(July 4, 2016 at 10:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote:(July 3, 2016 at 2:09 pm)wallym Wrote: For religious folks, would you pack it in? If they, in the future, could map out 'decision making', and show it's got nothing to do with 'choosing', that pretty much is game over for the foundation of all major religions, right?
Hard determinism also undermines rationality. If thinkings follow inexorably from the initial conditions of the universe, then the conclusions need not have actual correspondence with reality, though they may appear to.
The unspoken premise of determinism is causal closure of this physical universe. That premise, while useful methodologically, has not been justified metaphysically. It rests fully on unsupported belief.
I don't follow. Can't rational be an adjective. A conclusion that does correspond is rational. One that doesn't is irrational. That the conclusions were reached inevitably doesn't really change their correctness/incorrectness. Perhaps it depends on the perspective/context.
A lousy computer program may make a terrible move on the chess board, even though it arrived at the move rationally through it's flawed programming. But from the perspective/context of playing chess well, it would still be irrational to a 3rd party.
