On the other hand, if we do in fact sometimes have choices then the exhaustive determinism claim made by calvinists is false. These are mutually exclusive claims.
“Paul cites two books written by libertarian philosophers to demonstrate that choice doesn’t demand a libertarian understanding of the term.”
In citing Kane and Goetz it must be recognized that while both are libertarians, both reject agent causation, and both promote what ought to be considered as strange minority positions within libertarianism.
“In response, first off quoting philosophers is helpful, but the dictionary is better at establishing the laymen, common sensical understanding of terms. So the response doesn’t make contact with the objection.”
Again, the issue you are bringing up, is, what is the common sense or common and ordinary meaning of having a choice/having “free will”? Now that ordinary understanding may or may not correspond to reality, but the issue is what is this ordinary understanding of choices?
“Next Paul quotes Kane’s essay in Four Views on Free Will: A choice is the formation of an intention or purpose to do something. It resolves uncertainty and indecision in the mind about what to do. (Kane, For Views on Free Will, ed. Sosa, Blackwell, 2008, p33)”
All Kane is speaking about here is the **making** of a choice (and determinists believe that we **make** choices). But again that is not the key issue, the key issue is whether or not we ever have a choice or not?? We say that we sometimes have a choice while the proponent of exhaustive determinism argues that we never ever have a choice.
“While Kane certainly adds a lot of insight into the discussion about determinism and freewill, his theory is somewhat exotic, so I have to come back to the point that perhaps this is not the best way to establish the common sense understanding of choice.”
Kane is helpful and useful in bringing up issues that need to be examined and considered. But “exotic” is a good word for Kane’s view. He holds to **event-causation libertarianism** (in my opinion one of the weakest versions of libertarianism, easy to show problems with). But there is a much, much deeper and worse problem with Kane’s view as presented in the four views book.
Here are some quotes to show where this major, major, major problem lies in his thinking:
“Many other respectable philosophers continue to believe that only some sort of appeal to mind/body dualism, of the kind associated with Descartes, can make sense of free will. Science might tell us there was an indeterminancy or a place for causal gaps in the brain, but a NON-MATERIAL SELF OR SOUL, or what Nobel physiologist John Eccles calls a ‘TRANSEMPIRICAL POWER CENTER’ would have to fill the causal gaps left by physical causes by intervening in the natural order. The MOST POPULAR appeal among libertarians today is to a special kind of agent or immanent causation that cannot be explained in terms of the ordinary modes of causation in terms of events familiar to the sciences.” (p.24-25, capitalization for emphasis mine)
First, we need to see that Kane’s position is a minority position, neither the most popular nor the strongest version of libertarian free will.
Second, as a Christian I believe the bible is absolutely clear and unequivocal in presenting that we have both an immaterial aspect to our nature (our soul or spirit) and a material aspect to our nature (our body and brain)/technically called the “substance dualism” view. The bible says that our intentional actions proceed from our souls (the immaterial aspect of our being, the part of us inaccessible to science or physicalist explanations). But here is the problem: Kane in order to make his philosophical views fit with science, discards the biblical view of human action from the get-go! He cavalierly dismisses with no justification whatsoever, what the bible says as an unacceptable explanation.
So he ****rules out the truth*** from being any part of his explanation for human actions!!!
Check out his words where he makes this error absolutely clear:
“Since indeterminism means that an agent might act one way or in a different way, given exactly the same past, which would seem to include all the same mental and physical events, some ‘extra’ kind of causation or agency must be postulated over and above THE NATURAL FLOW OF EVENTS to account for the agent’s going one way rather than another. In short, some additional factor must be involved to ‘tip the balance.’ It is this line of thought that has led libertarians through the centuries to postulate extra factors, SUCH AS IMMATERIAL CAUSES, NOUMENAL SELVES, TRANSEMPERICAL POWER CENTERS, NON-EVENT AGENT CAUSES, PRIME MOVERS UNMOVED, AND SO ON to explain free choices. And these postulates have in turn brought down on libertarians charges of obscurantism or mystery or ‘panicky metaphysics’ from their critics. . . . Moreover, ‘extra factor’ strategies have tended to reinforce the widespread criticism that libertarian notions of free will requiring indeterminism are mysterious and HAVE NO PLACE IN THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD.” (p.25)
So if I present the biblical truth that my intentional actions proceed from my immaterial soul, not only am I presenting something that is unacceptable because it is mysterious, worse yet, I am presenting something that HAS NO PLACE IN THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD!!!! So Kane is throwing out the biblical truth about our souls producing our actions because it does not fit “science.”
