Moderator please note: I am reposting because my initial thread was hijacked by a third-party debate on free will. Thank you for your understanding.
Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at the following link:
<a href=“https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing”>
In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.
I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.
I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.
Enjoy!
:lol: Ha Ha!
A conversation about Meatball Calzones could easily transmogrify into a discussion about Free-will around here.
That’s not necessarily a good or bad thing.
:lol: Ha Ha! A conversation about Meatball Calzones could easily transmogrify into a discussion about Free-will around here. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing.All roads lead to a discussion about free will. Lois
:lol: Ha Ha! A conversation about Meatball Calzones could easily transmogrify into a discussion about Free-will around here. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing.All roads lead to a discussion about free will. Lois I take it you catch the double meaning in your statement here? Or the play on words. Clever. Very clever!
While Doug is more gentle, I’d like to see one of those censorship programs that block profanity attached here so I could add free-will and determinism to the “nasty” words list. 
Sorry Phil, but many of the threads get hijacked. It depends on how interested the members are in discussing the topic, and that has to do with how challenging the initial post is and how much information it gives. Few members have the time or motivation to follow links and read dissertations. If you really want discussion, write a one or two paragraph summary of your subject and post it.
P.S. If you changed the second ph to an f, why didn’t you change the first? :lol:
Occam
While Doug is more gentle, I'd like to see one of those censorship programs that block profanity attached here so I could add free-will and determinism to the "nasty" words list. :) Sorry Phil, but many of the threads get hijacked. It depends on how interested the members are in discussing the topic, and that has to do with how challenging the initial post is and how much information it gives. Few members have the time or motivation to follow links and read dissertations. If you really want discussion, write a one or two paragraph summary of your subject and post it. P.S. If you changed the second ph to an f, why didn't you change the first? :lol: OccamHow is that if a thread moves in another direction it means the OP was hijacked? It simply evolved. Lois
True Lois, but I guess the difference is that as a thread moves away from the OP, the original poster sees it as being hijacked while those who were less interested in that than in some other approach see it as evolving.
It’s just that I cringe at how often the free-will/determinism debate takes over all sorts of OP topics.
Occam
True Lois, but I guess the difference is that as a thread moves away from the OP, the original poster sees it as being hijacked while those who were less interested in that than in some other approach see it as evolving. It's just that I cringe at how often the free-will/determinism debate takes over all sorts of OP topics. OccamI can see that some people may think it gets out of hand sometimes, but if you are a hard determinist, you realize that nearly every topic can be seen from a deterministic viewpoint. Everything starts to look more rational, IMO. I find I'm able to come to an understanding of how the universe, the world and humanity functions. It leads to less stress, less anger and fewer unanswerable questions about at how and why things happen. I am a much calmer and understanding person since I embraced the idea of determinism. Of course, I also know that no one can be encouraged embrace dererminism if they aren't led do it by their determining factors. But I think that discussing it may act as one more factor that might bring people to an understanding and acceptance of it. IMO, the world would be a better place with more hard determinists in it. Lois
I’m so accustomed to documents that are full of holes it’s refreshing to see something like this. It seems you’ve managed to synthesize the Sermon the Mount with Buddhism and Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. I don’t mean that sarcastically, that movie ends with “try not hurt anyone and read a book now and then”.
I really like the outline layout. I could skim it and see if there was something glaringly problematic (which I haven’t seen yet). The devil can be in the details. Hopefully I’ll have some more time for it.
I'm so accustomed to documents that are full of holes it's refreshing to see something like this. It seems you've managed to synthesize the Sermon the Mount with Buddhism and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. I don't mean that sarcastically, that movie ends with "try not hurt anyone and read a book now and then". I really like the outline layout. I could skim it and see if there was something glaringly problematic (which I haven't seen yet). The devil can be in the details. Hopefully I'll have some more time for it.Thank you, Lausten. If you do decide to read the document more closely, I welcome any feedback you may have.
