Proponents of ID argue by trying to establish that NS is not sufficient to explain how the many species now extent on the earth have arisen from simpler life forms. Some proponents of NS claim that any such argument is illegitimate unless its proponent also provides a plausible alternative explanation of how evolution has taken place. But if the same proponent of NS should also argue that abiogenesis is the result of chance and necessity (rather than design), then it wouldn't this claim likewise be illegitimate unless its proponent provide a plausible explanation of how abiogenesis has taken place?
Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson. He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal. My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this. I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true. Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist. In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Comments