This is scientism, the claim that unless an explanation fits science (and a science that only allows for physical objects that can be measured and described using the laws of physics), that explanation is **automatically discarded** and seen as false. Well if you are going to throw out biblical truth about how we do our actions, and then try to explain them purely physically and without any involvement of an immaterial soul, then your view will be incomplete, false, unbiblical and “exotic” and strange.
Dan you saw this too when you wrote:
“2. Kane’s explanation is overly physical as opposed to relying on an immaterial soul. (25) But Christians hold that man’s will is part of his immaterial soul.”
Any explanation that is purely physical and leaves out the activities of our soul in producing our intentional actions is going to be very skewed and incomplete and cannot help but be false. I would also add that any determinist who wants to prop up Kane’s view as representative of libertarian free will is presenting an intentional straw man and knows it (if he knows that Kane’s explanation is solely physical and intentionally leaves out the immaterial human soul).
“So Kane’s definition of choice seems motivated by his exotic theory.”
If his definition of choice is based on a solely physical explanation of intentional actions, then he is not only wrong but again disconnected from the ordinary understanding of having and making choices. This is so because most people also believe that the mind, or soul or spirit from which our choices proceed is a non-physical reality. Most Christians hold to substance dualism and even most non-Christians (especially religious people) also hold to substance dualism. It is unfortunate that Kane was chosen to represent the libertarian view in the four views book when you realize that he holds a strange view, a minority position and that he rules out any substance dualism agent causation views automatically because of his scientism. My friend J.P. Moreland would have better represented the libertarian view than Kane. And though it is not his main area, Alvin Plantinga also holds to substance dualism and agent causation and would have been a much better representative of libertarian free will. And for the determinist who presents Kane’s view as representing libertarian free will, they can keep presenting this straw man, this extremely strange and minority view, a view which does not get close to the much stronger position, the more popular position, the agent causation view involving substance dualism.
Robert
Thanks. Great point about Deut 30 and Romans 10...
Kane is a bit of a mystery.
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks for always pointing us to the scripture.
God be with you,
Dan
God be with you,
Dan
I already granted the having/making distinction. But the dictionary doesn't address this.
I don't see the relevance of the distinction here... The dictionary argument applies to making choices as well.
God be with you,
Dan
[[“Special-Pleading Libertarianism
Says Robert,
"I would also add that any determinist who wants to prop up Kane’s view as representative of libertarian free will is presenting an intentional straw man and knows it (if he knows that Kane’s explanation is solely physical and intentionally leaves out the immaterial human soul)."
1. Yawn. This is bad. Many of the top action theorists in the world - both compatibilist and incompatibilist - would prop up Kane's view. Whose "Robert?" Some dude who posts anonymously.”]]
First of all, this question of “Whose Robert”? if it is meant to claim that since I am not a professional and famous philosopher, therefore you can automatically discount what I say, commits a fallacy (truth is not determined by the status or position or reputation of who says it, it is established no matter who says it, if it is true, if it corresponds to reality). I could ask the same thing of Paul Manata: “Whose Paul Manata”? Some dude who posts on Triablogue.”
Second, I will make my point again and try to make it even more simple so that Manata can’t fail to miss it. Here is my view of Kane. I said in my previous post about Kane and his views: “Kane is helpful and useful in bringing up issues that need to be examined and considered.” The fact is he is an important thinker in the area of free will among philosophers. In the past I had suggested that people carefully examine his CNC concept (it provides some strong reasons and arguments for rejecting the Calvinism/exhaustive determinism that Manata holds to). Currently, in this thread I am not talking about the CNC concept (something that is useful from Kane), but am talking directly about Kane’s own view of free will and agency (something false and “exotic”). I take the position that **from the perspective of a bible believing Christian** his view is really strange (what Dan called “exotic”) and incomplete and wrong.
