we're still in chapter 12 dealing with the monistic theories of man and we mentioned extreme materialism which says that man is the body of all and we show problems with that the realm of ideas if materialism is true then even the laws of logic were just invented by men because you know There are no universal principles, non-material principles that Plato talked about that are unchanging. And so, you know, I talked to a materialist when I was talking about God's existence at Olympic College and got the guy to admit that his view is correct. Slavery is wrong today, but it wasn't necessarily wrong 150 years ago. And it might not be wrong 150 years from now, but right now it's wrong. And so those are some of the problems that you get with extreme materialism. Second view, monistic view I'd like to touch on, is the identity theory, which teaches that mentalistic terms, terms about mental states, and physicalistic terms have different connotative meanings. But they ultimately refer to physical phenomena. Okay? So they connote different things. They focus on different aspects, but they ultimately refer to physical phenomena. Once science learns more, this is what the identity theory holds, once science learns more, mental states will be shown to be identical with brain states. In other words, anger will be identified as a certain chemical reaction in the brain, yeah, that type of thing. Criticisms of this, it's absurd to ask the location of a mental event. If mental events are physical events, why does the subject alone have access to them? I feel pain, it's my pain. that I feel, not your pain, go ahead and feel your pain, I can't hear you, I don't know where you're going. Uh, isn't it also kind of a cop out to say that, well this is what I think, but we can't prove it yet. Well, we'll prove it later. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's always, you know, Carl Sagan is an oscillating model. He acts like he's so scientific and creationist, darn. But he believes in a model that hasn't been proven by science and he's, you know, basically it's like he's saying, I've got blind faith that a hundred years from now science will vindicate me and prove me right. And a lot of people hold views like that. But it's like, say John and I were in prison and John says to me, come on, Phil, let's start singing praise songs. We're in prison for preaching the faith. Let's start singing praise songs like Paul and Silas did in a Philippian jail. I just feel the joy of the Lord. And I looked at him, I said, John, shut up and leave me alone, I'm trying to get some sleep. I'm not... that joy there, we're in the same physical situation, yet one of us has chosen joy, and the other has chosen depression. But if mental events are physical, Why does the subject alone have access to them? How can we have two guys go through the same experience and one feel a different mental state than the other? Idealism says that man is the mind alone. The opposite of extreme materialism. The body is the illusion. The body doesn't exist. Man is mind alone. Bishop George Berkeley is famous for this view. The mind and its perceptions are the only things that exist. Man is not reducible to matter, but to mind. This is the question where if there were nobody in the woods, in a forest, and a tree falls in a forest, if there was nobody there to hear it, did it make a sound? The big question about food. Now, Berkeley would say yes. because that still existed as an idea in the mind of God but most idealists who don't believe in God's existence do not have this all-seeing God and so most idealists would say, no it didn't occur it didn't really happen the only things that exist are what exist in my mind or your mind and then you end up with some idealists they get to the extreme view and the only thing that exists is what exists in their mind alone, period. And therefore you don't exist. I only exist in your mind as an idea in your mind. Criticizing this view is incoherent and impractical view of reality. If you really try to live that way, I believe it's 18 months from the day these develop object permanence or whatever Before 18 months or before, you know, that general period of time, if you have a toy and you're holding a toy and a little kid's trying to grab it, if you put a piece of paper in front of the toy, he immediately loses interest. As far as he's concerned, out of sight, out of mind. Now we would argue that at 18 months he starts to wise up and starts to figure out and that's when he starts pulling the paper away and still looking for that toy. He realized just because it's not in his mind, because he doesn't see it, it's not a sight, it's still there. Now, they would probably argue, no, that's where we start getting, starting to learn the misconceptions of the world. Wait a minute, you meant not to, not to say me, because there isn't any we, there's only I. Well, it depends on which kind of idealist you have. The strict idealist to one person, he alone is the only one who exists but the most idealist would have other people exist too you know, it all depends on who you're talking to a big Berkeley's got everything existing because they all exist, God sees everything so it's over everything, it's always in God's mind the double-eyes bacteria, another monistic view the physical and the mental are simply different aspects of something that is itself neither physical nor mental. Some philosophers say that it's both physical and mental. Benedict Spinoza of 1632 and 1677 kind of held this view that man can be described as a bodily being or a thinking being So he didn't combine Beethoven and Johnson to describe the ultimate substance of man. Criticism of this view, if there is an underlying unity, somebody needs to explain the nature of it. Okay? We also need a clearer definition of the word aspect. You know, like man has two aspects, but not two components. There would be an aspect and a component. So if there is an underlying unity, what is it? So it doesn't really, it just raises more questions than answers in that theory. So now the dualistic theories of man. The most common and simple dualistic view is interactionism. And interactionism says that minds and bodies together constitute the human person in his present state. minds and bodies together constitute the human person in his present state. Interactionism, the cause and effect relation can go either way. I hope to this view to a certain degree. Mental events may cause bodily events. For instance, my mental event called sorrow may cause A bodily event might cause me to cry. I might have tears. So sorrow can cause tears. Mental events may cause bodily events. Whereas bodily events may cause mental events. I might sing a song. I might sing a song and then experience joy. Somebody might punch me in the face. And then I might feel pain. Or get angry. Or get dead. But Rene Descartes held that there's two kinds of substance in man. A man's mind and a body. Now there's certain criticisms of this view. Some say it contradicts energy conservation. Energy conservation says that the amount of energy remains the same in the universe. And so basically there would be an energy loss when the physical causes mental results. But there should be an energy gain when the mental causes physical. Now the response to this would be, this is ludicrous. There's no loss or gain of physical energy occurring with the mental activity. The first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics, energy conservation and energy deterioration, both deal with the physical universe. So this is a ludicrous complaint. It's a complaint that you could see an extreme materialist making, but it still wouldn't even affect our view at all because we're not extreme materialists. No loss or gain of physical energy occurs with mental acts, because mental acts are non-physical. 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics only deal with the physical realm, the physical universe. Another criticism, some say the physical could not affect the mental and vice versa. The response to this, it can be said that it's false to assume that a cause must contain the same properties as the effects. Illustration they give in the book is that electrical activity may result in a magnetic field and I'm not a real expert on that so I don't understand the full implication of it but I was just thinking they're talking about the fact that there are you can have a cause an electrical cause making an effect such as a magnetic field which has different properties and You can have the sun, the effect of the sun has different effects on ice. It would melt ice, but it would harden clay. But just because the sun makes ice melt doesn't mean that the sun is watery. And because the sun makes clay hard doesn't mean the sun is hard. Again, it's false to assume that a cause must contain the same properties as the effect. Another criticism is some say that only the physical cause is the mental and not the other way around. This, by the way, is called epiphenomenalism. We'll cover that a little later. But they argue that causality goes only in one direction. So we'll deal with that criticism when we get there. So I hope interactionism and cause and effect can go either way. Parallelism says there's no real interaction, direct or indirect, between the mind and the body. It's just that every mental event is systematically correlated with some physical event, but neither is the cause of the other. Criticisms of this are one-to-one correspondence fails, because like for instance an example of the state of a coma the mental activity would cease but the bodily activity does not so there isn't this one to one correspondence that you would need and secondly it's like such a high degree of correlation to be purely an accident purely a coincidence that when I think I'm holding a pen in my right hand It physically feels like I'm holding a pen in my right hand and it looks like I'm holding a pen in my right hand. It seems to be more than coincidence. Third, dualistic view of man. Pre-established harmony. It's a variation of parallelism. Liveness held to this. When God made the mind and the body, he synchronized them. But this is still weak because it has no cause and effect relationship. Now, occasionalism, St. Augustine held this view, or at least he implied that he held this view, when we mentally will to move our