I've always assumed that I was experiencing an objective reality, not manufacturing one. I think I have pretty good evidence that my assumption is correct.

I still wonder about what I can be sure of, though. Because I'm a fallibilist.

The question then becomes, is there an objective world to experience? Do you agree that there is evidence that an objective world is there to experience?

I do believe there is an objective truth. I don't see how there could not be. But, fallibilism is also the case.

Asimov's article does nothing to dissuade me from those beliefs.

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

I did hear Graham Priest speak about paraconsistent logic. It is intriguing.

I'd like to become more like Socrates. I'd like to be able to engage in philosophical discussion with equanimity, and to truly engage in honest dialogue...

I'd like to show and experience the quality of psychagogy.

I'd like to experience progress towards Eudaimonia.

I'm reminded of Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

I see it as an either/or. Either we all just have our own opinion about what is the case, OR there really is one objective truth independent of opinion, that describes what is the case.

You really don't have to go past Searle's argument for volition. Extend your index finger. Wiggle it around. QED. — Mongrel

I like Searle's explanation. He does argue for free will, and he makes a lot of sense to me. It seems we can't help but think in terms of our responsibility. I love his story about someone going into a restaurant and saying to the waiter, "I'll just wait and see what the universe determines that I'll eat."

There is quite a bit of evidence, such that it hurts one or more persons (including the doer of the action), it puts one or more persons at risk of hurt, or it brings about future suffering for one or more persons. — Agustino

Remember, we're talking about God and sin.
For all I know, God does exist And He wants us to hurt each other. For all I know, Not hurting people is a sin (according to God).

Let's assume that God exists. Whatever God you please. What does He want? Does God even "believe in sin"? How do you know?

Good points, all.

And I agree that hard determinism has yet to be proved. I think it's more likely that I do have free will and that no one knows for sure what kind of universe this is (if a multiverse, do we have free will?) than it is that I'm living in the deterministic universe that is being asserted by hard determinists (one that negates free will).

To believe in a hard determinism that negates free will does require faith.

I think free will, our ability to act as author without being determined to act in a certain manner is real, and it does not require a leap of faith. The physical causal argument that I am determined to do x because of some other event y does not work in the narrative I tell myself about the world — Cavacava

LOL. I can tell all kinds of narratives (in one of my favorites I'm the best at X- and I don't want to tell you what X is.) It doesn't make them true, or agree with what is the case. How would anyone go about proving that free will is the case? I am operating under the assumption that it can't be done.

One might as well try to prove that God does or doesn't exist.

Did you not see the addition to my OP? I'm asking you to assume there is a coherent definition of free will. If you reject the assumption that there is one, then you needn't play along.

What are you saying is difficult? Deciding which definition of Free Will to take seriously?

I'm not the one claiming that sin exists. I'm skeptical of God's existence. If Not God, then Not sin.

C'mon now... stop making this so difficult. If you'd rather not participate, just don't participate.

There is quite a bit of evidence, such that it hurts one or more persons (including the doer of the action), it puts one or more persons at risk of hurt, or it brings about future suffering for one or more persons. — Agustino

The question isn't one of "hurts", the question is, "what does God call sin?"

Can there be evidence of free will (pick your own definition)? What would that evidence look like?

That is impossible - it would imply that God is not Just. — Agustino

LOL. I could make the equally valid claim that either sin does not exist because God doesn't exist, or that we know so little about God, I could reject any claim that "X is a sin" because there isn't enough evidence to support that conclusion.

If God's existence isn't a foregone conclusion, then how could one be sure that sin exists?
If God does exist, then we can't prove He wants anything, or that He has defined any action as sinful.

Let's see - to sin or not to sin - that's the vulgar understanding of free will. — Agustino

Not everyone who believes in free will accepts that sin exists. Can one believe in sin and yet not have a belief in any God? Or perhaps God does exist, but He Himself doesn't consider any act sinful.

I modified my OP to add the following. "Assuming we all agree that the concept of Free Will is a coherent concept, then...."

I do understand there are various ways to describe and define free will. I'd rather talk about the descriptions that do exist, including the pros and cons, vs make my own claims about free will.

I understand that some people truly believe the entire concept of free will to be incoherent, to such an extent they believe there can be no valid explanation of free will, such that it can be said "free will does exist".

Others understand that there are various ways to describe and define free will, and that some definitions of free will are more likely to be the case than others. For these people, they could be convinced that free will is the case, depending on how it is defined.

Because if you're not then I'm going to take it as confirmation of my claim that the concept of free will is nebulous, if not entirely vacuous, that you don't even know what you mean by such a thing, and so that there isn't even anything to believe or not believe in (hence my selection of "Other" in the poll). — Michael

Well, you'd be wrong. I'm more interested in what other people think about the concept. I still don't know if you literally have not read anything on the subject, or if you just reject the explanations you have read, because you came to the conclusion that they are incoherent.