True Lois, but I guess the difference is that as a thread moves away from the OP, the original poster sees it as being hijacked while those who were less interested in that than in some other approach see it as evolving. It's just that I cringe at how often the free-will/determinism debate takes over all sorts of OP topics. OccamI can see that some people may think it gets out of hand sometimes, but if you are a hard determinist, you realize that nearly every topic can be seen from a deterministic viewpoint. Everything starts to look more rational, IMO. I find I'm able to come to an understanding of how the universe, the world and humanity functions. It leads to less stress, less anger and fewer unanswerable questions about at how and why things happen. I am a much calmer and understanding person since I embraced the idea of determinism. Of course, I also know that no one can be encouraged embrace dererminism if they aren't led do it by their determining factors. But I think that discussing it may act as one more factor that might bring people to an understanding and acceptance of it. IMO, the world would be a better place with more hard determinists in it. Lois Yes Lois, It's so odd how people who are generally skeptics, like Occam, just don't get this. Talk about the benefits of disbelief in gods, alternative medicine e.t.c and they get it Talk about the benefits of disbelief in libertarian free will and their attitude is very different. Stephen
I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have. Enjoy!In your section on "atheism," you invite confusion with your description of ineffective arguments for theism. Any argument that works is effective, of course. You go on to describe, in effect, your stance that you find anti-theistic arguments more persuasive. I'll read further (my time today is short), but it's hard for me to tell whether you've engaged ideas of a free will theodicy, one that proposes a necessity for permitting individually non-necessary (and otherwise gratuitous) evil. Your mention of the existence of suffering that is not "logically" needed as a convincing point in favor of atheism gives rise to this question on my part. Perhaps your position assumes hard determinism and I missed that by not reading the earlier derailment thread. Thanks for posting this. It's got me to thinking where we draw the line between the requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the fallacy of personal incredulity. Is there a clear and objective line of demarcation, in your opinion?
I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have. Enjoy!In your section on "atheism," you invite confusion with your description of ineffective arguments for theism. Any argument that works is effective, of course. You go on to describe, in effect, your stance that you find anti-theistic arguments more persuasive. I'll read further (my time today is short), but it's hard for me to tell whether you've engaged ideas of a free will theodicy, one that proposes a necessity for permitting individually non-necessary (and otherwise gratuitous) evil. Your mention of the existence of suffering that is not "logically" needed as a convincing point in favor of atheism gives rise to this question on my part. Perhaps your position assumes hard determinism and I missed that by not reading the earlier derailment thread. Thanks for posting this. It's got me to thinking where we draw the line between the requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the fallacy of personal incredulity. Is there a clear and objective line of demarcation, in your opinion? Thanks for your initial comments and questions, Bryan. With respect to the various arguments for theism, the latest version of my document simply refers the reader to the recommended readings on atheism, which contain detailed refutations of the those arguments. Each of the recommended readings discusses the free will theodicy at length. I am not a hard determinist. I define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility, and the regress argument that I present works regardless of whether determinism is true. Your question regarding the tension between the fallacy of incredulity and the requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is an interesting and difficult one. I do not believe that there is a clear line of demarcation; the distinction must be drawn on a case-by-case basis. Note that my positions invoking the latter requirement--atheism and moral skepticism--consist of claims of implausibility rather than outright denial, so I believe that I do not commit the fallacy of incredulity. I look forward to any further comments you may have after reading further.
With respect to the various arguments for theism, the latest version of my document simply refers the reader to the recommended readings on atheism, which contain detailed refutations of the those arguments. Each of the recommended readings discusses the free will theodicy at length. I am not a hard determinist. I define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility, and the regress argument that I present works regardless of whether determinism is true.I'd say the Strawsonesque argument you present does presume determinism, albeit not classical (hard) determinism. (This was ill-phrased, I'm afraid:) The presumption of determinism is found in the proposition that an entity must be ultimately responsible for the mental state leading to a given free will action (Strawson equivocates on Kane's description of free will).
