Until Further Titling – Week 2; Covenantal Love
This topic has arisen before on SNV, and the depths of the philosophy entailed are worth exploration if you ever have the time. The argument that we do not have free will is a slippery one though, that can be difficult to refute on its own premises. Proving a nonmathematical and ethereal concept exists is always challenging. I have but a few disjointed and disorganized thoughts…
There is a practical reason why we must believe in free will. For years, decades, and even centuries, heretics of order have argued that free will cannot exist since our brain structure and brain chemicals and surroundings and history have a hand in our decision-making. Of course it is true that this does not mean the decision cannot remain one of personal choice. But much more than that are the ramifications of being a “victim of circumstance” where we are not responsible for our actions but for the fact that they were pre-programmed to occur to us and not someone else: this line of reasoning would destroy the institution of law, morality, and all of society overnight if it caught on (and in many degraded social circles it already has). Imagine a legal system existing where you could plead that you had no choice in the matter, and that you should not be found guilty because if it was not your choice, you bear no responsibility for it. No personal responsibility means that society degrades immediately – it is precisely the materialist thinking that leads us to Hobbesian Leviathan while at the same time undermining the purpose of laws in and of themselves. The purpose of law no longer is “moral obligation to the property and person of every member of society” but rather totalitarian nihilism, a concept which takes a mental gymnast to define and make work. None can be held accountable for anything when they do not choose it. This is why retardation is not an executable offense in our society, and why hating a person because she is black or a woman is wrong. When one cannot choose his circumstances for himself, judgment may not be rendered against him – morally or legally – as it would be unjust.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is but one of the ways that materialism destroys law, order, society, morality, religion, and all human interaction. If we are not responsible for ourselves, every shred of human convention and interaction can be ignored – as it has nothing to do with the good or bad or mere choices of humans, only the complex biological constants of high monkeys…
The great irony of our time is that the more “enlightened” and “humanistic” we believe ourselves to be becoming, the more barbaric and animalistic we regress. We believe we are making gods of men by destroying that which makes them more than the common barnyard animal. Absolving us of personal responsibility is not compassionate or just. It creates beasts of men. Many great thinkers knew this, and knew that Red China’s and Soviet Russia’s gulags and tens of millions dead were both the logical end of the best humanisms, ones in which responsibility of the individual was taken by the state and for the use of the purposes of the masses. Our society is hellbent on this absolution from responsibility – and we can see it with things as evil and pronounced as Abortion or as seemingly benign as the fact that most of us have never seen an animal we eat slaughtered for food (oh, the irony of the fact that many who support Abortion and the irresponsibility thereof are appalled and feel immediately responsible for the death of an animal and give up meat…).
In a word, dear scientists, “NO!”
My favorite post in awhile, Kevin.
"Tenderness leads to the gas chamber."
Brian,
Thanks for adding that quote. I thought of it the entire time, and hoped that some people would make the connection. Is that from Thanatos or Love in the Ruins?
And I know what you mean about favorite post. I hope that pretty soon I will find enough material that is non-political to post – it is getting old for me too!
-kj-
Your argument seems to be that we must have free will because the ramifications of not having free will, as far as personal responsibility is concerned, are unpleasant. While it is true that an acknowledgement of determinism over free will would require a revision of our approach to moral issues, it would not inescapably necessitate moral nihilism as you seem to suggest. However, none of this is relevant to the truth of the matter, and the truth should be embraced no matter how pleasant or unpleasant the resulting ramifications may be. Most of the knowledge gleaned from neuroscience and genetics on the issue of free will seems to point to the fact that it is in fact an illusion. Neuroscientist Sam Harris beautifully illustrates why this inconvenient truth does not lead to nihilism in a passage from his novel "The Moral Landscape:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dodTNPp12rg&feature=related
It is unpleasant that we would be dismantling the criminal justice system and all personal morality? Not unpleasant. Insane. Impractical. Disgusting. Nonsensical. But it would be a heavenly hell to be free of responsibility for your actions… It would be far easier than things like prisons and every other human being being naught more than meat who you may respect if you wish but don't have to because you can blame it on your brain chemistry. Harris' bitching is decently taken on some issues, though his philosophy is poor. There can be no morality without God, or at least pretending God exists. Right and wrong requires much more than just atoms and dark matter…
I am not going to debate an Anonymous, because for some reason it feels like one can be an intellectual coward as long as they wish with such posts. Get a name, and we can go at it all day.
Dear Anonymous: When I want to debate biology, I might consult Dawkins. When looking at neuroscience, perhaps Harris will do. But when debating philosophy, I check with philosophers. And no, Harris' cute little BA in philosophy does not qualify him as a philosopher. He suffers from the same illness as Dawkins. As a biologist, Dawkins is excellent. As a philosopher, Dawkins is still an fine biologist, thereby rendering him a disastrous philosopher. Same goes for Harris. "knowledge" "gleaned" from neuroscience tells us about neurochemical reactions in the brain. This doesn't go far at all to properly inform us on the human person.
I will add that a majority of what Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris do is precisely what you are talking about. Hell is unpleasant. Personal responsibility is unpleasant. Freedom is unpleasant. Even heaven is unpleasant. God's existence doesn't depend on these men's definitions of fairness. "Oh, it looks like God allows people to hurt, poor us, he must not exist!"
The quotation is from The Thanatos Syndrome but is actually a reference to a forward written by Flannery O'Connor, if I recall correctly.
Thanks, Dan.