It's one thing to reject the concept, and another to refuse to read anything about it.

I don't know if it's going to happen... but, I'd like you to acknowledge that people have taken the time to explain the concept of free will. I wonder what you think of those explanations.

I understand that some people do reject the entire idea of free will as incoherent. I think it's reasonable to ask, "What concept of free will do you have in mind, when you reject the concept of free will?"

Try this link...

Are you rejecting all those explanations as incoherent? or just some of them?

Take the time to check the link...

Are you rejecting all explanations as incoherent? or just some of them?

Just look at our discussion. I ask you to explain it and you avoid it. That's what others do. — Michael

If you could explain what definitions of free will you are rejecting, it might help.

What explanations have you come across in the past? Why did you reject them?

Or you are literally claiming that no one has ever explained what they mean by free will?

Which definitions are you rejecting? and why?

However, many scientists (maybe even most) deny free will. Very odd! — tom

I haven't gotten a sense of whether or not there is a consensus among scientists.

What do you think it means? You must have come across the concept before this thread. Based on your responses, I think a valid assumption on my part, is that you are actually making a positive claim. Your claim being, "the very concept of free will is incoherent."

So, I'm perfectly justified in asking, "How did come to that conclusion?"

I think I hear you saying that the concept of Free Will is incoherent. Is that a valid summation? Or are you saying that you personally don't understand the concept?

I think it helps to consider real life situations. My theory is that one can't be agnostic. One will either act like one is responsible (act like you have free will), or one will act like one is not responsible (act like you don't have free will).

As an example, If you were convicted of a crime. Imagine that you're standing before the judge. Do you take responsibility? or do you say (or think to yourself) , "because of the nature of our universe, I literally had no choice in the matter."

I read Harris' book on Free Will, and he and others are really trying to convince all of us that Free Will is and can only be an illusion- because the universe is determinisitic in nature.

I selected "Other" as I don't think it's often clear what it even means to have free will. — Michael

Are you responsible for your actions? or are you merely a victim of a deterministic universe? Are you convinced by the supposed evidence coming from neuroscience that suggests we don't really control our own actions (because it is really our uncontrollable subconscious that makes all decisions)- that all feelings of choice are really just illusion?

One of the words I have learned on philosophy forums is 'Eudaimonia' (also a word I can never spell without looking it up) but is said to denote 'human flourishing' and to be associated with the virtue ethics associated with Aristotle. And I think it's a perfectly worthy aim - why wouldn't it be? I don't think it amounts to going everywhere with a fixed grin, but living in such a way that your well-being is optimised. You know the song - like a room without a roof. — Wayfarer

I'm striving for Eudaimonia, but not necessarily Aristotle's version. The research I've done suggests there are many systems that promise Eudaimonia. Each of the ancient schools of philosophy suggested that theirs was that best way to pursue that goal.

Seems to me that one of the failings of modern philosophy, is that no one in the profession spends much time thinking about how to live the best life possible.

Perhaps there is some remotely distant meaning inherent in the universe; I can't claim any knowledge about such a convenience. But neither Nihilism nor Absurdism are the necessary system you must land on once you decided there isn't any meaning built in to the universe.

Spread your wings, gird up thy loins, pull yourself up by your bootstraps -- whatever metaphor you like, engage the search for meaning. You are a smart young man; but settling on meaning requires more than thought; it also requires life-experience. So... live, study, love, enjoy, suffer, bore and be bored, suffer, work, play, etc. There is no rush to settle the meaning problem. — Bitter Crank

Well said.

What I find amusing is the assumption that any meaning-rejecting system is the status quo, along with the denial that it needs any kind of defense. It's fair to ask, "why choose Nihilism or Absurdism?" and "What is appealing about meaning-rejecting systems?"

Pot calling kettle black. — Wayfarer

That was my first thought as well.

Re: slavery. Id like to do some more research, but the sense I got is that slavery has always been abhorrent.... there was always mistreatment (as if "only" ownership wasnt bad enough), and there have always between people who didn't give slavery a seCond thought. I got the sense it was just assumed that some people deserved to be slaves.

John Holbo points out that Plato doesnt include slaves in his Republic. Thats something.

I understand that people see it that way... But, the Democrats do seem to care more about social issues, and the Republicans do seem to care about morality more.

When Republicans point out the immoral Democrats, I point out the immoral Republicans. I can get general (policies) or specific (individual politicians).

What isn't appealing about maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice? What issues do you tick off both parties with, anyway? — Harry Hindu

By spotting and pointing out obvious issues. For instance, the Republican party is the party for the wealthy and big business, Democrats don't appear to care much about morality, or personal responsibility

Those are broad strokes, I know.

I've never even considered that possibility... I found this on wiki

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies that uphold liberty. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2] Libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of political ideas through modern history.

And it doesn't look especially appealing.

I have to admit I'm better at commenting on what is bad with politics, then I am at suggesting solutions. It just looks like a necessary evil.