That is, they think all of their decisions were preordained, and then use this to claim that they can’t be held responsible for anything they do.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right, but lacking any physical evidence in either direction, is it not reasonable to then turn to purely rational explanations if we want to arrive at some sort of belief?

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can have a rational basis for a belief without empirical evidence (Russell’s teapot, for example). The reason you’d want to do that is to simplify the model of reality you’re working with in order to reduce the number of contingencies you need to account for.