We all use evidence to support our beliefs. However, if we're not freely choosing to believe in that evidence, how do we know the evidence is a reliable reflection of reality, or that we are justified in believing what we believe?
For example, I believe the Earth is billions of years old, but if my reasons for coming to that conclusion weren't freely chosen by me (i.e. my reasons for believing in evidence that proves the Earth is billions of years old are not based on the evidence's reliability, but on deterministic factors outside of my control), how can I argue against a Young Earth Creationist, whose reasons for believing what they believe also weren't freely chosen? Aren't we both just at the mercy of whatever causal factors forced us to arrive at our current beliefs? How do we know those causal factors are anchored in reality?
TLDR version: Is free-will a necessary condition for a coherent conception of "evidence"?
For example, I believe the Earth is billions of years old, but if my reasons for coming to that conclusion weren't freely chosen by me (i.e. my reasons for believing in evidence that proves the Earth is billions of years old are not based on the evidence's reliability, but on deterministic factors outside of my control), how can I argue against a Young Earth Creationist, whose reasons for believing what they believe also weren't freely chosen? Aren't we both just at the mercy of whatever causal factors forced us to arrive at our current beliefs? How do we know those causal factors are anchored in reality?
TLDR version: Is free-will a necessary condition for a coherent conception of "evidence"?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/ZLcH6m
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire