Back to your second post: I think a philosophy instructor who taught Free Will (“uncaused”) is either unethical or unintelligent. At best, s/he should present both Free Will and Determinism with the strongest arguments the proponents of each have presented and let the students make up their own minds. (And, s/he damned wlll better not penalize any student who chooses a different view from his/hers.)
With (sorry, slightly angry) respect:
philosophers do not typically teach ‘free will’ - or evolution, or anything ‘substantive’ (in a technical sense). they teach mostly *arguments* and analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.
Free will is an important topic - and interesting to most people to boot. Teaching the best (and typical) arguments for free will, or even phlogiston, is intelligent and indeed ethical; to demand that only the ‘right’ arguments be taught is the opposite. Mostly because it can take many years, even centuries, to discover a hidden premiss or faulty inference.
The arguments against free will - compatibilist or radical or in-between - have their own problems. Does this forum really believe they can be *perfectly* unbiased about knowing which arguments *must* be taught and which *must* not?
Teachers are committed, as a group, to fairly assessing students. It’s a cheap insult to even suggest otherwise in some vague, general fashion. Frankly, if you’re accusing *me* of being unethical or unintelligent for teaching arguments for free will, well, I have a short interpretive dance for you about how I feel about that.
As a philosopher, I am allowed, maybe even soemtimes required to have an opinion about which arguments are the stronger. I say the arguments against free will (radical or not) are not so strong. is that ‘teaching free will’?? Students respond well to someone with their own opinions; they also respond to someone who keeps all his own views out of the class - students appreciate *variety* in their teachers.
And anyway, on the *empirical* data, I’ve seen far more grief from naturalist philosophers to their dissenting students than from christian ones; I keep my ear to the ground on such things.
And also: ‘uncaused’ free will only is nonsensical under *some* interpretations. For example, if you only have one kind of cause as worthy of being called ‘cause’ then radical free will is rejected. But that means the real argument is not about free will but ‘cause’. That’s just a small example of the somewhat - well, juvenile - rejection of free will in this forum. And what paper has proved there’s only one kind of cause? many philosophers, naturalists too, believe there is no such thing as cause at all! (And so we will examine *their* arguments and analyze them.)
You guys have *loudly* complained the issue is too obvious to talk about - and it seems to me too obvious to seriously research. I haven’t argued about free will much exactly because no-one here has yet cracked open a *real* philosophical book about it.
Go thou and study. IF you all care; but if not, don’t diss the people who do.