Note that my positions invoking the latter requirement--atheism and moral skepticism--consist of claims of implausibility rather than outright denial, so I believe that I do not commit the fallacy of incredulity.I'd buy it if the line between charging implausibility and simply denying it was the line of demarcation. But if the line is blurry I don't know if I should buy it or not. Which I suppose makes me incredulous. ;-) I agree that we're probably not guilty of a fallacy in this.
I look forward to any further comments you may have after reading further.I reminded myself to look into your reason for writing, since considering your intended audience has bearing on a well-considered critique. I found your stated reason fascinating. I'm a theist (don't know if you gleaned that from my member page), and it has long been my contention that the primary obstacle (to popularization) facing the various flavors of atheism comes from the challenge of presenting a coherent system of ethics consistent with atheism. From the metaethical basis provided by your atheism, why do you need to advise yourself on how to live? Doesn't denying moral realism free you from the need to bother with reminding yourself to live a certain way?
With respect to the various arguments for theism, the latest version of my document simply refers the reader to the recommended readings on atheism, which contain detailed refutations of the those arguments. Each of the recommended readings discusses the free will theodicy at length. I am not a hard determinist. I define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility, and the regress argument that I present works regardless of whether determinism is true.I'd say the Strawsonesque argument you present does presume determinism, albeit not classical (hard) determinism. (This was ill-phrased, I'm afraid:) The presumption of determinism is found in the proposition that an entity must be ultimately responsible for the mental state leading to a given free will action (Strawson equivocates on Kane's description of free will). How does "the proposition that an entity must be ultimately responsible for the mental state leading to a given free will action" presume determinism?
In the case of theism, what is being postulated is the existence of the theistic God, will all of his unique and amazing attributes. Such a claim is clearly extraordinary, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.Note that my positions invoking the latter requirement--atheism and moral skepticism--consist of claims of implausibility rather than outright denial, so I believe that I do not commit the fallacy of incredulity.I'd buy it if the line between charging implausibility and simply denying it was the line of demarcation. But if the line is blurry I don't know if I should buy it or not. Which I suppose makes me incredulous. ;-) I agree that we're probably not guilty of a fallacy in this.
Not at all. My negative hedonism is derived, in part, from my moral skepticism. My negative hedonism is based on rational considerations, not moral ones. And once negative hedonism is established, advising myself on how to achieve and maintain peace of mind makes perfect sense.I look forward to any further comments you may have after reading further.Doesn't denying moral realism free you from the need to bother with reminding yourself to live a certain way?
How does "the proposition that an entity must be ultimately responsible for the mental state leading to a given free will action" presume determinism?I'm glad you asked. Like I said, I phrased that poorly. Strawson's expression of Kane's definition implies determinism as a prerequisite for free will, and of course Strawson dismisses the possibility based on a regress that reduces everything to luck. But that's a misrepresentation of Kane's view of free will.
In the case of theism, what is being postulated is the existence of the theistic God, will all of his unique and amazing attributes. Such a claim is clearly extraordinary, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.If it's clearly extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence then why do so many people believe in a god or gods? Given the prevalence of god-belief, it is an extraordinary claim that we require extraordinary evidence for the existence of god. The burden of proof issue developed as a technique to get atheists off the hook for a set of very difficult arguments. Here's how the burden of proof ought to work: Anyone who wants someone to share their beliefs about anything should be willing to bear the burden of proof for convincing them. And anyone is free (using the term advisedly!) to have their own standard of proof--hopefully applied consistently. There is no metaphysical rule requiring extraordinary evidence for claims deemed extraordinary. But you're welcome to make that rule your own if you wish.
