Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Determinism has its own website!

8 comments:

SteveK said...

Reminds me of this quote....

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” [C.S. Lewis quoting Prof. J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds, Chatto & Windus: London, 1927, p. 209]

TD Hinkle said...

Surely, determinism has better spokesmen. The 'axioms' and questions answered pages are pretty hilarious.

Ilíon said...

So, these people trying to persuade others to *assume* the truth of the belief that "all of man's behavior, thoughts and feelings, are forced by various stimuli impinging upon him" ... and they don't see the inherent absurdity of this?


Also, what an interesting mis-quote in their header: "You shall seek the truth, and the truth shall make your free."

Ilíon said...

Travis: "Surely, determinism has better spokesmen."

Wouldn't matter. *Any* spokesman for determinism will be engaging in absurdity merely by being a spokesman for determinism.

Tim said...

Travis,

Go easy on them. They can't help it. ;)

Anonymous said...

Determinism has its own web site?

Well, it would do, wouldn't it?

Edwardtbabinski said...

I suppose none of you guys are Calvinists?

Not that I'm one, but just that there's some crossover between determinism and Calvinism.

There's also non-dualist Christian philosophers who believe that the mind-brain question has a monistic answer and that "libertarian free will" does not exist. So, have fun debating this and other topics with fellow Christians.

As for "freewill" in general, please someone tell me how it works. If absolutely nothing influences free choices, and if there are no factors that can prevent a person from completely changing his choice "at will," then on what basis is a free choice made? Reason? Then an accumulation of knowledge and experience combined with memory and forethought influence the choices we make and something in that long reasoning process is tipping the scale "feather-like" in the direction of one way or another, so the limitations of each person's knowledge, experience and reasoning ability is then a DECIDING INFLUENCE. And we're back to determinism.

Of course if God knows all choices then what exactly is a "human decision" anyway, since God both knew it and knows it and there's no getting round it? Again, we're back to determinism.

Philosophizing about the big questions coats the floor with rationalizations like six coats of wax. Please don't slip on your way out of Vic's world of Christian beliefs (that you must believe in fact or suffer eternal judgment, though Vic has philosophized his way round that as well).

And please, if you peek behind the metaphysical curtain and are absolutely certain of what you saw there, please accept that there are others equally as sure, called philosophers, who are willing to chew the fat with you till doomsday.

I've also explained the flaws in Vic's AFR at this blog innumerable times.

See also my online piece, "C. S. Lewis and the Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism"

Edward T. Babinski (editor of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists)

Ilíon said...

E.Babinski:"As for "freewill" in general, please someone tell me how it works. ... And we're back to determinism.

Of course if God knows all choices then what exactly is a "human decision" anyway, since God both knew it and knows it and there's no getting round it? Again, we're back to determinism.

Philosophizing about the big questions coats the floor with rationalizations like six coats of wax. ...

I've also explained the flaws in Vic's AFR at this blog innumerable times.
"

Mr Babinski,
Don't you find it at least amusing (I assure you, I do!) that you seem to imagine you've done anything at all, much less that you should imagine that you've "also explained the flaws in Vic's AFR at this blog innumerable times?"

For, after all, you could have done nothing but what you did do (whatever that might have been). And now, you can do nothing but assert that you've "also explained the flaws in Vic's AFR at this blog innumerable times," regardless of whether you actually have done this even once.

Because, after all, "we're back to determinism."

And you're a blow-hard slipping on the waxy build-up of his own rationalizations.