If we have self-determination, i.e. a degree of control over our own lives, then why would we not hold practical responsibility for our own actions, even if we’re not ultimately responsible?
Self-determination, "
the process by which a person controls their own life" would only be applicable under the principle of free will, which I reject. So the term is meaningless. People don't have self-determination any more than they have the ability to freely choose. People do what they do because they can't do any differently.
So you endorse the doctrine of necessity? The state of things existing at any time, together with certain immutable laws, completely determine the state of things at any other time?
As a philosophical concept, I've always regarded it as identical to determinism. So, in answer to your question, I have to say, yes. The only caveat would be that the state of things existing at any time could not determine the state of things in the past.
I guess I have trouble explaining some features of the universe in a strictly mechanistic theory. Growth, increasing complexity, variety and diversity of life, origin of natural laws, the mind and consciousness... it just doesn’t seem to work like a machine or clock.
So where does your difficulty in explaining lie? If nothing else, put the operation, whatever it is, in context that requires an explanation of "How?" How did X arise? If X arose "be
cause . . . ," then
that cause operates as the reason for X. And, of course,
that cause had to have something that caused it as well, and so on back down the line of
cause and effect. If X arose without cause then it had to have arisen utterly randomly. And so far nothing in our universe has been determined to have arisen utterly randomly: i.e. totally uncaused.
I can’t help but see chance and spontaneity playing a part.
But wouldn't those instances of chances and spontaneity require a cause? Or do you see them arising for absolutely no reason whatsoever?
Going down the rabbit hole of reality, it seems to have alternating layers of causality and chaos.
Okay, but it's no reason to dismiss determinism.
When I first discovered the truth of determinism it was a bit unsettling, particularly when all its ramifications started popping up, but try as I could, I refused to dismiss it because of those ramifications. Like it or not, there was no compelling rational to dismiss it, least of which was any personal dislike or unease.
.