Re: Natural and Supernatural (was Chance and Selection)

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Sat Dec 23 2000 - 22:57:08 EST

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "Natural and Supernatural (was Chance and Selection"

    >I said:
    > >What experience could *rationally* persuade a person that indeterministic
    > >free will exists? The experience of the *lack* of awareness of determining
    > >factors in one's own mental processes? Ah, yes, the old argument from
    > >ignorance raises its (*very*) ugly head again. But, if you are doing what
    > >you choose to do, and if you are choosing according to what you understand,
    > >and if you are acting accordingly, what would be the *difference*,
    > >subjectively, experientially, between indeterministic free will and
    > >deterministic free will? That's right: Absolutely none at all.
    >
    >Bertvan replied:
    >Most people believe in the existence of free will, which according to you is
    >an irrational belief. I understand the reasoning of materialists, and while
    >I differ, I do not call you irrational. If you've never had the experience
    >(of exercising free will), no one can give it to you. You label those who
    >have experienced free will as promoting the "(*very*) ugly old argument from
    >ignorance" -- colorful words to support your own minority held philosophy.
    >You speak of the "*lack* of awareness of determining factors in one's own
    >mental processes." You admit all the determining factors might be unknown,
    >but you have faith that such determining factors exist for every action.
    >Clinging to belief in the existence of unknowns is faith, isn't it? It is a
    >faith I don't share, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to try to impose your
    >faith upon others, would you?

    Chris
    I hope everyone who reads the above notices that Bertvan is once again
    accusing people who merely happen to *disagree* with her of trying to
    *impose* their views on others. Oh, she phrases it as a question, but there
    is *nothing* in what I've said on this or any other topic to justify such
    an insinuative question. Why even bring up such a notion if she is not
    trying to smear me by implicit accusation?

    It is as if, upon reading her claim that "To say that 'whatever a thing is,
    that's what it is' is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard," I
    responded by saying, "You are not planning to kill your mother, are you?"

    Because she has come remarkably close to devoting herself to making such
    claims about non-ID theorists for the past two years, and because of the
    enormous dishonesty of this tactic, I will have more to say on it and it's
    deleterious effects on open and rational discussion in a later post, but
    this should be enough for tonight.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 24 2000 - 00:01:23 EST