Naturalism.org

Autor: Tom Clark

Tradução: Iran Filho

Here are two good reads (links to PDFs below) illustrating the growing secular skepticism about free will, construed as the idea that human beings are causal exceptions to nature. Gradually, and I hope inexorably, the realization will take hold universally that there is a full causal story behind all behavior, even if we can't know all the details. This understanding will help generate compassion for the unlucky in life, reform our notions of credit and blame, and give us greater power and control as we seek solutions to the challenges ahead.  Quoting Pearce:

The Free Will Wars

Below are links to some recent papers that include research on attitudes and beliefs about free will, determinism, and moral responsibility (my thanks to the Garden of Forking Paths for listing these).  Ideally, a large cross-sectional population survey on free will should be conducted to see how beliefs about it vary by demographics, economic strata, education, and religious affiliation. 

Having surveyed the proposed criteria of explanatory adequacy, Mike Beyer suggested that they could be synthesized into four essential principles. He wrote:

Tibor Machan

Where are the Skeptics?

Courtesy of physicist Brian Greene, who questions the idea that the future is open, and neuroscientist V. S.

To some extent we’re all ideologues, at least in a passive sense. We’re all reluctant to let go of beliefs central to our worldview, even if the evidence is against us. Belief in god is notoriously difficult to abandon if it’s played a central role in your life, giving you reassurance and meaning. You don’t have to have been an active ideologue – a “blindly partisan advocate or adherent” of religion – for admitting you’re wrong to be a wrenching process.

In a review of Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion for Christianity Today, Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that naturalism is “self-defeating and cannot rationally be believed.” If, as naturalists claim, there’s no god guiding the evolutionary process, then there’s no reason to think our cognitive faculties are reliable in giving us true beliefs about the world. Since we can’t trust our cognitive faculties, any conclusion we reach about the world is untrustworthy, including the claim that evolution is unguided. Therefore naturalism about evolution (and everything else) is self-defeating and must be given up. For us to trust our own beliefs (and we must, mustn’t we?) God must exist, and must have guided evolution.