Free will: a defunct religious concept.
This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
Free will: a defunct religious concept.
This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
Comments
8 responses to “You can’t swim without water”
A desire to punish people is no argument for the validity of free will.
If free will is not valid then we need to address the consequences to personal responsibility. If the actions of people are the unavoidable result of their constitution then it is not morally correct to demand punishment.
There is a close link between criminality and deprivation, so we can look at it like this, if a child is brought up in poverty, in an uncaring environment, with little education leading to no prospects and no ambition and no opportunities for progression it is likely they will drift into criminal behaviour; without having had any ‘choice’ in the matter. So, should we continue providing an environment devoid of care and kindness, that led to criminality in the first place, or should we help them to become a worthwhile and useful member of the community?
Choosing the latter, however, does not mean that criminals should not be incarcerated; that may be necessary to protect the general public, so the deterrent factor would still exist. But all our efforts should be put into modifying the way they think, through education and awareness.
It would be better, of course, if such education was carried out while young in order to prevent the criminal behaviour in the first place.
I’ve seen various blogs and videos about this, and this discussion occurs in religious circles as well as atheistic; but my main problem is that if we assume criminals are unable to exercise ‘freewill’ decision-making, and therefore we don’t punish them, and rather ‘treat’ them for their ‘condition’, we also lose the deterrent influence of prison or other punishments. I think it’s a downward spiral towards anarchy, as being a criminal is now becoming the easy option for some, and violence is rewarded with care and kindness. Is this really the way we want to go?
jeepyjay on November 4th
> …the conclusion appears to be somewhat paradoxical… Yet you conclude that “Humans are, though, purposive agents with the freedom to exercise their will” and we might just as well call this “free will”!
Well, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek with my final comment. to point out that the term itself is rather vague and can mean different things. Although nonsensical in the dualistic sense, it can refer in a meaningful way to the purposive behaviour sense, which is probably the sense that is adequate for the everyday sense of freedom that people feel, and of which most of the world don’t even worry about.
> I think we have some freedom, but to a very limited extent.
Yes, as I said, “Humans are, though, purposive agents with the freedom to exercise their will,… within the limitations of the physical laws of the universe, without any need to invoke supernatural beings.”
> A point that you do not make is that we can develop our ability to reason, to use logic, and to work out what we ought to do in particular circumstances. The conclusions of our cogitations then become part of our “self” and can influence the way we act…
As we are deterministic agents then those cogitations happen in a deterministic way, so we can not “develop” them as there is no “we” separate to the deterministic processes that can have control over them. However, this relates to my points about increased awareness or insight which may arise from internal (deterministic) reasoning processes or may arise from external influences. Therapies such as CBT aid this awareness process.
I think I largely agree with the argument of this article, but the conclusion appears to be somewhat paradoxical. You show that the religious idea of “free will” as expounded by Moreland is untenable. Yet you conclude that “Humans are, though, purposive agents with the freedom to exercise their will” and we might just as well call this “free will”!
What I think you have shown is that human beings with a developed “self” have the ability to act in accordance with their nature, using their “will” which is part of the self. The question is, how “free” is this will to make choices? I think we have some freedom, but to a very limited extent.
A point that you do not make is that we can develop our ability to reason, to use logic, and to work out what we ought to do in particular circumstances. The conclusions of our cogitations then become part of our “self” and can influence the way we act, i.e. apply our will, in future. This is probably the basis of cognitive behaviour therapy, and of the rehabilitation of criminals.
You contradict yourself; “individuals do not really exist”; “the individual is a cellular unit”.
What you regard as the individual is a matter of subjective classification not an objective fact about the world; whether it be the cell, the person or the atom, or society. Whichever view you take what has this got to do with free will?
Also what has it got to do with the thesis of the post that determinism is essential for purposive behaviour?
Making a vague statement without any supporting reasoning or explanation adds nothing to the discussion.
I left myself open to that rebuke, but I hardly think what I say has no bearing on the post. My point is that individuals do not really exist and therefore free will is as vacuous an idea as that of God. I just wanted to put that idea out there rather than trying to examine the essay in detail. Looking at the summary list there are good points and bad points from this point of view.
Knowledge is freedom, I love that, that is right up my street. You raise a lot of good points in this post, but what I wanted to do is to draw your attention to an idea that I regard as the ultimate solution to all these issues which pull us one way and then the other.
> Howard on October 16th, 2013 5:38 pm (Edit)
> … being a keen atheist I would like to offer my take on the offering at the top of the home page. I have only glanced at it because it does not have much bearing on what I want to say by way of offering an entirely different perspective.
Probably a good idea to actually read it as your subsequent comments do not appear to have any bearing on the post.
I have just discovered this site, or it is the first time I have taken an interest in it, and being a keen atheist I would like to offer my take on the offering at the top of the home page. I have only glanced at it because it does not have much bearing on what I want to say by way of offering an entirely different perspective.
Your piece on free will assumes that the individual is the object of human evolution, so the person is the human animal, the living being arising from evolution, that exists as an end in themselves. I disagree. I am fanatically individualist by inclination, but unfortunately my own efforts to make sense of existence from an atheist point of view, where I want to understand why religion exists and what science says humans are, has led me to the insight that the individual is not the human animal, but rather the human animal is a superorganism, and the individual is a cellular unit thereof.
If we adopt such a view then all things can be made sense of in an uncompromisingly naturalistic manner. Which explains why this idea is taboo in science, because otherwise religion would be impossible to sustain, and religion rules our world because religion is the biological identity of the living human animal, the superorganism. Thus, although you are presenting yourself as an atheist, by sustaining the idea that the individual is an end in themselves you are unwittingly supporting religion, and opposing both atheism and genuine science.
There are a couple of postings I spotted that can be related to this topic, Science and Religion aren’t friends by Jerry Coyne, 2010, which falls into the same trap of individualism which treats human society as if it were self made instead of natural. Then there is a comment on Coyne’s post by Hamish which I like because it almost says what I am going to say now. Hamish in effect asks what religion is as an absolute thing, implying that any set of ideas or values might, unbeknownst to the holder of such ideas, be nothing more than a ‘religion’ by another name. The one thing he fails to ask that I would of liked to of seen, is whether Darwinism is in fact just religion by another name, for that is exactly what it is, but the question is why is this so ?
To answer this question we need to be able to deliver categorical answers to questions about humans, which we cannot do as long as we treat the human animal as the individual person, because the immense variety of individuals makes it impossible to fix upon any uniform idea as to their nature. However, this difficulty vanishes when we realise that the human animal is a superorganism created by nature, and the individual does not exist, as an end in themselves. An uncomfortable thought, but reality is what reality is, and by realising this reality we do at least obtain ultimate knowledge of our self, and the ability to understand and answer any question related to ourselves, such as whether or not free will exists.