@JoshuaLWatson I'm very confused. Let's say I weren't a classical theist... then a very obvious, very popular way to be a Libertarian would be to believe in simple foreknowledge.
@pops095@L1G0R3@JoshuaLWatson@McKinleyAn No? I am not saying physicalism isn't defensible because physicalists are biased. I am saying you cannot appeal to biased physicalists to defend the rationality of physicalism... these are two very different things
@pops095@L1G0R3@JoshuaLWatson@McKinleyAn I guess it depends what one means by "rationally defensible". In some sense I am sure that there are rational physicalists (namely, if one has the "right" priors), but in another sense I think being a physicalist despite being familiar with the arguments is irrational
@pops095@L1G0R3@JoshuaLWatson@McKinleyAn Oh I'm sure that many theists desperately want dualism to be true. van Inwagen is a physicalist theist, but I find that completely bizarre. But I only need to defend that physicalists are so biased that they aren't trustworthy, not that dualists aren't biased...
@pops095@L1G0R3@JoshuaLWatson@McKinleyAn Right, but I wouldn't defend theism by appealing to the fact that a highly estimated philosopher like Craig takes it to be true. If anything I would defend theism by appealing to the quality of his *arguments*
@pops095@L1G0R3@JoshuaLWatson@McKinleyAn e.g. because it supports immortality, at least much more than physicalism. But anyway, that's irrelevant: The question was why someone would hope for physicalism to be true and there are loads of reasons, some of which physicalists themselves mention, e.g. elegance
@pops095@L1G0R3@JoshuaLWatson@McKinleyAn Right, but I am saying that physicalists often want physicalism to be true in the other sense. They find it aesthetically pleasing, they have a disdain for what they take to be spooky properties, they think dualism would support theism, etc.