 |
| Window, in Ann Arbor |
In reading American Nietzsche this morning I see how much Nietzsche believed in freedom in the sense of free will. He was, in his own way, a "freethinker." "Freethinking" is an old philosophical idea that assumes persons have free will. But if persons do not have free will, then "freethinking" is logically impossible if incompatibilism is true.
The current, strong version of atheism as philosophical naturalism (PN) disallows free will. PN-ers often claim that "free will" is an illusion, as are the philosophical ideas of "mind" and "soul." And, the ideas of "reason," "rational faculties," and "critical thinking."
Nietzsche thought persons had free will. So did Bertrand Russell. But PN-ers are determinists.
Note that some are "compatibilists," suhc as Daniel Dennett in his Freedom Evolves.
Other PN-ers (and theists) are "incompatibilists." That's also me, so far. "Deterministic free will" is like "square circle."
Here, e.g., is an incompatibilist argument (the incompatibility of determinism and free will) found in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
We have free will (of the kind required for moral responsibility) only if we are the ultimate sources (originators, first causes) of our choices.
- If determinism is true, then everything we do is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside our control.
- If everything we do is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside our control, then we are not the ultimate sources (originators, first causes) of our choices.
- Therefore, if determinism is true, we are not the ultimate sources of our choices.
- Therefore, if determinism is true, we don't have free will (of the kind required for moral responsibility).