foot, then on that occasion God physically moves our foot. No real cause and effect relationship between the mental and the physical is the result of God's activity. God is the cause, therefore, of even regular events, every one of them. not just miracles, not just the irregular or unique events. Now, Augustine, I think he was right that Christ is the light of all men. Christ enlightens the minds of every man so that Jesus as the Word of God enables us to know things that we just know certain things and we can't figure out how we know them. and philosophers still can't figure out how we know them, still debate the issues. But they say that God moves, when we want to move our foot, God moves our foot. I think that's just going a little bit too far. Now, yes, God sustains our existence. He would not even be here to will to move our foot if it wasn't for God sustaining us in existence. But I think God causes us to exist and causes, allows us to make certain choices and allows us to decide to move our hand and then we move our hand. Criticisms on this, the relationship between the mind and the body would appear then to be an illusion and the question will come up, is God deceiving us? The Bible seems to teach that God can supernaturally intervene but usually use the secondary means to accomplish his purposes such as procreation, Genesis 1.28 animals and man would procreate after themselves and that God would usually use secondary means to accomplish his purposes. Then the fifth and final view, do it to do, such as epiphenomenalism that the causal relationship between the mind and the body goes only in one direction and that is from the body to the mind. So the body can cause mental events but the mind cannot cause bodily events it's unlike materialism because there are genuine mental events the mental realm does really exist but genuine mental events are entirely dependent upon physical causes it is claimed that in the future science will prove that even human behavior is explained in terms of physical events and physical laws criticism of this mental events do appear to cause physical events such as a man getting angry and so then he goes out and kills somebody or feeling pain so he says ouch and another criticism of epiphenomenalism they admit that their evidence hasn't yet been found so they admit they can't prove their view anyway Conclusion, the biblical view is that man is not reducible to matter. Genesis 1 and 2, when God created man, he breathed light. He formed man from the dust and the ground, but then he breathed light into his nostrils. Okay. And so man is not reducible to matter. James 2.26, just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without work is dead. Man is not just body, but he is also spirit or soul. The Christian dichotomy is that man has two components, body and soul, and the soul and the spirit are synonymous. Christian trichotomy is that man has three components, body, soul, and spirit. I hold to a modified dichotomous position, modified Christian dichotomy. Man has two components, the body and the soul slash spirit. So man is material in body and immaterial in soul and spirit. But they make up the immaterial part of man. They put some under the monistic view, but actually they're not. Are they dualistic? Yeah, it would be... the dichotomy is dualistic, and from a philosophical standpoint, they'd be considered dualistic, but from a theological standpoint, they're called trichotomous. There's more than just two aspects, there's three. But for the most part, they fall into dualistic, and how they... it would probably be between interactionism and occasionalism although they could hold through any of the others but it's a pretty tough one and occasionalism was Augustine right? yes and once you have one person who holds some kind of view then you can have other people hold that same view I don't even know where Glenn Clark stands on here because he has weird views Hey, you had a question? What about when a Christian dies, does he lose his life? No. That's part of your goal. The only thing I learned about God is not to forgive and not die. So, you know, any mistakes you had, God will correct real quick. So, yeah, you'll still be a conscious being and you'll be able to learn. Yeah, yeah. We'll be learning throughout all eternity, too, because we can never fully grasp the infinite mind of God. Also, if you want some empirical evidence that has come up for the dualistic view of man, there's some dynamite studies that have been done. In fact, Gary Habermas, one of my old professors, co-authored a book with J.C. Mormon, one of the leading Christian philosophers alive today, called Immortality, the Other Side of Death, or something like that. And I went to the Baker book house and they bring up some studies there. I was at Liberty. I got to talk with Aaron Mass about this. Where doctors have brought it into the human brain and gotten the people to move their right arm. They found, OK, well, if I touch this part of the brain, then it gets the person to move his right arm. And so then they ask the person what happened. And the people will always say, you moved my right arm and this has stunned the doctors because