tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7763575276872199219.post5072576373541652082..comments2008-04-23T21:50:20.481+01:00enigManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7763575276872199219.post-43275272507743234672008-04-12T12:47:34.650+01:002008-04-12T12:47:34.650+01:00Hi Samuel. I personally believe that material objects exist (while I know for sure that mental subjects exist); but similarly, there is evidence that we have genuinely free wills (certainly, we must presuppose psychological freedom in order to be rational), and that is quite compatible with physical determinism, apparently, and similarly, all the evidence of our senses is quite compatible with Idealism.<BR/><BR/>We naturally assume that material objects exist, but then, we naturally assume that our choices are genuinely free (and that those ordinary objects are coloured and smooth, sometimes, and are in a space that is 3 dimensional, and so forth). So in short, what you say about material objects can be said about the sort of mental subjects that atheists usually dismiss summarily (since they are most readily accounted for under some sort of theism): There is evidence to believe that immaterial souls exist, based upon such phenomena as our rationality and responsibility.<BR/><BR/>You may try to doubt your own reason, or to assume that you are not free to choose, but you risk inconsistency and madness if you do. Of course, these are apples and pears; but Berkeley, for example, did not deny that stones could be kicked about. My point is that compatibilism is no less possible where it is less convenient for the new atheists. The stones can be kicked about because they have relatively stable properties that we can rely upon. Kicking a stone about is not a refutation of Idealism, but of Humean Supervenience, I think. I don't know why, but the former error was repeated very recently, in an article in <A HREF="http://lemmingsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/reasoner-2-4.html" REL="nofollow">The Reasoner</A>. To see how such arguments are actually effective against Humean Supervenience, see my look at Black's 1998 paper (<I>Brit. J. Phil. Sci.</I> <B>49</B>, 371-85) <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/potential_continuity/pp7.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Enigmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7763575276872199219.post-74866637928752035792008-04-10T17:28:09.881+01:002008-04-10T17:28:09.881+01:00Samuel Skinner<BR/>There is evidence to believe that material objects exist- our senses. You can feel free to doubt your sense if you wish- however no one has done so consistantly. People who do end up in asylums.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com