Doesn't denying moral realism free you from the need to bother with reminding yourself to live a certain way?Not at all. My negative hedonism is derived, in part, from my moral skepticism. My negative hedonism is based on rational considerations, not moral ones. And once negative hedonism is established, advising myself on how to achieve and maintain peace of mind makes perfect sense. Okay. But that kind of makes you kind of like a hard-core would-be dictator fighting against your tendency to act in ways that do not lead to peace of mind. By Strawson's view, it's entirely luck whether or not you choose to achieve the ends you're expressing. I think in your shoes I'd feel Nihilism nipping at my heels.
How does "the proposition that an entity must be ultimately responsible for the mental state leading to a given free will action" presume determinism?I'm glad you asked. Like I said, I phrased that poorly. Strawson's expression of Kane's definition implies determinism as a prerequisite for free will, and of course Strawson dismisses the possibility based on a regress that reduces everything to luck. But that's a misrepresentation of Kane's view of free will. You have not answered my question. How does the regress argument presume determinism? Even if it is true that the argument implies that determinism is required for free will, that does not amount to an overall presumption of determinism. Additionally, why would it matter if Strawson does not agree with Kane's view of free will? But most importantly, can you show that the regress argument is not sound? To do so, you must either show that at least one of its premises is not necessarily true, or that the premises do not logically entail the conclusion.
There are plausible naturalistic accounts of the rise and propagation of religion. Also, people of different religions believe in different types of gods, and what is at issue is whether a particular type of God--the God of classical theism--exists. Additionally, the fact that many people believe in the existence of the theistic God is not a persuasive argument for his existence--compare to the widespread historical belief that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. What matters is why people believe--is their belief based on sound arguments and credible evidence, or on other factors such as social conditioning, the desire for justice, or the fear of death? If the former, then the arguments and evidence should be presented.In the case of theism, what is being postulated is the existence of the theistic God, will all of his unique and amazing attributes. Such a claim is clearly extraordinary, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.If it's clearly extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence then why do so many people believe in a god or gods? Given the prevalence of god-belief, it is an extraordinary claim that we require extraordinary evidence for the existence of god.
The burden of proof issue developed as a technique to get atheists off the hook for a set of very difficult arguments. Here's how the burden of proof ought to work: Anyone who wants someone to share their beliefs about anything should be willing to bear the burden of proof for convincing them. And anyone is free (using the term advisedly!) to have their own standard of proof--hopefully applied consistently. There is no metaphysical rule requiring extraordinary evidence for claims deemed extraordinary. But you're welcome to make that rule your own if you wish.There may be no metaphysical rule requiring extraordinary evidence for claims deemed extraordinary, but in my view, such evidence is required for doxastic rationality. That said, I feel that the arguments and evidence provide strong support for atheism, regardless of who bears the burden of proof. If you disagree, feel free to try to refute the atheological arguments summarized in the document. Also, if you feel that there are any persuasive arguments for theism, please lay them out and we can discuss.
Doesn't denying moral realism free you from the need to bother with reminding yourself to live a certain way?Not at all. My negative hedonism is derived, in part, from my moral skepticism. My negative hedonism is based on rational considerations, not moral ones. And once negative hedonism is established, advising myself on how to achieve and maintain peace of mind makes perfect sense. Okay. But that kind of makes you kind of like a hard-core would-be dictator fighting against your tendency to act in ways that do not lead to peace of mind. By Strawson's view, it's entirely luck whether or not you choose to achieve the ends you're expressing. I think in your shoes I'd feel Nihilism nipping at my heels. I agree that it is entirely a matter of luck whether or not I choose to achieve the ends that I am expressing. And I feel fortunate that I have so chosen, and that I have been successful. My views are very close to nihilism--both moral and existential--and I am perfectly comfortable with that. Like many nihilists, I find my views liberating, as they enable me to pursue happiness with no external constraints. But so I will not be misunderstood, let me point out that my philosophy does take empathy into account, as discussed in the section on negative hedonism.
You have not answered my question.I addressed your question. I'm not going to defend the notion that the regress argument presumes determinism, which I have clearly admitted was a poorly-phrased statement. I have explained what I intended to express.