what they should be saying if extreme materialism is true which is what the particular doctors thought the people should be saying I decided to move my arm so I moved my arm but instead what they're saying is if you push to simplify if you push the right buttons in my brain you can move my arm but if the immaterial me didn't push the buttons in my brain and my right arm moved then I know that somebody else chose yeah so in other words our brain is like a computer which has certain abilities already programmed into it but you still need somebody at the keys pushing the right buttons so when I get angry that pushes, that makes some chemicals, the mind acts upon the brain, makes some chemical reactions which causes my face to get red, my voice to raise, or whatever. But those studies have shown that the choice, wherever the choice is being made, it's not in the brain, it's not in the body, and therefore there's an immaterial part of man that makes his decision, his decisions and his choices. And we're not going to be able to get through the next lecture because it's a big one, but we're going to get started on it. And it's the question, is man free? Is man free? I decided to teach these classes today, but was that decision really mine or was it forced on me? Certain philosophers would say yes, and certain philosophers would say no. So is man free? That's our metaphysical question we're going to try to answer now. And we have different views to look at here. Well, we got a big chapter here. First, let's go over a couple of definitions. There's incompatibilist. Incompatibilist, I'm using the word like being John and I are compatible, not combat like we're fighting, but we're compatible. Incompatibilist. I'm doing that mainly for the folks listening on the lecture that can't see me right on the board. There's the incompatibilist view of freedom. And then there's also the compatibilist view of freedom. Now the incompatibilist view of freedom It doesn't mean that any of these guys believe in freedom. They don't have to believe in freedom. But the way they would define freedom, even if they don't believe that it actually exists, is that there would have to be no... the incombatilist position of freedom would have to be no prior conditions that would determine a free action. In other words, if John decided to hit me, if there was something that forced him to decide to hit me, that was totally out of his control, then that was not a free action. That's what an incompatible response is. view of freedom would be. The compatibilist view of freedom is that an action can still be free if prior conditions determine what it would be. An action can still be free if prior conditions determine what it would be. That's real, real tough debate that is on there. I've seen a lot of hypercalvinists say that man is free to accept or reject Christ. But when they accept Christ, it was God who forced them to do it, really in roundabout language, but it was still free. Or man is... So in other words, they seem to take freedom out of the usual definition of freedom to do otherwise. And so, It's a real tough debate on this issue. We're going to look at it. Monotheism is the view that I hold to the renaissance, the monotheistic view of free will. At times, I think it's a compatibilist freedom because the action is free. I freely chose to accept Christ. But still, there were prior conditions that determined what my decision would be. i.e. God put me in the right situation to persuade me to accept Christ. But see, the fact is, though, I still had the freedom to do otherwise. But God knew how I would respond. So I don't know. You know, it could be that even if prior conditions did not determine that I chose Christ, although God foreknew that by putting together those prior conditions I would freely choose Christ, I still freely chose Him. So it's a real tough one. on those. But to keep those in mind, you're going to have to know these, too. The oldest view says that determinism and freedom are incompatible. That's the incompatibilist freedom view. The compatibilist freedom view says that freedom and determinism are compatible. They can both be true. Okay? Freedom and determinism? Freedom and determinism. Yeah, determinism is kind of like the Christian view of predestination. But you can have guys that are determinists that don't even believe that God exists. Friends, if we got here by accident, then even what we think are moral choices are in actuality just the bouncing around of atoms and chemicals going on in our body so we would be determined what we would do by genetics and our environment and all. Different views we're going to look at is determinism Both the hard and the soft view of determinism. Then there's simple indeterminism, which we'll just call indeterminism. There's libertarianism. And then there's the two level theory. Okay. Those are four main different views we're going to look at both the hard and the soft view of determinism. After that, I would like to spend a little bit of time on the Christian views of determinism and free will. In other words, predestination and human freedom. We probably won't get to that in today's lecture, but we do have some