Now HOW DARE little ole me, say that about an esteemed professional philosopher who has written famous books on the subject! How obstinate! How out of place, er, kinda like the child in the Emperor has no clothes story, actually. :-) :-)
On what basis could I possibly make such a claim?
Easy, I know that the bible properly interpreted presents about human anthropology: the fact that when we do our intentional actions, these actions DO IN FACT proceed from OUR IMMATERIAL SOULS (or “spirits” if you prefer). And as I showed in the previous post, Kane because of his commitment to scientism, rejects the immaterial soul because it supposedly does not fit science. So Kane attempts to explain human actions by intentionally leaving out our immaterial soul/the person who does the action, in his explanation.
It would be like a guy trying to describe and discuss a quarter, and beginning by saying that “some have appealed to the “heads” portion of a quarter in describing the quarter, but an entity called “heads” does not fit the modern scientific picture of the world.” We know that a quarter has both heads and tails and if the most famous philosopher in the world on action theory stated otherwise in writing, in a book by a major academic publisher, that we will leave out “heads” in our explanation of the nature of quarters, I would conclude, and rightfully so, that his view is exotic, strange, incomplete and false. That he is dead wrong!
So again my view of Kane is that he is helpful in thinking things through on the issue of free will, he presents a concept (CNC control which strongly argues against exhaustive determinism/Calvinism), and yet HIS OWN VIEW OF FREE WILL IS STRANGE, EXOTIC, INCOMPLETE AND FALSE BECAUSE HE INTENTIONALLY LEAVES OUT THE IMMATERIAL SOUL FROM HIS EXPLANATION. Now leaving out the immaterial soul may be acceptable among professional philosophers (no wonder many common people find professional philosophers to be fools)but it is completely unacceptable for a Christian who takes the bible seriously when it clearly teaches that we have an immaterial soul from which our actions spring.
[["2. Robert also seems to imply that libertarianism necessitates a immaterial soul. But of course Kane, and guys like Peter van Inwagen, don't think so. Funny that two of the top, most respected libertarians (PvI is now a mysterian, but he used to be fully libertarian) are physicalists about man's constitution. I suppose if I looked at PvI's work I would be "presenting an intentional straw man" too. Puh-lease."]]
I did not say that libertarianism necessitates an immaterial soul, I said the best and strongest version of libertarianism is an agent causation view which includes our immaterial soul in its explanation (let me spell it out for Manata’s comprehension: the best and strongest view of liberarian free will is going to involve substance dualism and agent causation). Or put another way, as Christians our views must correspond with what the bible teaches (if it teaches that our actions proceed from our immaterial souls and we reject that, ignore that, put it aside, downplay it, arbitrarily exclude it from our explanations, we compromise the truth, and if we do it merely for the sake of fitting in with professional philosophers or the academy, I guess we become like Manata . . .).
And regarding Kane and Van Inwagen being physicalists, according to the bible they are wrong. And if they leave out the immaterial soul from their explanations then they are absolutely wrong and their explanations of human intentional actions will be both false and incomplete. And while we are on the subject of physicalism and compatibilism, if you examine history the vast majority of compatibilists have all been physicalists and most were unbelievers (e.g. Hobbes, Hume, Ayer, John Martin Fischer, etc. etc.). Calvinists like Manata adopt compatibilism because they think that it fits their Calvinism (and they want to use in to attempt to justify their false theological system), but in doing so they seem not to notice how much physicalism and scientism motivate and **master** modern compatibilists. I serve Jesus who clearly held to substance dualism, others, nonbelievers, serve science as their greatest source of truth. And THEY want to tell me to jettison the truth/ my belief in my immaterial soul in order to be academically respectable?
[["3. Blackwell Publishing must have been guilty of an "intentional straw man" by having Kane represent the libertarian position in the Four Views book. To hold a view that demands this kind of paranoia is proof that one is caught in the grip of an extra-biblical tradition."]]
