> maybe you can score [freedom of action and expression] for Christianity
I've had trouble verifying this quotation, but:
"There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind. Letting alone springs from fear lest men’s natural dispositions be perverted and their virtue left aside. But if their natural dispositions be not perverted nor their virtue laid aside, what room is there left for government?"
Now I'm genuinely baffled. Here's the first sentence of the definition of Humanism on Wikipedia:
"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition."
And two of the sentences from the first paragraph from the entry on Christianity:
"Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as the Christ, or "Messiah", who is the focal point of the Christian faiths. [...] They believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity whose coming as the Messiah (the Christ) was prophesied in the Old Testament."
Your position is that the former of these is dogmatic and devoid of rational argument, to the contrary of the latter.
I simply can not argue with that position. It's too weird.
How can humanism believe humans have free will if everything is physically determined? If we have no free will, we have no agency. It doesn't matter how much humanists assert to the contrary.
Christianity, on the other hand, easily explains free will and agency.
It seems the majority of philosophers (whose job it is to think long and hard about these things) are compatibilists [0]; i.e. believe in both free will and determinism. If you're actually interested in this rather than thinking you already know the answer, there is plenty of reading available online [1,2]
Exactly my point. Compatibilism is incoherent. It is just calling determinism free will, like calling the number 1 green. But if free will is determined, then no one has any control over their actions. Everything is determined, and given the right parameters in their decision algorithm, they will do whatever you want. Hence the atheist regimes' focus on brainwashing detailed in 1984.
You assume I didn't used to be a compatibilist, but changed my mind after considering alternate viewpoints. But I did once I understood libertarian free will is a coherent alternative.
No it doesn't. The theological discussions around the whole concept of 'free will' are quite hairy, and there are multiple christian denominations that don't strictly believe that we have free will.
Traditionally, all mainstream Christians believed in libertarian free will. You can find this discussed in Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas, off the top of my head. That changed with Luther and Calvin, but even today you'd be hard pressed to find a large body of Christians that outright deny free will, since it is so blatantly referred to in the Bible.
I've had trouble verifying this quotation, but:
"There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind. Letting alone springs from fear lest men’s natural dispositions be perverted and their virtue left aside. But if their natural dispositions be not perverted nor their virtue laid aside, what room is there left for government?"
- Chuang Tzu (369–286 BC)