What Is Man?

[Tassman]

I don't know, what I object to more is materialism. I think there is some good evidence for evolution, at least some form of it, but I don't believe all this is accidental, unplanned or purposeless.

To robrecht:

"Some good evidence!!!" Just listen to yourself. Do you really consider yourself sufficiently qualified to express these reservations about Evolution, given that it's accepted as empirically verified FACT by virtually ALL scientists worldwide.

I guess that by: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutio...oevolution.htm

No reason is given as to why microevolution and macroevolution should be treated as distinct. Except for a religious one, namely: "the belief that humans do not descend from other animals must be maintained. That is the length and the breadth of creationist approaches to evolution. Whatever maintains that belief is acceptable".

In short you're taking the Creationist argument as the default position and defending it, come what may, by dishonest argumentation and pseudo-science.

But evolution has no end goal, it doesn't care if we survive or not. We are just another meaningless species, on a meaningless planet, in an otherwise indifferent universe.

To NormATive

[tabibito]

This is why evolution is striving so hard to rid the planet of fundamentalist theists - before they rid the world of us!

NORM

You're a bit early - that mantra wont be taken up for quite a while yet. But stick around long enough, and you'll get to see the time when it will underpin some rather interesting actions.

[robrecht]

It is not up to me to defend Causal Determinism; it’s supported by considerable evidence and acknowledged as established fact by the majority of experts in the field – as shown numerous times in this thread. Certainly there are problems associated with it but they are being addressed with increasing success by neuroscientists and others. As with all science, it is a work in progress.

Conversely, there is NO scientific evidence supporting libertarian Free Will. NONE! And, if you insist in promoting as fact, what is nothing more than a religious doctrine, it is up to you to defend it with evidence. You are the one making the positive claim that libertarian Free Will exists; the burden of proof rests with you.

To date you have not defended it with any evidence whatsoever other than the entirely subjective assertion that you "feel" like you have Free-Will. Well yes; we ALL do - this is what's meant by the "illusion" of Free-Will. Furthermore we act and make decisions as if we have Free-Will. This is what's meant by ourselves being an active part of the causal stream.

Hence, by merely side-stepping the undeniable fact of Determinism and declaring belief in an immortal soul capable of exercising Free-Will is just an escapist device known in psychology as "Denial" - which is defined as: “An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings”. That's you, seer.

Hi, Tassman. Why not just answer seer's question? In your view is there no moral responsibility for our actions?

[seer]

[I
That’s not what Norm’s saying. He’s saying that organisms which are ill-adapted to the environment tend to become extinct. And, fundamentalist theists, who may well have thrived in tribal settings, are ill-adapted to the international, multi-cultural environment of today. Particularly worrying in that they either have, or are trying to obtain, weapons of mass destruction. Thus, as well as destroying themselves (and good riddance), they may well take the rest of us with them in their insane religious fanaticism.

Tongue-in-cheek of course but with a grain of truth!

But again Tass, if they, or we, are ill-adapted that is only because they were predetermined to be that way. Their "insane religious fanaticism" is the direct result of how the laws of nature determined their character. In your world they would be no more responsible for their actions than the northern chimps that slaughtered the southern chimps. Why can you admit that they are not responsible for their actions?

[Tassman]

Hi, Tassman. Why not just answer seer's question? In your view is there no moral responsibility for our actions?

Hello robrecht.

Been there, done that in the course of the 340+ posts in this thread. I'm awaiting seer’s argument in support of his contrary position, namely libertarian Free Will. Because, despite his persistent habit of reducing ALL Deterministic or Compatabilistic arguments to a naive form of Fatalism, rendering us all automatons, he has yet to justify his preferred alternative.

[Tassman]

But again Tass, if they, or we, are ill-adapted that is only because they were predetermined to be that way. Their "insane religious fanaticism" is the direct result of how the laws of nature determined their character. In your world they would be no more responsible for their actions than the northern chimps that slaughtered the southern chimps. Why can you admit that they are not responsible for their actions?

[robrecht]

OK, so rejecting a view of fatalistic authomatons, you do assert moral responsibilty for our actions. Is that correct?

[tabibito]

It is not up to me to defend Causal Determinism; it’s supported by considerable evidence and acknowledged as established fact by the majority of experts in the field – as shown numerous times in this thread.

Last I heard, the researchers noted a possibility early in their research, but in their published conclusions declared that to be uncertain. That is, the conclusions of the actual researchers engaged in the actual studies, found the evidence to be inconclusive.
While early results did show a possibility, and early notes noted the possibility, the final papers did not return a conclusive result.
So - unless new studies with different results have been published ... I'll regard the claim made above as somewhat specious.

[seer]

Hello robrecht.

Been there, done that in the course of the 340+ posts in this thread. I'm awaiting seer’s argument in support of his contrary position, namely libertarian Free Will. Because, despite his persistent habit of reducing ALL Deterministic or Compatabilistic arguments to a naive form of Fatalism, rendering us all automatons, he has yet to justify his preferred alternative.

Sorry Tass, you are fudging, you have skirted around this question time and time again. How could we be responsible for our choices if your hard determinism is correct? Are we not just as determined in our behavior as the northern chimpanzees that slaughtered the southern chimpanzees? Are they morally responsible for their acts? I mean how many times have you told in in this thread that our acts are just as determined as the monkey that picks and eats the banana? I mean what is in you Tass, that is preventing you from admitting the logical conclusion of your hard determinism? That men are no more morally culpable than the chimps?

[seer]

OK, so rejecting a view of fatalistic authomatons, you do assert moral responsibilty for our actions. Is that correct?

He may assert it robrecht, but it can not logically follow from his position of hard determinism.

[shunyadragon]

OK, so rejecting a view of fatalistic authomatons, you do assert moral responsibilty for our actions. Is that correct?

Tassman persists in holding to an extreme causal determinist position, but I am not sure how far seer goes to the opposite end of the spectrum of an autonomous libertarian free will position. I do hold to the middle ground for something resembling a compatipabilist position. I do believe that 'Free Will' is limited to 'potential 'Free Will,' where for the most part humans live a causal determinist life. We have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

[shunyadragon]

He may assert it robrecht, but it can not logically follow from his position of hard determinism.

Do you support a hard autonomous libertarian 'Free Will' position.

[tabibito]

But while those studies of which I am aware do find the matter inconclusive, the possibility can't be denied that later studies might in fact return conclusive results in favour of Tassman's arguments.
Those arguments certainly fit more comfortably with Biblical teachings about the natural man than does the concept of free will.

[Tassman]

OK, so rejecting a view of fatalistic authomatons, you do assert moral responsibilty for our actions. Is that correct?

[Tassman]

Sorry Tass, you are fudging, you have skirted around this question time and time again. How could we be responsible for our choices if your hard determinism is correct? Are we not just as determined in our behavior as the northern chimpanzees that slaughtered the southern chimpanzees? Are they morally responsible for their acts? I mean how many times have you told in in this thread that our acts are just as determined as the monkey that picks and eats the banana? I mean what is in you Tass, that is preventing you from admitting the logical conclusion of your hard determinism? That men are no more morally culpable than the chimps?

Sorry seer, but it is you avoiding the question time and time again.

It is undeniable that the physical cosmos, and everything in it, is the outcome of causes and effects from the very beginning and that humans (and human choices) can only be the result of earlier causes, despite our seeming Certainly there are problems with Determinism in any of its forms, but it is a logical position and supported by evidence. Conversely, outside of biblical mythology, there is nothing supporting your libertarian position at all..

So, answer the question if you can. What evidential support do you have for Free-Will as you understand it to be?