I don’t appreciate this comment about “paranoia.”
So holding to the Christian belief which is (and has been for centuries) the majority view among Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Independents, even calvinists such as Manata, in substance dualism (and that our intentional actions proceed forth from our immaterial souls) ***is*** being “caught in the grip of an extra-biblical tradition"????? Oh, I get it, Manata thinks we should give up our biblically derived conclusions and beliefs so that we can better fit in with the academic establishment (which denies the reality of our immaterial soul, which promotes and defends physicalism and the belief that the physical world and our physical bodies is all that exists)???
And I remind people again that Kane **himself** in his essay says the agent causal view is more popular than his own idiosyncratic view. So Kane is a minority position (himself alone) while the majority position is not represented in the four views book. Perhaps Manata is out of touch with the university system where physicalism is the orthodoxy and Christianity and immaterial souls are ridiculed as “unrealities”. And perhaps he doesn’t know that for many they are respected and accepted in academic circles because they reject the bible and its antiquated belief in immaterial souls? Perhaps some “bright” like Dennett can help him out on this.
[["4. Robert would actually have us go to philosophers who do not specialize in action theory to find "the best" representatives of action theory! (Moreland and Plantinga.)"]]
I say go to whomever and wherever is best presenting the truth. Both Moreland and Plantinga hold to substance dualism, both are libertarians, both do not compromise their Christian beliefs for the sake of fitting into academia. So they present strong versions of the libertarian view involving agent causation. Instead of citing them or engaging them, Manata cites Kane and his bizarre and false and incomplete physicalist explanation of our actions. Many people today just want to fit in, just want to put their Christian beliefs under the rug so that they can be better **respected** and accepted.
[["5. Check out what Robert himself has said about Kane's work on libertarian free will elsewhere: "Incidentally Kane discusses the CNC concept and problems with this kind of control in his important work on free will titled: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FREE WILL."]]
There is no contradiction in saying that Kane can be right about some things (he is right about CNC and the problems it presents for exhaustive determinism)and **at the same time** be wrong about others (his own view of free will and event causation).
Or does Manata suggest that we accept **everything** that someone says as being correct?
Manata himself likes to appeal to Alvin Plantinga on some things (e.g. defeaters), but also thinks Plantinga is wrong about free will. So I guess Manata can do that, but I can’t. And Manata wants people to think I am contradicting myself, while he is not, though he does exactly the same thing. Intelligent people will see through this nonsense and see how obsessed Manata is with proving me wrong. That’s OK, I take pleasure in his being Ahab and my being the hated white whale that in seeking to destroy, he simply destroys himself.
{{"6. So when I take guys like Robert up on their repeated laudations of Kane (he told us to read Kane many-a-time here), and show that a lot of problems follow, all of a sudden I'm not allowed to go to Kane anymore since he's not "representative of libertarian free will."]]
Manata can choose to prop up Kane as representative of a “strong” libertarian position, while ignoring the much stronger substance dualism/agent causation model of people like Plantinga and Moreland, that’s his choice. But if he knows about Kane’s physicalism and knows about how Kane intentionally dismisses the immaterial soul out of his explanation in order to fit in with scientism, that is trying to make the playing field uneven for libertarians like myself. I was taught that competition is good, brings out the best, especially when the best are the ones playing. Those who have to play sneaky or attack weaker opposition are usually weak and insecure themselves. To appeal to someone who denies the immaterial soul in their explanations of human intentional actions as the best the libertarians can offer is really weak.
Just because one libertarian foolishly denies that a quarter has both heads and tails, in the name of scientism, does not mean that we all do. But if you want to mock us by appealing to the guy with the goofy view of quarters, while evading those of us who present the truth about quarters, that shows only that you hate us and mock the truth. The bible says some interesting things about those who mock the truth, just read the book of Proverbs. Oh, but perhaps you don’t want to read that because in academic circles we could “never derive truth about human persons from that antiquated and un-scientific book called the bible”.
Robert