The obvious difference is that almost everyone experiences (the illusion of) free will, and that civilization may depend on it. Not so with fairies.
Civilization depends on us not adopting determinism half-way
- the bare fact of it, without a mature reaction to it.
If everything is determined, there is no freedom on any level, neither for the oppressor nor the oppressed. The universe is simply proceeding like clockwork (with a few random variations, if you like).
The first part isn't true. Most things are free from the brunt of most influences. Clockwork (with or without random variations) has no effect on that.
What do you mean, adopt? Pretend to be true?
No. I figured you might think that, so I included an example of what I really meant in order to help clarify. You have left that part of my response out and ignored what it said. I'll try again, in the hope that you won't repeat that behaviour: By "adopt", I mean as a practice and standard to deliberately apply. "Democracy" is an example of what I mean: It is not "true" in the sense of being the One True Means of Organization or Actiontm
. But it is
useful. Adopting democracy isn't pretending that a lie is truth, despite democracy not being "true". The doctrine of democracy is a tool of productive social organization. Just like the doctrine of responsibility is.
Again, most people experience (the illusion of) free will. It's more than an idea. And while the God meme is to a great extent being replaced by scientific knowledge, there is no replacement for (the illusion of) free will, and no-one on this forum has provided a clear conception of an alternative.
There certainly is a replacement for the illusion of free-will: the reality of determinism. This is directly comparable to the replacement of the illusion of theism with the reality of atheism. The only qualitative difference, as you've pointed out - and which I acknowledged in my last post - is that we have an automatic bias toward the former illusion, whereas the latter must be conditioned into us, usually from a young age.
As for the lack of an alternative, I am trying to provide you with one. You don't seem to want it, though. Why is that? If you were offered a way to keep the way you feel about your actions from the free-will paradigm, while simultaneously acknowledging determinism, why wouldn't you take that route? What's the catch, from your perspective?
Most of you determinists simply advise that one goes along with the illusion, e.g. dloubet:
But since the illusion of magical free will is so strong, go with it. I go with it, but intellectually I know the truth.Living as if free will is real, while knowing intellectually that it is not, is living a lie. It's not coherent.
Neither is the idea of free-will in the first place. Both your approach, and dloubet's approach, are really easy. They don't require one to adjust one's thinking at all. They don't require one to re-think and re-condition one's emotional responses. And in the end, the ramifications of adhering to either
incoherent position (believing that reality is deterministic while pretending we have free will, or
believing that we really have "free will" while refraining from dealing with the problems of metaphysical dualism) aren't all that significant in practice. So taking an easy way out - yours or dloubet's - isn't a bad option, generally.
The problems start coming up when one begins using the ideas of determinism or free will as talking points in a debate, where they are bound to come under greater scrutiny and end up having
ramifications for other topics. Case in point: Gill's attachment to metaphysical dualism, with all its problems. Dloubet's self-contradiction would also be bound to come up in some discussions, and cause problems.
PS I hope you don't mind me dragging in quotes from other people and threads to illustrate my points. I don't mean to imply that the deterministic viewpoint is monolithic.
I don't mind it, as long as you don't try to hold me accountable for his views. They are beyond my control. He is free of my influence, whether one believes him to have free will or not.
EDIT: I said some other stuff toward the end of my post that I think is pertinent to the discussion. Would you mind responding to it, if only to agree or disagree with it?
EDIT #2: tm