Additionally, why would it matter if Strawson does not agree with Kane's view of free will?It matters because you're basing your regression argument on Strawson's argument which, in turn, attacks a straw man version of Kane's definition of free will. You want an argument that attacks the best the opposition can offer, not straw men set up for the toppling.
But most importantly, can you show that the regress argument is not sound? To do so, you must either show that at least one of its premises is not necessarily true, or that the premises do not logically entail the conclusion.I'd argue that Kane sets the bar unnecessarily high for free will. If entity y can choose either x or ~x options and does so with a reasonable expectation of outcomes then the choice is free. It doesn't matter whether the entity was created entirely by another. Strawson would argue that the outcome is luck if it is not causally determined, but as we can see, Strawson reduces *everything* to luck. If everything is luck no matter what it is then luck ceases to mean anything.
If it's clearly extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence then why do so many people believe in a god or gods? Given the prevalence of god-belief, it is an extraordinary claim that we require extraordinary evidence for the existence of god.There are plausible naturalistic accounts of the rise and propagation of religion. Also, people of different religions believe in different types of gods, and what is at issue is whether a particular type of God--the God of classical theism--exists. Additionally, the fact that many people believe in the existence of the theistic God is not a persuasive argument for his existence--compare to the widespread historical belief that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. What matters is why people believe--is their belief based on sound arguments and credible evidence, or on other factors such as social conditioning, the desire for justice, or the fear of death? If the former, then the arguments and evidence should be presented. You're starting to sound like a moral realist. Are you saying that people ought to have sound arguments and credible reasons for their beliefs? Come on. It's just luck, isn't it? You could change your mind tomorrow about what it takes for you to believe in a god or gods.
There may be no metaphysical rule requiring extraordinary evidence for claims deemed extraordinary, but in my view, such evidence is required for doxastic rationality.Ought we to strive for doxastic rationality?
That said, I feel that the arguments and evidence provide strong support for atheism, regardless of who bears the burden of proof. If you disagree, feel free to try to refute the atheological arguments summarized in the document. Also, if you feel that there are any persuasive arguments for theism, please lay them out and we can discuss.I don't see any point in that at present, unless I'm doing that for the sake of other readers. You've identified yourself as one who will require extraordinary evidence to belief in a god or gods. If I'm smart I look to drop that barrier down to something more approaching a reasonable set of evidences. And instead of attacking individual arguments piecemeal, I'm leaning more toward the approach of prodding your philosophical statement for consistency. I do think it's odd to produce a statement like yours to remind one's self of how one ought to act. I'd expect it to serve more as a framework for inviting discussion, which is how you're now poised to use it. Who knows? If you're without a coherent philosophy perhaps luck will have you grab classical theism as the most appealing life-preserver here among the whitecaps.
I agree that it is entirely a matter of luck whether or not I choose to achieve the ends that I am expressing. And I feel fortunate that I have so chosen, and that I have been successful. My views are very close to nihilism--both moral and existential--and I am perfectly comfortable with that. Like many nihilists, I find my views liberating, as they enable me to pursue happiness with no external constraints. But so I will not be misunderstood, let me point out that my philosophy does take empathy into account, as discussed in the section on negative hedonism.Why bother with empathy? Doesn't positing the existence of other minds parallel the error of classical theists in believing in unnecessarily multiplied entities?
You have not answered my question.I addressed your question. I'm not going to defend the notion that the regress argument presumes determinism, which I have clearly admitted was a poorly-phrased statement. I have explained what I intended to express. All right, you have answered my question--the regress argument does not presume determinism. I will move on.
The regress argument shows that free will--in the way in which I define it--is impossible. As you know, I define free will as "that which is sufficient for one to be ultimately responsible for one's intentional actions". It is this definition which is relevant to my philosophy, because showing it to be impossible renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions (see bottom of page 6 of the document), which strongly conduces to peace of mind.Additionally, why would it matter if Strawson does not agree with Kane's view of free will?It matters because you're basing your regression argument on Strawson's argument which, in turn, attacks a straw man version of Kane's definition of free will. You want an argument that attacks the best the opposition can offer, not straw men set up for the toppling.
