Ironic isn’t it? Where is the so-called “liberal” view on self-determination here?
Notice my tag line.
Where is the so-called “liberal” view on self-determination here?
Spirited: While the ‘religious’ Left are in fact pantheists, all who adhere to materialist doctrines, such as Richard Dawkins, are ‘new’ pagans after the fashion of the Greek nature philosopher Epicurus. Common to both views is the idea that all that exists is nature.
Nature does not think, cannot speak and is not free to choose to be otherwise than it is. Rain falls, wind blows, tornados and hurricanes mindlessly destroy all in their path, animals mate during breeding season, and dung beetles tend to dung-piles.
If all that exists is nature and man is a part of it then it stands to reason that like wind, rain, and dung-beetles man cannot choose to be other than a fully caused and determined part of nature.
When materialists like ‘cognitive’ scientist Daniel Dennett teach that there is no you, that man has no soul and spirit (mind, will, conscience) he is really saying that since everything living and nonliving consist of matter in motion, then when you think you’re thinking you are really experiencing an illusion caused by movement of chemicals (matter) and firing of synapses (matter) in grey matter.
In answer to your question, ‘liberal’ naturalism, whether materialist or pantheist, is in denial of self-determination. If all men really are capable of self-determination then ‘gays’ can choose not to act on their impulses and the whole ‘gay’ rights ‘gay’ marriage issue falls apart and takes with it all of liberalism’s privileged ‘victims’ rights groups.