time to move forward on this. Determinism teaches that all events All events are governed by laws. All events are governed by laws. That's the term that the bullfrogs sought. Now the hard view, the hard view, says that all human action is ruled by heredity and environment. All human action ruled by heredity and environment. That's what he said. P.F. Skinner is a behaviorist. Now, soft determinism We'll touch on that in a little while. Look at hard determinism. Is this a compatibilist position or an incompatibilist position? It's incompatible. Right. It's an incompatibilist position because freedom and determinism cannot be reconciled. Now this is different from fatalism, by the way. Our determinism is not fatalism. Fatalism teaches that the inevitable will happen regardless of what we do or do not do. Regardless of whether you try to feed the hungry, something's going to happen, so it doesn't matter what you do. Our determinism, our actions do affect what happens, It's just that even our actions are determined by prior causes. Okay, so you see the difference there? Fatalism, you might have a choice. Oh yeah, I can choose to do whatever, but whatever I choose, the inevitable is going to happen anyway. Determinism, what I do is going to affect what happens, but even what I do is determined by something prior to my choice. Criticisms of that, of our determinism, it denies human free will because there is no freedom to do otherwise. You didn't have the freedom to accept Jesus or reject him. You didn't have the freedom to come to class today, to not come to class today. You just, you had to do it. It denies human freedom because there's no freedom to do otherwise. And by the way, most Christian determinists just redefined human freedom, not as freedom to do otherwise, but freedom to do what you desire, but you had no say about what you would desire. Yeah, you desired your predestined. So denying human free will, and then, really, it's denying moral responsibility. Can we really punish a criminal when it was determined by prior conditions that he commit the crime and he really didn't choose to commit the crime on his own. So, that's the problem with hard determinism. Now, hard determinism was an incompatible disposition. Freedom and determinism are not compatible. They cannot be reconciled. Soft determinism is a compatible disposition. Freedom and determinism can be reconciled. Soft determinism says that prior conditions may determine our action, still our action is free. Our action is still free. We are free for any actions that are without external constraints. It wasn't anything outside us that forced us to do something, We freely did it. The criticisms of this view is that still our desires, our character, and our will are still determined. We could not really have done otherwise, therefore we were not really free. We were not really able to do otherwise. So soft determinism tried to water down our determinism and tried to say that freedom and determinism are reconcilable, but in actuality, We freely make the choices based on our desires, our character, and our will, but they were still pre-programmed. And so I reject both soft and hard determinism. You can make some adaptions to soft determinism that I would accept, but I don't think it would be called soft determinism anymore. Simple indeterminism. There's few supporters of this view. It seems the least likely of any of them. It's an incompatible position. Freedom and determinism cannot be reconciled. So what indeterminism does, simple indeterminism, it denies determinism. It denies determinism. Our free actions are uncaused events. Free actions are uncaused events. Okay? No prior causes. Criticisms of this view, it leaves no reason for our actions. We do things totally without a cause. It retains freedom but without responsibility. Okay? Doesn't really make a lot of sense. because our actions are happening totally without a cause and so there's no reason for our actions to be doing things totally without a cause and so it retains freedom but without responsibility it's like, well Franz you killed that guy now you gotta go to prison well there was no reason why I killed him so it's like there's no reason to go to prison there's no reason for anything libertarianism teaches that man is genuinely free Man is genuinely free, and it's an incompatible exposition. Freedom and determinism cannot be reconciled, but they deny, libertarians deny determinism. Our free actions are not caused by another, that denies determinism. Our free actions are also, though, not uncaused. So that denies indeterminism. Instead, our actions are self-caused. So it denies determinism just like simple indeterminism does, but our free actions, rather than being uncaused, they are self-caused. We are often self-determining beings. What Geismann and Feinberg mean by that is that we can decide to jump off a 20-story building, but we can't decide halfway down to stop. So that means that we're often self-determining beings, but there is a time when we're not, you know, unfree to jump off. a couple feet in the air and come back down. I'm not free to jump 200 feet in the air and come back down. Okay? So we're often