James. We have good reason to think that the universe is deterministic. After all, all our technology, and in fact all of our attempts to accomplish anything at all always assume that each particular cause will inevitably bring about the same effect it has always done. We couldn't make any plans if we didn't assume that the universe is deterministic. Since we successfully make and carry out all kinds of plans, it follows that the universe is deterministic.
William. You're forgetting one thing. Free will. We know that determinism isn't true because we also know that we have free will.
Our technology would only work if determinism is true.
Our attempts to accomplish our goals would only work if determinism is true.
(Our technology works.)
(We do accomplish our goals.)
Determinism is true. (Explanation -- direct argument.)
Free will exists.
(Either free will exists and determinism is false, or free will doesn't exist and determinism is true.)
Determinism isn't true. (Deductive -- opposing argument.)
While James's argument isn't perfect (he ignores quantum mechanics, and the fact that our technology and our attempts don't always work) William's argument is pathetic. It's analogous to
We know that Christianity is not true because cheese exists.
Cheese exists.
(Either cheese exists and Christianity is false, or cheese doesn't exist and Christianity is true.)
Christianity is false.
It's possible that William believes that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. But this is not something he can just assume. It is something that he has to prove. Since he doesn't bother to give a reason why anyone should think these two things are mutually exclusive, he is offering a false choice.
Fist of Death.
Based on the arguments given above, determinism
is true. Although it is a fact that science and technology would not work if
determinism wasn't true, it's hard to see why this is true, and most people
could be forgiven for thinking that our initial presumption would be that we
don't know whether or not determinism is true. James's argument gives us the
basic reasons to think that determinism is true, and I don't see anything wrong
with his logic. William offers a claim of fact that he believes contradicts
James's conclusion. However, there are two problems with his logic. First, because
he doesn't give us any reason to think that free will exists, the most he could
prove by holding that free will and determinism are mutually contradictory would
be that free will does not exist. Second, however, he only presumes that freewill
contradicts determinism. He doesn't prove that either. Since our initial presumption
about free will is that it exists, (since we perceive ourselves acting freely),
it follows that William is begging the question on the issue of whether or not
free will contradicts determinism.
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
