Re: Does No-Free-Willism Allow for Rational Thought?
- Chris and others have done a thorough job refuting yet another spurious claim that nature is not enough to produce the things we want, in this case rational thought. Add this to the list of things we would supposedly not have were it not for the supernatural: morality, consciousness, volition, beauty, art, love, etc. We naturalists continue to explain how all these things not only don't require the supernatural, they positively thrive once the fog of supernatural belief starts to lift from people's minds. Naturalists behave as morally as anyone, have conscious, rational thoughts, get themselves out of bed and go to work, produce and appreciate art and beauty, and love. Some of us even love some supernaturalists, and some of them love some of us back.
Knowing is natural, thinking is natural, wanting, loving, creating, all natural, all the time, no reason to suspect anything else. Even the compulsion by some supernaturalists to argue against naturalism, and our compulsion to refute them, is entirely natural.
- --- In email@example.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
> Agreed exclaiming that an assertion looks frankly ridiculous is not an argment of any value but what if you asked me does no lochness monsterism allow for rational thought?As a Loch-Ness Monsterist I resent that example!
Ken (not really a Loch-Ness-Monsterist)
- If free will is the ability to make a choice that is not determined by prior causes, then free will would be unable to make a choice, because the very options which free will has to choose from will ultimately condition the final choice.
Since free will is conditioned it is not free will, however, that does not mean that one does not have the power to make a choice. One can condition the mind not to grasp at everything that arises in it, which would allow one a great deal of freedom to pick and choose the causes of ones future conditioning.
If rational thought is the ability to make connections between various phenomena which result in knowledge, it is clear that rational thought is also conditioned by the objects of thought.
It is interesting how a simple premise influences and conditions a conclusion.
So now that I have opened my can of worms, on to your question,
"But how would a naturalist discriminate between rational thought and irrational thought if the person doing the discriminating is himself simply the result of causal events that he is not even aware of?"
A naturalist would condition himself or herself to use common sense.
Thats my half baked idea of it any way, and I like soft cookies.