self-determining beings, but every once in a while something does happen against our will. We don't have full control, but we are often self-determining beings. We are genuinely free. We are able to do otherwise. Criticisms of dispute, libertarianism? Many deny the idea of an immaterial self. They believe that man is not a substance, but just a collection of events. David Hume believed that. Even Gordon Clark implies that in his work, that man is a collection of thoughts, of ideas, that he is not an immaterial self. And so, to say free actions are self-caused, there is no self that causes them. So that would be some of the criticisms. But I hold to probably a type of view of libertarianism, although at times I can see Yeah, I would probably hold a libertarianism. My modelism would probably be... It's... Modified libertarianism? Yeah, yeah. Because it's between libertarianism and soft determinism. Because there's a way that our actions are predetermined and that God actualized the world. Well, we would freely choose to do the things that would bring in the... would make the best world too. actualized, which would be the best possible way to achieve the best possible world. Whatever the case, then there's also the two-level theory. And that you believe in both determinism and free will, and that they are in some sense independent of each other. Events are determined, they have causes, but human actions are not determined They are not cause, they do have reasons or purposes. But they're not cause, but they do have reasons or purposes. Criticisms may, again, deny the idea of the immaterial self, just like libertarianism. But also, reasons and causes seem, in this sense, to be very closely related, if not synonymous. If there was a reason why you did something, it seemed to be that there was also a cause that you did something. Well, the reason why they're incompatible is that they're in two totally different areas, two different levels, and you really shouldn't put the two together. We've got a little bit of time. I might be able to finish this here. The Christian views of determinism and free will. The Christian view of determinism and free will, which really deals with predestination and free will are divine sovereignty and moral responsibility and human responsibility. Four different main views here. Four different main views. There's hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism. There's hyper-Arminianism. There's the divine mystery view. and there's malinism I would hold the form of malinism that I would probably call perseverance malinism but hypercalvinism is that God predetermines every event and therefore man is not free to do otherwise hypercalvinists are the only consistent calvinists by the way Gordon Clark would fall into that group Jonathan Edwards as well Gerstner, Lindsley, R.C. Sproul, hyper-Calvinist, God predetermined every event, man is not free to do otherwise. I think Clark is more consistent than any of them. Hyper-Arminianism, God predetermined what he foreknew we would freely choose to do. So man is free to do otherwise. God predetermined what he foreknew we would freely choose to do. In other words, God just sat back and looked at the future and said, OK, they're going to do it, so I'll predestine it. And so God's predestination becomes really watered down. The divine mystery view, God predetermines every event, still man is free to do otherwise, but how these two are reconciled goes beyond human reason. And so divine predestination and human free will can be reconciled, but not by humans in this life. Maybe God will answer the question later. It's a divine mystery. Nerman Geisler holds that view. But I hold what William Lane Cray holds of Mollenism, middle knowledge, although he It is an Arminian mollenism. He believes you can lose your salvation, and we still hold to mollenism. I hold to what I think is a more consistent mollenism. I would call it perseverance mollenism, that God keeps us safe by causing us to persevere faithfully. Mollenism, also known as middle knowledge, I'll just give you a real brief overview of it. God knows what we would freely choose in every possible world. God knows what we would freely choose in every possible world. God persuades men to do His will by predetermining our circumstances. God foreknows, and you take a note so you can copy this right after the lecture, but God foreknows the free choices we will make given the circumstances, and so then God actualizes the possible world that will fulfill His purposes. God controls our free actions by controlling our circumstances, but we still could have chosen otherwise. We were really free. But if we had chosen otherwise, then God would have foreknown that we would have chosen otherwise. And so God predetermined the course of history, still man freely chooses his actions. And it's not God's desire that any will be lost or any that get saved. God also predetermines to predetermine the circumstances so that we'll make the choices so that we persevere in the faith. And again, it's still God's doing. But I was surprised. I didn't think we'd get through that chapter, but we did. And so that's the close of philosophy lecture number...