Thanks. Time in composition matters, I have at most 15 minutes to complete this one...
It was this quote from you that I was thinking of (and replying to):
"I say this because his is not an agnostic outlook upon the world but an atheistic one, carried on with an association with organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation"
Especially the "not agnostic outlook .. but atheistic". It follows in parallel to many statements I have seen from believers that characterize "agnosticism" as a softer or less dogmatic form of "atheism". (We'll get to the FFRF part in a bit.)
1. I don't know what you mean by "mild existentialist".
2. The general topic is free will/determinism, the sub-topic was the injection of political motivation in to argumentation about said topic. I don't recall any discussions of religious texts.
I'm going to put this in the category of "so what?". (I've been aware of FFRF since the early 90s, but not of Dan Barker until after I found CF. )
I didn't say you were. What I'm concerned about and what you don't seem to have any backing for is the alleged political (or dogmatic) motivation for Sapolsky's determinism as a weapon against Christianity. (the whole focus of this sub-sub-thread)
I find it hard, especially after you tries to subsume all of science in to the "empire of philosophy". In contrast, the question of "atheism" is very narrow: "Do you believe in a god? If yes, you are an atheist, elsewise, you are not." That's all there is to it.
I oppose both.
Is it any better than his "Wager"?
I don't recall any Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Che stuff in this thread, or frankly anywhere on CF.
I see no need to distinguish a "methodological determinism" in science. The question of "determinism" here only matters to the notions of mind/free will, etc., that we are discussing on this thread.
The question of free will/determinism isn't politics if it is to be evaluated objectively. If the answer is that we can't make an objective determination and the only thing left is opinions formed from dogmas, then fine. I don't think we have reached that point yet.
Thanks. However sharp our arguments may become, I don't hold any ill feelings toward you. (Only a couple CF posters have garnered those....) My point was to emphasize that the my naturalism is the cause of my atheism and any leaning toward determinism I may have, rather than any other way 'round.
Seeing Han succumb to the force brings the pain that he might abandon his trusty blaster.