But what about those who don't believe in God? Interestingly, most of my friends who are atheist or agnostic still believe in free will and in some notion of right and wrong. But is there a basis for this?
First, let's examine the evidence for the existence of free will in a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing outside of the natural order. There is no God, nothing supernatural, and nothing outside of the space-time continuum and the natural universe. By this worldview, it logically follows that there can only be two things governing human behavior: our natural composition (DNA, the chemicals in our brain, etc.), and our environment.
But are we really in control of either of these things? We certainly have the perception that we are choosing our actions, but I am not sure this is possible under naturalism. Without any possibility of a soul or a supernatural consciousness, the human body is reduced to a biochemical machine. Any action we make is merely the inevitable outcome of the biological functionality of our body. In other words, we are controlled by the same laws of nature that govern a rock falling off a cliff, or a robot following its computer code. Granted, our "code" is much more complex than any robot humans can currently make, but it would be code nonetheless.
And as for our environment, we are hardly in control of that either! And even when we make any decisions to change our environment (moving, changing jobs or friends, etc.), it could be argued that all of these decisions are only being made because of our DNA and environment in the first place! In short, it would seem like a purely naturalistic worldview cedes any possibility of autonomous control over any aspect of our life. As Richard Dawkins, a naturalist, wrote in his book 'The Selfish Gene': "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."
Yet even atheists have a severe problem actually viewing humans as mere machines. In fact, most of my friends and family who do not believe in God have a very heightened passion for social justice and equality. When I hear their anger over things like unjust wars, unfair political policies, and corporate greed, it is very clear that they believe that people are responsible for their actions and that the strong should care for the weak. Yet why all this anger, why this cry for justice and mercy, if we are all biochemical machines who can't control our selfish actions? Clearly, the desire for free will and right and wrong seem universal. But the only logical source for these needs would seem to lie outside of nature. After all, nature is all about the strong crushing the weak, compassion and justice are alien concepts to the animal kingdom. As is free will, as previously explained with the polar bear, animals do not seem to have any conscious control or responsibility for their actions.
This is why, to me, it comes down to a choice. If you reject God and accept naturalism, it follows that you should take this worldview to its natural (no pun intended) conclusion. Under naturalism, we are nothing but a biochemical machine, blindly programmed by evolution to selfishly propagate our own DNA at the expense of weaker beings. There is no free will, no choice, no higher purpose, no right, and no wrong.
Yet I have never met a person who can honestly accept these things. Therefore, I would challenge people who do not currently believe in God to investigate why they believe so strongly in their morals and in their free will. Perhaps they will find, as I have, that the only logical explanation is a supernatural source, such as God and the presence of a soul in each and every one of us.
I am still confused. I always thought naturalism pertained to the physical world, that it is not controlled by any kind of deity, but I didn't think it meant that there is no kind of human spirit or consciousness of right and wrong. I guess i just don't understand the concept that there is only understanding of right and wrong if there is belief in God. Why couldn't it exist otherwise?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post mom. I wasn't saying that you can't have notions of right and wrong without God, I was saying that there is seemingly no possibility for free will without God. The consequence of lacking free will is that there can't be any kind of REAL right or wrong, because none of us are in control of our actions and therefore are not responsible for anything. Right and wrong implies that we have control and responsibilities for our actions.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tricky point, but the basic logic flow for this is as follows:
1) To have free will, we have to be able to control our actions in a manner that is not entirely predetermined by our biological code and environment.
2) Under naturalism, most evolutionary biologists and philosophers are coming to the logical conclusion that we are nothing but a biochemical machine, entirely run by our DNA, chemicals in our brain, the laws of nature, and our environment. We are not in control of any of these things, and therefore we cannot control what we do.
3) Since everything is therefore predetermined by uncontrollable natural processes, there is no right or wrong because we cannot control our lives and actions.
4) Even setting aside the notion of free will, it is logically bizarre that the morality of atheists tends to mirror many Christian notions, such as charity and compassion, that are the mirror opposite of the "moral" laws that rule the animal kingdom and the natural world.
My take on this, and I think what Jbo was getting at (although I don't want to put words in his mouth) is this: without God and if the world is just based on the physics of nature, then a person's perception about what is right and wrong is nothing more than an inevitable opinion, shaped by their DNA and the culture they grew up in. It is no more or less valid than the opinions of people around the world that we might find abhorrent. In this scenario the behavior of certain people is not abhorrent to us because it is wrong, but merely because it is different.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, I find it interesting that those cultures of today that we find to be backward or barbaric have a strong correlation to those cultures that were never predominantly Christian.
And Jbo, to play devil's advocate, I should think that free will might be likened to a random process: where a decision (output) is not absolutely determined by one's DNA and environment (input). If this is so, then I argue that a naturalistic view on decision making can be thought of a pseudo-random process, as in computers, where, although the output is absolutely determined by the inputs, the relationship is so complex as to appear random (free will). As en engineer, isn't this close enough?
I'm not sure if I cogently relayed my thinking, but it was just an idea I had.
-Chris
Chris, thanks for the elaboration, you summed it up very nicely.
ReplyDeleteAs for your computer analogy, I'm not sure I'm convinced. When a computer generate "random" numbers, for example, they might appear random but in reality even this is part of a predetermined computer code. This might give the appearance of choice/randomness, but in reality this is still predetermined. I would argue that this would also apply to humans under naturalism. We are definitely complex enough that it presents the appearance of complex choice, but in the end this would still be naturally predetermined.
What is interesting is a larger portion of atheists are starting to assert this notion as well! Sam Harris, a noted anti-theist, just published a book refuting the notion of free will. And Richard Dawkins says: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." So this notion that without God there is no free will is not just something that Christians are asserting, but the naturalists themselves are conceding the point and sometimes even celebrating it. But I would argue that many naturalists have naively clinged to free will without realizing that it depends on the very God they have rejected. In other words, they are dropping God but still adopting many Christian worldviews without even realizing it.
Yo, interesting post. A couple random thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) It's a natural thing for humans to do because of our superiority complex — much of which, I believe, has been established since the advent of the household pet not that long ago — but you're misunderstanding the animal kingdom. When animals act in a barbaric nature toward each other, they're not doing so because they lack control or have no moral bounds. The majority of the time, they're doing it out of necessity. They need to it. They need to feed their families. That's how carnivore animals survive! So while I know you disagree, I don't think it's certain that animals lack souls or free will. Animals' brains are much more complex than most humans realize (just think of the pigs that have been shown to excel at video games; of course, we would rather eat them than talk about how smart they are).
2) I won't completely dismiss free will, but I will say that I often feel like some of my actions are inevitable, like there is a force that I can't resist. I think the notion of humans acting based on their environments, etc.. isn't as far-fetched as you make it out to be because one's environment often, as we know, has a lot to do with how one matures. For instance, one who grows up in an impoverished home with an abusive father is much, much more likely to adopt those tendencies/bad habits when they grow up. Obviously, this isn't always the case, which is why there's that gray area (or variations of biomechanical mass) that make up the difference, possibly, in those that go a right path versus as wrong path. As far as "right" vs. "wrong," that's something that's been developed over thousands of years as civilizations and societies created laws.
Interesting stuff all around.
— Jake