英语翻译Most people do not think deeply about whether they are f

英语翻译
Most people do not think deeply about whether they are free.This may be for the best because of the three possibilities (determinism,compatibilism,libertarianism) each seems to have a devastating weaknesses when analyzed carefully.Despite this,Varun boldly seeks to demonstrate that there is a rational way to account for free will.Yet Varun also recognizes that proving the existence of free will is only the first of two large problems.The second is proving free will in a way that is compatible with the existence of moral responsibility.As he shows through the Arminian belief that complete indifference is necessary for free will,some conceptions of free will seem incompatible with the possibility of moral responsibility.His analysis of Jonathan Edwards’ account is masterful.Edwards is an eighteenth-century American Calvinist theologian who believes that our common conceptions of freedom and moral responsibility do not presuppose free will and that libertarian free will is incompatible with the existence of moral responsibility.In addition to articulating Edwards’ argument concisely,which is no easy task,Varun notes that Edwards is actually making a straw-man attack against the libertarian position.Yet with admirable charity,he reconstructs a stronger argument.Varun tears down the most powerful possible argument that Edwards can make.In its stead,he makes several novel moves.First,he seeks to construct a causally independent version of libertarianism.Second,he recognizes that this requires clarity between possibility and probability.Third,in perhaps the most creative of his moves,he collapses the distinction between willing and acting.It is conceptually difficult,perhaps impossible,to grasp how the distinction between willing and acting can be collapsed,but it is no more fantastic than existing rival means of avoiding the problems of free will.

手工翻译,供参考选用：
绝大多数的人不会深刻思考自己是否自由.这或许充其量是由于三种可能性(宿命论、相容论和自由论),如果仔细加以分析,每一种可能都有其致命的弱点.尽管如此,沃伦(Varun)还是大胆地尝试着去证明有一种理性的方式可以来解释自由意愿.但是,沃伦也认识到,要证明自由意愿的存在只是两个大问题中的第一个.第二个大问题是,在证明自由意愿时,其证明方式应当与道德责任的存在相吻合.他通过阿米尼乌斯派教义表明,完全漠视是自由意愿所必需的,有些自由意愿的概念似乎与道德责任的可能性不相符.他对乔纳森*爱德华兹(Jonathan Edwards)的学说进行了精彩的分析.爱德华兹是美国十八世纪的加尔文派神学家,他认为,我们对自由和道德责任的普遍认识并不意味着自由意愿,自由派的自由意愿与道德责任的存在格格不入.除了简明地阐述爱德华兹的论点之外(这本身就不是一件易事),沃伦指出,爱德华兹实际上是用偷换论据的方法来反对自由派的观点.但是,出于令人敬佩的宽容,他重建了一个更有力的论点.沃伦推翻了爱德华兹所能提出最强有力的论点.他采取了几个异乎寻常的步骤来取代了之前的论点.首先,他试图创建一个因果关系独立的自由论版本.其次,他意识到这需要明确区分可能性和概率性.最后,他消除了意愿和行为之间的区别,此举有可能是他最具创新的举动.尽管要从概念上来理解如何消除意愿和行为之间的差别是非常困难的,也许是不可能的,但这一论点毕竟没有绕开自由意愿问题的现有其他方法那么荒谬.
备注：
Straw man: 稻草人,（辩论中的）偷换论据
稻草人谬论：
1. 甲有观点X
2. 乙摒除观点X中的一些关键论据,继而以表面上看来很相似的观点Y来取而代之.
3. 乙攻击观点Y,并得出结论X是虚假的/错误的/有缺陷的.