Brent: I stopped short (but violated this rule many times ) from arguing
against the fallacies included in the age-old 'religious' belief systems.
The reason: one irate response took me to task: "who gave me superiority
over HIS (and other's) belief?" He was hurt and I don't like to hurt
Sometimes I cannot resist the urge to 'tell' my opinion, - human weakness.
I mostly foul up when I see the fallacy reaching into reigious-based
political powermongery. Like the FREE WILL. Or contrtaception,
Lately I turn less patient and become more irritated. Maybe my age?
Best regards
John M

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb <> wrote:

> On 9/30/2013 2:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> Let me give an example: Free will.
>> That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the
>> consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever
>> considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental
>> philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable.
>> That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no
>> doubt about it.
> Greek philosophers considered whether the gods pulled our strings like
> pupeteers, at least occasionally.  But of course they didn't consider
> clockwork determinism - that came after Newton.
>> The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all
>> omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human
>> being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is
>> evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism
>> and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will.
> It isn't really clear that it's compatible.  If God both foresees bad
> action and fails to prevent it, then he fails the test of omnibenevolence.
>> That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but
>> the idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the
>> Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what
>> is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was
>> defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of
>> an omnipotent God.
> The trouble is that contra-causal free will is not evident.  What is
> evident is a certain feeling and unpredictability (even by oneself).
>  To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims and christian
>> reformists  entered in different forms of fatalism and negation of the
>> primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the notion of free
>> will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked nature. (Although
>> the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social starvation that
>> the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world).
>> That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of
>> the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is
>> evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not
>> get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited
>> knowledge is a dogma.
> I don't know who maintains that!?  Can you cite where this "dogma" is
> written.  The idea that free will is a kind of unpredictability, per Scott
> Aaronson or Bruno, explicitly depend on the limited knowledge of human
> beings.
>  It  is necessary to redefine free will as something different, for
>> example as some unpredictability as a result of some process in the brain.
>>   Here is were the discussions about free will  are reduced today.
>> Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According
>> with the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will.
> It may be evident that we have "it", but it's not evident what "it" is.
>  As JC notes nobody seems to have a definition of it.  To me, that implies
> we need to look for an operational definition - which is where absence of
> coercion and unpredictable come in.  These are not very definite, since
> they admit of degrees, but they are in fact what social policy relies on.
>  All the rest, including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the
>> other way around.
> The trouble is "this fact" just refers to a personal feeling and so is
> useless for social policy: "Did you feel that you had free will when you
> shot your husband?"
> Brent
>   The negation of this is not only to twist the concepts and to reverse
>> the order of science, that normally goes from evidence to theory, but it
>> can also have grave social consequences.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to 
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**<>
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<>
> .
> Visit this group at 
> .
> For more options, visit 
> .

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to