The Insanity of Denying Free Will
“Chesterton’s asylum example also applies to a recent article published at Phys.org about a scientist who has written a book to convince everyone that humans don’t have free will.” - Breakpoint
- 291 views
Saplosky was interviewed recently on CBC Radio's "Quirks and Quarks"
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/does-biology-trump-free-will-a-behaviou…
His agenda is to remove personal responsibility for behavior and therefore prisons.
So I guess he really didn't choose to write the results of his multi-year studies.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
So I guess he really didn't choose to write the results of his multi-year studies.
I believe he would agree.
Here's where I'll grant him a kernel of truth. There is a place where the difference between free will and extremely complex causation become almost indistinguishable--at least in how they work.
So if I understand his view, he is simply renaming "free will" unknown complex causes. What the human actually does is the same thing. Looking through a biblical lens, we know human are responsible for their choices and that their choices are real. But even in a materialist view like we're seeing here, complex causation doesn't really free anybody from responsibility--because there is still the phenomenon of apparent choice, which still has to be treated like choice. Without that, everything really does become incoherent very quickly.
How would you even get out of bed in the morning. Imagine this inner dialog...
Alarm goes off.
"I really don't feel like getting out of bed. But I should... But I don't really have the power of choice. My actions are entirely caused by outside factors and my internal chemistry and physics."
Nodding off again...
"So... yawn... I'm just going to lie here and wait for chemistry and physics to get me out of bed."
Misses work. Gets fired... because things like businesses require things like reality, including the ability to make choices.
So my point is that even if he's correct (which he isn't), there can be absolutely no "so what?" We have to behave like choice is real, because if we don't, we will stop behaving at all and just die in our beds... or where we stand. There can be no practical difference between free will and a materialist human in a naturalist universe driven solely by complex natural causes.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No, first responsibility would still attach, because societies response would also be determined and restraint on those who are dangerous to society would still need to be controlled or eliminated.
Instead, this is the proper conclusion from materialism, of course the problem is this applies to the rest of the mind as well as to the will.The brain in such a case is shaped by a process that rewards in the propagation of genes and memes based on their utility not by their truth. If naturalism is true then our ethical beliefs must be false, there can be no truth maker in reality for our ethical concepts. Why then do we believe them? Because they benefit us for survival. Thus, this only seems to suggest that the argument from reason or the EAAN are correct(see C S Lewis's dangerous Idea by Reppert, Miracles by C S Lewis--the revised edition, and Plantinga Where the Conflict Lies)
Plantinga is very persuasive on the question of naturalistic evolution and survival vs. truth.
I don’t think he concludes “If naturalism is true then our ethical beliefs must be false” though. I think I would remember that. But possibly I missed it.
I’m inclined to disagree, in any case. Sort of. It’s true that what’s true and/or right is often not interested in personal survival. But often it is. I don’t believe “unguided evolution” happened, but that view can account for some overlapping beliefs and even some ethics—within a sort of bounded system.
What I mean is that in naturalism there really is no such thing as “right” or “wrong” unless you make some ethical assumptions first: That it’s right or good for humanity/the most intelligent/sentient species to survive. Second, that it’s also good for them to thrive. If you take that as a starting point (which is religion, let’s be honest) then you can squeeze a lot of truth and ethics out of what’s conducive to surviving and thriving. If you want, out of ‘unguided evolution.’
There is a lot of overlap between survival and truth. It’s just that pure naturalism can’t really give us any reason to believe survival ought to be a goal. There is no ought in the system at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The Scriptures do not refer to human will in it's natural condition as "free." It just says we have a will.
We act according to our natures. We act in response to situations, moods, temptations, deliberate decisions, and many other factors, known and unknown. We're complicated.
But somewhere inside us are things like: "For out of the heart come bevil thoughts, cmurder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, dslander. These are what defile a person." (Mt15:19-20) And: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions." (Rom1:26) And: "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?" (Rom6:16)
Discussion