Here is a rough argument in support of premise 5 in the Argument from Volition:
1. "Determinism" =def "the belief that all events are entirely determined by antecedent causes"
2. Within a naturalistic framework, human beliefs are mere phyiscal events.
3. If determinism is true, then all human beliefs are entirely determined by antecedant causes.
4. "Knowledge" =def "a justified true belief".
5. No belief which is entirely causally determined by events beyond the agent could epistemically justified.
6. But, if a belief cannot be justified, then it cannot become knowledge.
7. If determinism is true, then we cannot have knowledge.
8. We have knowledge.
9. Ergo, determinism is false.
Indeed, even the claim that determinism is true is a claim to knowledge. So, if determinism invalidates knowledge, it also stultifies any claim that it is true. Perhaps a reductio ad absurdum would be better here?
Obviously, 5 is the tough one. But if one cannot test their beliefs and then make a decision based upon that test and or deliberation surrounding it and other evidence, can one really claim to be justified? No. But what if our senses "cause" justification in some way, rather than just belief....oh well...thinking time.
Email me if your interested in discussing this.
posted by onceuponapriori at 4:47 م
