Article on Aish.com on Free Will

My article on Darwinism, Morality and Free Choice is now (Monday, 23rd June 2014) posted on the Aish HaTorah website,

http://www.Aish.com.

This is the URL:

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Darwinism-Morality-and-Free-Choice.html

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Article on Aish.com on Free Will”

  1. shaul shapira Says:

    Very interesting article. One quibble- from your ‘First Comment’:

    “Virtually every writer cited in the article is an evolutionary biologist or an ally of evolutionary biology: William Provine, E.O. Wilson, Michael Ruse, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris are all ardent atheists and, it goes without saying, true believers in evolutionary biology.”

    It doesn’t go without saying and I don’t think it’s true at all. As you yourself noted a while back:

    https://torahexplorer.com/2012/12/13/professor-shapiro-and-rabbi-blue-part-1/

    “the critics of Neo-Darwinism come in all stripes. Some are religious, but some are agnostics, and others are atheists. Prominent examples of the last two categories are David Berlinski, Thomas Nagel, Antony Flew, Bradley Monton, Jerry Fodor and Steve Fuller.”

    • Yoram Bogacz Says:

      Mr. Shapira is confusing apples and oranges. My comment in the Professor Shapiro article was about critics of evolutionary biology. The comment I made in the article on Aish.com was about evolutionary biologists, who are overwhelmingly atheists.

      • shaul shapira Says:

        I’m not confusing at all. Let me restate:

        Your claim “___________are all ardent atheists and, it goes without saying, true believers in evolutionary biology.”

        implies that IF one is an atheist THEN ‘it goes without saying’ that they’re ‘true believers in evolutionary biology’ I simply pointed out that that’s not true, as- per your own claim-Thomas Nagel is an atheist who’s also a critic of Neo-Darwinism.

        In other words, Nagel fulfills the antecedent of your claim but not it’s consequent.

      • Yoram Bogacz Says:

        Nu Nu… I don’t want to repeat myself.

        Grammatical point: “its” for the genitive, “it’s” if you mean “it is”.

      • shaul shapira Says:

        “Nu Nu… I don’t want to repeat myself.”

        huh?

        “Grammatical point: “its” for the genitive, “it’s” if you mean “it is”.”

        Thanks. Did I violate that rule somewhere?

      • shaul shapira Says:

        I finally got your grammatical point.

        Now let me re-re-state
        …Nagel fulfills the antecedent of your claim but not its consequent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: