tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240273115805452525.post4408290082895176962..comments2008-10-06T14:34:03.995-04:00Ajita Kamalnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240273115805452525.post-44791115431313026692008-10-06T14:34:00.000-04:002008-10-06T14:34:00.000-04:00

Good question. I think belief in free will may have been advantageous at one time. I'm sure its development was complicated, probably involving anger, intention, motivation, volition, selfhood, even consciousness. It seems to me a lot like the belief in God. Religiosity may have helped with paleolithic, small-scale social cohesion (band, tribe) and with pre-scientific attempts to make sense of

Ken B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08333533606097768895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240273115805452525.post-32157263760342581562008-10-06T01:31:00.000-04:002008-10-06T01:31:00.000-04:00

Hey Ken, thanks!<BR/><BR/>Wonder why the belief in free-will could have been evolutionarily advantageous. Or maybe its just a by-product.

Ajita Kamalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09611506363046062534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240273115805452525.post-66806899904923623252008-10-02T22:46:00.000-04:002008-10-02T22:46:00.000-04:00

Nice analysis; Sullivan's views are inconsistent.<BR/><BR/>There is no way to understand the mess the world is in without rejecting free will. Under free will we will always have to decide who merits our compassion and who doesn't, which ultimately separates us into warring groups. Without belief in free will we can see that we are all in the same boat, that all who suffer merit compassion.

Ken Battswww.naturalcauses.netnoreply@blogger.com