Final answer:
Van Inwagen's Case against compatibism rests in part on the fact that we cannot render a law of nature, the given statement is false because his argument revolves around the idea that if determinism is true, then we do not have genuine freedom of the will, which is necessary for moral responsibility.
Step-by-step explanation:
Van Inwagen's case against compatibilism does not rest on the fact that we cannot render a law of nature. In fact, his argument is based on the idea that if determinism is true, then we do not have genuine freedom of the will, which is necessary for moral responsibility. Van Inwagen believes that if our actions are predetermined by external factors, then we are not truly free to choose otherwise, and therefore cannot be held responsible for our actions.
For example, imagine a scenario where someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs. According to Van Inwagen, if determinism is true, then the person's decision to commit the crime was determined by factors such as their genetic makeup, upbringing, and environmental influences. In this case, the person did not have genuine freedom to choose otherwise, and therefore should not be held fully responsible for their actions.
It is important to note that not all philosophers agree with Van Inwagen's argument against compatibilism. There are other philosophers who argue that moral responsibility can still exist even if determinism is true. They believe that as long as our actions are the result of our own reasoning and desires, we can be held responsible for them even if they are ultimately determined by external factors. Therefore the given statement is false