Some religious apologists will object to atheism in the following way:
If our beliefs are causally determined, how can we know if they are true? Attempting to verify a belief would only result in a conclusion that we’d be equally determined to believe!
This is meant to show that the causal generation of a belief somehow undermines its truth, or a person’s ability to know. If this were true, then we’d be stuck in a state of complete skepticism, and belief in determinism would become self-refuting.
I will argue none of this follows.
It is correct to say that beliefs are caused in us, and that knowledge and the judgement of facts are the result of a causal process. However it is incorrect to say that this prevents us from holding true beliefs, or warranted true beliefs. In fact, the opposite is true: it is only because our beliefs are the result of a causal process that we can have a reliable pathway to knowledge about the world around us.
A belief is an acquired mental state that is determined by its object. For instance, if my cat suddenly jumped onto my desk, a mental representation would be caused in me and would more or less correspond to the external state of affairs presented in front of me. In such a case, my belief was guided by reality in that it was determined by a real object.
Beliefs are like mental maps that allow us to make predictions, and when predictions are fulfilled, our beliefs are corroborated. For example, when I step out of bed in the morning, I predict that I will not fall up: my stepping our of bed and remaining on the floor confirms the truth of my belief. Or, when I throw a rock at a glass window, I predict the window will break: my throwing the rock and seeing and hearing the glass shatter demonstrates that my belief was true.[1]
Both cases involve the causal generation of beliefs; however that does not take away from their truth. The result of the rock shattering the window causally induced certain images to form on my retinas, as well as certain sounds to penetrate my ear drums, and in turn, caused me to believe that rocks break windows. The reason why I didn’t believe that a tennis ball had just been thrown against a brick wall was because those images and sounds produced were not evident to me.
Because certain physical states produce certain beliefs in us, if a belief about the world is not produced by a definite cause, then we should have no reason to accept it as a correct description of reality rather than some other arbitrarily produced belief.[2] So the causal generation of our beliefs not only does not undermine their truth, it provides the basis for thinking that we can accurately represent the world.
While atheists acknowledge belief in determinism is caused in us, the truth of determinism is not jeopardized by this fact; if anything, it is made credible.[3]
End Notes
- See Luis Villoro Rodopi, Belief, Personal, and Propositional Knowledge, Siglo XXI Editores, S. A. de C. V., Mexico, Jan 1, 1998, p. 296.
- Paraphrasing Adolf Grünbaum, “Free Will and Laws of Human Behaviour,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 1971, also see Jeffery Jay Lowder, “Adolf Grünbaum on Determinism and Reason,” Secular Outpost, January 4, 2017. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/01/04/adolf-grunbaum-determinism-reason/
- Ibid. Grünbaum.
Secular Student 
A belief is not a “physical state”. A belief is a form of data. While it is true that data is stored in a physical state, the data can be said to exist separate from it. This distinction is required if I, as the reader of your data, am to understand what you’re saying. If the data only existed as a physical state in your brain, then the only way I could understand you would be through direct access to your neural pathways. And we don’t quite have that science fiction ability yet.
So, your ideas are encoded as data which can be stored as words, which can then be typed into your article, which I can then read, and, by mental review, produce a different physical state in my own brain (a whole different set of neurons), but one in which I can model your reasoning, and by that model understand what you’re saying.
There is a flaw in the idea that everything can be reduced to physics. The laws of physics are derived by observing inanimate objects and forces and deducing the “rules” of their behavior. But physics cannot predict the behavior of living organisms, much less an intelligent species, because it does not observe those objects. Because it does not observe them, it cannot deduce the natural laws of their behavior. We must turn instead to the life sciences like biology and physiology and the social sciences like psychology and sociology.
It is not that any laws of physics are ever broken. It is simply that the laws of physics do not cover all of the other laws that apply.
For example, an automobile comes to a stop when the light turns red. Physics cannot tell us WHY this would ever happen. But the clerk at the Division of Motor Vehicles can. The law in this case is a social law that humans create to help manage traffic.
We can continue to assume that all events are reliably caused. But we have to expand our view of causes. And one of the most important causes of human behavior is the mental process of deliberation that runs on the physical structure of the brain. This is commonly known as “free will”.
LikeLike
Thank you for the interesting response! While there is much debate in the philosophy of mind whether mental laws ultimately conform to physical laws, I lean toward the view that consciousness, free will, and intentionality give rise to or fall under a different set of psychophysical laws. (Although my view on this is underdeveloped, and I could be wrong.)
Also, I did not argue that a belief is a “physical state.” I said that certain physical states produce certain beliefs in us. Otherwise I think we agree.
LikeLike