tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114150863123225860..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Maneuvering Around fatal ManeuversRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26198559285490555922016-01-25T21:27:52.690-05:002016-01-25T21:27:52.690-05:00Very instructive blog (and article)! Cheung´s occa...Very instructive blog (and article)! Cheung´s occasionalism should certainly lead him to skepticism... How can he not see the implications? That amazes me. But I do not agree at all that God deceives people. He surely controls the circumstances where people decide to believe lies, deceiving themselves, because that is what they desire the most and He surely allows that people deceive themselves - but He never deceives. Never ever. <br /><br />Lelêhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16348874812007005587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141565022872093072006-03-05T08:23:00.000-05:002006-03-05T08:23:00.000-05:00Jeremy,It seems to me that, according to occasiona...Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that, according to occasionalism, you don't have natural laws. That's the point of occasionalism: to eliminate second causes. God's primary causality is the only factor.<BR/><BR/>What you have, instead, are law-like correlations, due, again, to the immediacy of the direct divine dynamic. But there is no natural force or mechanism mediating these effects.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141538734912821822006-03-05T01:05:00.000-05:002006-03-05T01:05:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.UK67https://www.blogger.com/profile/15095910610517995965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141538183128660402006-03-05T00:56:00.000-05:002006-03-05T00:56:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.UK67https://www.blogger.com/profile/15095910610517995965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141527776622665802006-03-04T22:02:00.000-05:002006-03-04T22:02:00.000-05:00Hello Jeremy,I don't think Cheung's occasionalism ...Hello Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>I don't think Cheung's occasionalism is Malebranche's occasionalism. Remember that Cheung's maintains that God *immediatley* gives us the meaning of the text "upon the occasion" of our reading it.<BR/><BR/>I never said that God endorses every event as good?? Maybe you could explain why you think this. I mean, I believe God "works all things together for the good of those who love Him," but my post never got into that.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if God gives me the meaning of the text, upon the occasion of my reading it, then God is the one who deceived me (if my understanding was different than what the text really said). I can't read it any other way than the way God wants me to. So, how could I "take greater care" not to misunderstand something? I could read it 5,000 times and on the occasion of reading it 5,000 times God might grant me the true meaning. But, it is also just as true that I could "take care" to read it 5,000 times and God could deceive me every time. Remember, Cheung says that God deceives and makes people misunderstand the text, "as He wishes."<BR/><BR/>So, since Cheung's occasionalism isn't "classic ocassionalism" then I could not have misrepresented classic philosophical views. Cheung admits that it is God's "fault" that people misunderstand the texts. The belief of the heretic and the orthodox are equally given by God, immediately, upon the occasion of their reading the text. Therefore, the important thing to remember is that I was critiquing *Cheung* and not Malebranche.<BR/><BR/>Your second point I totally disagree with. First off, my critique has been given by many, many anti-determinists and so it could be called a "classic" critique. Second, your claim that,<BR/><BR/><I>"Keep in mind that determinists think events taking place now determine what happens in the future. If so, then punishing someone or not might affect whether the person will be reformed by the punishment and thus stop doing criminal acts."</I><BR/><BR/>totally misses the mark. If someone is determined by biologoical and physical processes to do what they do, then when someone rapes someone why act as if they did something they could help doing? How could they "take care" not to do it? Can they violate the laws of physics and biology?<BR/><BR/>You write, <BR/><BR/><I>"Even the hard determinist who thinks we're not morally responsible thinks punishing people has good effects, and determinism has no trouble talking about the effects of actions."</I><BR/><BR/>Which leads me to believe you might have not understood my point. I never even talked about "good effects." I simply said that if no one is morally responsible, then don't try to act and talk as if they are morally responsible. Since you admit that they say this, then how could I have misrepresented their views?<BR/><BR/>Lastly, you write,<BR/><BR/><I>"Most determinists are compatibilists, and they accept that we are fully free and fully morally responsible, because we act according to who we are, our character, our desires, our beliefs, etc. "</I><BR/><BR/>As a Christian compatibalist I can agree with the above (but Cheung critiques Christian compatibalism and since he was the subject of my post, you have misunderstood my intentions) from a Christian perspective. As far as a naturalistic determinist goes, I disagree that they can provide a philosophical account of the above. I'm sure you're aware of the "classic" arguments against them, and so I don't feel I've misrepresented anyone.<BR/><BR/>-PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141525760305990362006-03-04T21:29:00.000-05:002006-03-04T21:29:00.000-05:00Jeremy,We're not used to having such a high-brow c...Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>We're not used to having such a high-brow critic. Razor sharpens razor. Thanks for the input. I've enjoyed some of the pieces over at your own blog.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141516237712971572006-03-04T18:50:00.000-05:002006-03-04T18:50:00.000-05:00Occasionalism considers what most people call caus...Occasionalism considers what most people call causes to be God's maintenance of connections between one type of event and another that we take to be causing it. So there's an intricate set of laws that determine certain events God will follow with other events according to the laws. God thus is involved in assuring that the laws are followed out, because nothing would happen if God weren't assuring it to go according to the laws.<BR/><BR/>How you get from that to the view that God has specifically endorsed every event as good is beyond me. The most famous occasionalist was probably Malebranche, and he took great pains to distinguish his view from that of Leibniz, mainly because Leibniz thought of this world as the best of all possible worlds. Malebranche didn't want to say that, which means he wouldn't take God to be endorsing every happening as good. That means the fact that someone ends up concluding something faulty is no more God's responsibility than what would happen according to the standard view of caused and effect without God as mediator.<BR/><BR/>Your critique of determinism is equally fallacious. Keep in mind that determinists think events taking place now determine what happens in the future. If so, then punishing someone or not might affect whether the person will be reformed by the punishment and thus stop doing criminal acts. Even the hard determinist who thinks we're not morally responsible thinks punishing people has good effects, and determinism has no trouble talking about the effects of actions.<BR/><BR/>That's of course assuming hard determinism, which most determinists don't accept. Most determinists are compatibilists, and they accept that we are fully free and fully morally responsible, because we act according to who we are, our character, our desires, our beliefs, etc. That's freedom in a way that acting for no reason at all (and thus not on the basis of anything about your beliefs, desires, or character) could never explain. Randomness isn't freedom.<BR/><BR/>I say this not to defend Cheung. I know little about him and don't care all that much. I just don't like to see classic philosophical views being misrepresented.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.com