Determinism/No-Freewill (Craig | Cleese | Provine)

I put this video together for this post:
﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏
■ James Lindsay Anchorless at Sea | Based Manifesto (http://tinyurl.com/2dtfyxen)
﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋
The entire debate between Sean Carrol and William Lane Craig titled "William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | 'God and Cosmology' | 2014 Greer Heard Forum" can be seen here -- https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8

The entire debate between William Provine and Phillip Johnson titled “Debate: Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? Phillip Johnson vs William Provine” can be seen here -- https://youtu.be/m7dG9U1vQ_U

𝐒𝐎𝐌𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐐𝐔𝐎𝐓𝐄𝐒:
﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏
》》He thus acknowledged the need for any theory to allow that humans have genuine freedom to recognize the truth. He (again, correctly) saw that if all thought, belief, feeling, and choice are determined (i.e., forced on humans by outside conditions) then so is the determinists’ acceptance of the theory of determinism forced on them by those same conditions. In that case they could never claim to know their theory is true since the theory making that claim would be self-referentially incoherent. In other words, the theory requires that no belief is ever a free judgment made on the basis of experience or reason, but is always a compulsion over which the believer has no control. -- Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2005), 174.

》》If what he says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the structure of the universe is such-and-such but only because the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is such as to produce that result…. They [determinists – I would posit any philosophical naturalist] want to be considered as rational agents arguing with other rational agents; they want their beliefs to be construed as beliefs, and subjected to rational assessment; and they want to secure the rational assent of those they argue with, not a brainwashed repetition of acquiescent pattern. Consistent determinists should regard it as all one whether they induce conformity to their doctrines by auditory stimuli or a suitable injection of hallucinogens: but in practice they show a welcome reluctance to get out their syringes, which does equal credit to their humanity and discredit to their views. Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists’ arguments as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them. -- J. R. Lucas, The Freedom of the Will (New York: NY: Oxford University Press, 1970), 114, 115.

》》What merit would attach to moral virtue if the acts that form such habitual tendencies and dispositions were not acts of free choice on the part of the individual who was in the process of acquiring moral virtue? Persons of vicious moral character would have their characters formed in a manner no different from the way in which the character of a morally virtuous person was formed—by acts entirely determined, and that could not have been otherwise by freedom of choice. -- Mortimer J. Adler, Ten Philosophical Mistakes (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1985), 154.

》》If we were free persons, with faculties which we might carelessly use or wilfully misuse, the fact might be explained; but the pre-established harmony excludes this supposition. And since our faculties lead us into error, when shall we trust them? Which of the many opinions they have produced is really true? By hypothesis, they all ought to be true, but, as they contradict one another, all cannot be true. How, then, distinguish between the true and the false? By taking a vote? That cannot be, for, as determined, we have not the power to take a vote. Shall we reach the truth by reasoning? This we might do, if reasoning were a self-poised, self verifying process; but this it cannot be in a deterministic system. Reasoning implies the power to control one’s thoughts, to resist the processes of association, to suspend judgment until the transparent order of reason has been readied. It implies freedom, therefore. In a mind which is controlled by its states, instead of controlling them, there is no reasoning, but only a succession of one state upon another. There is no deduction from grounds, but only production by causes. No belief has any logical advantage over any other, for logic is no longer possible. -- Borden P Bowne, Metaphysics: A Study In First Principles (originally published in 1882; London: Sampson Low, Searle & Rivington, 2005), 105.

(Taken from my post: “Evolution Cannot Account for: Logic, Reasoning, Love, Truth, or Justice”)
﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋﹋
𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌𝐒 𝐈 𝐔𝐒𝐄 𝐎𝐅𝐓𝐄𝐍 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎𝐒 (some more often than others):
﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏
𝐴𝑈𝐷𝐼𝑂: AVS Audio Editor | Natural Reader (A.I. voice) | Microsoft 365 (making transcripts from audio/video) | AI_LALAL (a program that separates background noise from voice audio - www.lalal.ai)
𝐺𝑅𝐴𝑃𝐻𝐼𝐶𝑆 (𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠): ArcSoft Photo Studio (old but still good) | ACDSee Photo Studio | Pixlr E Photo Editor | Movavi Picverse
𝑉𝐼𝐷𝐸𝑂: VEGAS Pro (latest version) | CheckSub. (subtitles) | Movavi Video Editor | Doodly
A shout out to 𝐺𝐿𝑂𝐵𝐴𝐿 𝐾𝑅𝐸𝐴𝑇𝑂𝑅𝑆 excellent YouTube Channel | https://tinyurl.com/2vmyxubh (for when I want a "green screen TV") | Larry Dors, who pieces together the same line being said from different movies. Check out his YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@LarryDors

Consider donating to these two wonderful causes: 𝐏𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐑 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐘: https://www.prageru.com/donate | and/or | 𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐎𝐌: https://adflegal.org/donate

》》Brought to you by 𝑹𝑬𝑳𝑰𝑮𝑰𝑶-𝑷𝑶𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑰𝑪𝑨𝑳 𝑻𝑨𝑳𝑲: religiopoliticaltalk.com