Most participants on this site are religious to some extent and most seem to be Christians. Most Christians believe in libertarian free will. That is, they reject determinism, are incompatibilists, and believe that our will, mind, and consciousness is not determined by anything and are free to choose any number of possible courses of action. Libertarian free will requires at least 3 things:
(1) We are in control of our will
(2) our mind is causally effective
(3) in the same situation we could have done otherwise
This view is popular among lay people but not among scientists and philosophers. Why is this? It's because libertarian free will is incoherent.
One simple question to ask the libertarian is: do our thoughts have causes? Yes or no?
If our thoughts have causes, what ever caused that can't be our will or our mind, because our thoughts are our will and mind. Saying that the soul causes the thoughts just pushes the issue back one step further, because the question now becomes, does the soul have a cause? If it does, then what ever caused it can't be the soul or the mind or the will, it has to be something other. And once you have that, you are essentially admitting that your will is not truly free, since it has a cause that is not us and that we cannot control.
If our thoughts do not have causes, then you are saying that it begins to exist without a cause. This could violate the kalam cosmological argument's first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause) and would essentially falsify it. If our thoughts had no cause they would be totally random fluctuations and it would be a mere coincidence that they had any connection to the physical world or reality.
On top of that, the ability to choose your thoughts is logically impossible. You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be. In order to do that, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. If you can't choose your next thought, or any of your thoughts, how is your will or mind controlled by you, and in what sense is it free? It isn't. Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.
Right now I'm only asking for a justification of (1) above. (2) and (3) is a whole other argument that only adds to the difficulty the libertarian has.
So what's a libertarian free will believer to do? Here are some typical nonstarter responses:
1. If we don't have free will moral responsibility goes out the window!
This is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. The undesirable consequences of a thing say nothing about whether it is false. For example, creationists will often say, "If we evolved then we're just animals. I don't like that, so evolution is false." This is a fallacious way of reasoning. The undesirability of being related to monkeys says nothing about whether evolution is true.
2. If we don't have free will rationality goes out the window!
This is similar to an appeal to consequences but not quite. If libertarian free will itself is not coherent and its coherency cannot be established, then you cannot claim that without it there is no rationality. You'd be arguing from a square-circle.
Basically, I want to challenge all believers in libertarian free will to make a positive argument for the coherency of libertarian free will. I don't need every single detail explained, I just need you to show how it is even logically coherent and not self-refuting. Or, admit that you can't. So who is up to the challenge? I want respondents to focus on the positive argument for LFW, not fallacious appeals to consequences.
(1) We are in control of our will
(2) our mind is causally effective
(3) in the same situation we could have done otherwise
This view is popular among lay people but not among scientists and philosophers. Why is this? It's because libertarian free will is incoherent.
One simple question to ask the libertarian is: do our thoughts have causes? Yes or no?
If our thoughts have causes, what ever caused that can't be our will or our mind, because our thoughts are our will and mind. Saying that the soul causes the thoughts just pushes the issue back one step further, because the question now becomes, does the soul have a cause? If it does, then what ever caused it can't be the soul or the mind or the will, it has to be something other. And once you have that, you are essentially admitting that your will is not truly free, since it has a cause that is not us and that we cannot control.
If our thoughts do not have causes, then you are saying that it begins to exist without a cause. This could violate the kalam cosmological argument's first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause) and would essentially falsify it. If our thoughts had no cause they would be totally random fluctuations and it would be a mere coincidence that they had any connection to the physical world or reality.
On top of that, the ability to choose your thoughts is logically impossible. You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be. In order to do that, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. If you can't choose your next thought, or any of your thoughts, how is your will or mind controlled by you, and in what sense is it free? It isn't. Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.
Right now I'm only asking for a justification of (1) above. (2) and (3) is a whole other argument that only adds to the difficulty the libertarian has.
So what's a libertarian free will believer to do? Here are some typical nonstarter responses:
1. If we don't have free will moral responsibility goes out the window!
This is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. The undesirable consequences of a thing say nothing about whether it is false. For example, creationists will often say, "If we evolved then we're just animals. I don't like that, so evolution is false." This is a fallacious way of reasoning. The undesirability of being related to monkeys says nothing about whether evolution is true.
2. If we don't have free will rationality goes out the window!
This is similar to an appeal to consequences but not quite. If libertarian free will itself is not coherent and its coherency cannot be established, then you cannot claim that without it there is no rationality. You'd be arguing from a square-circle.
Basically, I want to challenge all believers in libertarian free will to make a positive argument for the coherency of libertarian free will. I don't need every single detail explained, I just need you to show how it is even logically coherent and not self-refuting. Or, admit that you can't. So who is up to the challenge? I want respondents to focus on the positive argument for LFW, not fallacious appeals to consequences.
Comment