I have now explained why I use my definition of free will. Your version of free will is a compatibilist one, which is irrelevant to my philosophy.But most importantly, can you show that the regress argument is not sound? To do so, you must either show that at least one of its premises is not necessarily true, or that the premises do not logically entail the conclusion.I'd argue that Kane sets the bar unnecessarily high for free will. If entity y can choose either x or ~x options and does so with a reasonable expectation of outcomes then the choice is free. It doesn't matter whether the entity was created entirely by another. Strawson would argue that the outcome is luck if it is not causally determined, but as we can see, Strawson reduces *everything* to luck. If everything is luck no matter what it is then luck ceases to mean anything.
If it's clearly extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence then why do so many people believe in a god or gods? Given the prevalence of god-belief, it is an extraordinary claim that we require extraordinary evidence for the existence of god.There are plausible naturalistic accounts of the rise and propagation of religion. Also, people of different religions believe in different types of gods, and what is at issue is whether a particular type of God--the God of classical theism--exists. Additionally, the fact that many people believe in the existence of the theistic God is not a persuasive argument for his existence--compare to the widespread historical belief that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. What matters is why people believe--is their belief based on sound arguments and credible evidence, or on other factors such as social conditioning, the desire for justice, or the fear of death? If the former, then the arguments and evidence should be presented. You're starting to sound like a moral realist. Are you saying that people ought to have sound arguments and credible reasons for their beliefs? Come on. It's just luck, isn't it? You could change your mind tomorrow about what it takes for you to believe in a god or gods. I am saying that one can be rational only if one has sound arguments and credible reasons for one's beliefs. This has nothing to do with my metaethical views.
Without doxastic rationality, we cannot have a meaningful conversation. And in practice, doxastic irrationality could be disastrous. Again, this has nothing to do with my metaethical views.There may be no metaphysical rule requiring extraordinary evidence for claims deemed extraordinary, but in my view, such evidence is required for doxastic rationality.Ought we to strive for doxastic rationality?
OK, so you are not willing to discuss the arguments. You are welcome to prod my philosophy for consistency.That said, I feel that the arguments and evidence provide strong support for atheism, regardless of who bears the burden of proof. If you disagree, feel free to try to refute the atheological arguments summarized in the document. Also, if you feel that there are any persuasive arguments for theism, please lay them out and we can discuss.I don't see any point in that at present, unless I'm doing that for the sake of other readers. You've identified yourself as one who will require extraordinary evidence to belief in a god or gods. If I'm smart I look to drop that barrier down to something more approaching a reasonable set of evidences. And instead of attacking individual arguments piecemeal, I'm leaning more toward the approach of prodding your philosophical statement for consistency. I do think it's odd to produce a statement like yours to remind one's self of how one ought to act. I'd expect it to serve more as a framework for inviting discussion, which is how you're now poised to use it.
Who knows? If you're without a coherent philosophy perhaps luck will have you grab classical theism as the most appealing life-preserver here among the whitecaps.Ah, but I am not without a coherent philosophy. And you seem to be implying that classical theism is unphilosophical. I suppose this is not surprising, given that you are unwilling to discuss the arguments for and against it.
There is an abundance of evidence that other minds exist. By contrast, there is no credible evidence that the God of classical theism exists, and a great deal of credible evidence that he does not.I agree that it is entirely a matter of luck whether or not I choose to achieve the ends that I am expressing. And I feel fortunate that I have so chosen, and that I have been successful. My views are very close to nihilism--both moral and existential--and I am perfectly comfortable with that. Like many nihilists, I find my views liberating, as they enable me to pursue happiness with no external constraints. But so I will not be misunderstood, let me point out that my philosophy does take empathy into account, as discussed in the section on negative hedonism.Why bother with empathy? Doesn't positing the existence of other minds parallel the error of classical theists in believing in unnecessarily multiplied entities?
