3 ms·

Yuval Noah Harari has thought this through pretty well, it seems to me. At least about why it is a problem, not necessarily with the answer. He talks about th

by hsitz 7y ago

Yuval Noah Harari has thought this through pretty well, it seems to me. At least about why it is a problem, not necessarily with the answer. He talks about this in all his books. For intro on his thinking on this issue, see this article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-harari-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-har...

sasaf5 7y ago
With all due respect to Harari's historical analysis, he seems to make some logic jumps that are unacceptable in a serious philosophical discussion. From the article you cited: "'free will' isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology." This is a false dichotomy. Free will is still a deep philosophical question. When I read his "Homo Deus", the lack of soundness of his challenge on liberalism seemed to contrast with the quality of the rest of the book.
- 9000 7y ago
  I'm not so sure that's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of elements of Christian myths that are considered 'scientific reality', such as people and fruits and the fact that the Romans crucified people. There are also elements that are not. However, there are also influences on our culture that originate neither in science nor in Christian theology. I think you interpret that passage to mean: "All influences must be from science OR religion, but not both. It is from religion. Therefore, it is from science." However, I interpret it more along the lines of: "Science has not backed up this idea of free will. So, how did we get this idea in our culture, you might ask, if it's not real? Well, it is inherited from Christian myth." This second reading is not an argument (he's not proving why free will is not a scientific reality), but an explanation of why the idea of free will exists. You may still not be convinced by his assertion, but I don't think it's a false dichotomy. Additionally, he may make such assertions in his work Homo Dues (which I have not read), but I don't think this is necessarily an example of fallacious reasoning.
  - sasaf5 7y ago
    The problem I see is: fact a) free will isn't scientific; fact b) Christianism depends on free will to make sense; fallacious conclusion) liberalism inherited the notion of free will from Christianism. There are many philosophical lines that do not base free will on divine punishment.

by hsitz 7y ago

sasaf5 7y ago

With all due respect to Harari's historical analysis, he seems to make some logic jumps that are unacceptable in a serious philosophical discussion. From the article you cited: "'free will' isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology." This is a false dichotomy. Free will is still a deep philosophical question. When I read his "Homo Deus", the lack of soundness of his challenge on liberalism seemed to contrast with the quality of the rest of the book.

9000 7y ago
I'm not so sure that's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of elements of Christian myths that are considered 'scientific reality', such as people and fruits and the fact that the Romans crucified people. There are also elements that are not. However, there are also influences on our culture that originate neither in science nor in Christian theology. I think you interpret that passage to mean: "All influences must be from science OR religion, but not both. It is from religion. Therefore, it is from science." However, I interpret it more along the lines of: "Science has not backed up this idea of free will. So, how did we get this idea in our culture, you might ask, if it's not real? Well, it is inherited from Christian myth." This second reading is not an argument (he's not proving why free will is not a scientific reality), but an explanation of why the idea of free will exists. You may still not be convinced by his assertion, but I don't think it's a false dichotomy. Additionally, he may make such assertions in his work Homo Dues (which I have not read), but I don't think this is necessarily an example of fallacious reasoning.
- sasaf5 7y ago
  The problem I see is: fact a) free will isn't scientific; fact b) Christianism depends on free will to make sense; fallacious conclusion) liberalism inherited the notion of free will from Christianism. There are many philosophical lines that do not base free will on divine punishment.