The regress argument shows that free will--in the way in which I define it--is impossible.I'm glad I was sitting down when I read that one.
As you know, I define free will as "that which is sufficient for one to be ultimately responsible for one's intentional actions". It is this definition which is relevant to my philosophy, because showing it to be impossible renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions (see bottom of page 6 of the document), which strongly conduces to peace of mind.It doesn't seem reasonable to achieve peace of mind on the issue of free will by eliminating the possibility of free will based on fallacious straw man reasoning. But maybe that's just me. I think I'll make up an absurd definition of atheism and declare it impossible. And then act as if I showed atheism as anyone defines it as impossible.
I have now explained why I use my definition of free will. Your version of free will is a compatibilist one, which is irrelevant to my philosophy. My version of free will is not compatibilist, though I am always eager to point out that my model produces every bit the same degree of "control" that compatibilists can claim yet remaining indeterministic. You should rethink whether it's relevant or not. Compatibilism isn't even at issue without determinism.But most importantly, can you show that the regress argument is not sound? To do so, you must either show that at least one of its premises is not necessarily true, or that the premises do not logically entail the conclusion.I'd argue that Kane sets the bar unnecessarily high for free will. If entity y can choose either x or ~x options and does so with a reasonable expectation of outcomes then the choice is free. It doesn't matter whether the entity was created entirely by another. Strawson would argue that the outcome is luck if it is not causally determined, but as we can see, Strawson reduces *everything* to luck. If everything is luck no matter what it is then luck ceases to mean anything.
It still kind of sounds like you're implying that we ought to be rational, which is a corollary to claiming we ought to have sound arguments and credible reasons for our beliefs. Since it's all luck anyway, why bother drawing any distinctions?You're starting to sound like a moral realist. Are you saying that people ought to have sound arguments and credible reasons for their beliefs? Come on. It's just luck, isn't it? You could change your mind tomorrow about what it takes for you to believe in a god or gods.I am saying that one can be rational only if one has sound arguments and credible reasons for one's beliefs. This has nothing to do with my metaethical views.
Ought we to strive for doxastic rationality?Without doxastic rationality, we cannot have a meaningful conversation. And in practice, doxastic irrationality could be disastrous. Again, this has nothing to do with my metaethical views. What's wrong with disastrous? You say it almost as if it would be bad. We probably can't have a meaningful conversation without free will. At least not without bringing it to the approximate level of the meaningful conversation between a cell nucleus and the outlying structures of the cell.
OK, so you are not willing to discuss the arguments.When you say it that way it makes it sound like I'm not willing to discuss the arguments (at all). It's an issue of strategy, not ability. If I remind you, for example, that the argument from evil is an inductive argument of unimpressive strength that's not likely to matter to a person who holds that the existence of god is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. It's not extraordinary to point out weaknesses in atheistic arguments. You'll stick to your default set of beliefs.
You are welcome to prod my philosophy for consistency.You use moral-sounding language for things you insist are non-moral, and one of the foundations for your peace of mind is built on a foundation of straw (the Strawson straw man).
Ah, but I am not without a coherent philosophy.You must be the one who knows, then. ;-)
And you seem to be implying that classical theism is unphilosophical.What's the foundation for that inference?
I suppose this is not surprising, given that you are unwilling to discuss the arguments for and against it.It would be inaccurate for you to imply that I am unwilling to discuss atheistic and theistic arguments except as a matter of strategy. I've doubtless argued a number of them on this discussion board already. And that content is dwarfed by arguments I've posted elsewhere.
There is an abundance of evidence that other minds exist.Name one. Earlier you referred me to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to wrestle with arguments there. Ever been to the section on other minds? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#7
By contrast, there is no credible evidence that the God of classical theism exists, and a great deal of credible evidence that he does not.I'll leave it to you to develop the contrast beyond the level of bald assertion.