It is astonishing to me the fervor with which some in the life sciences seek to dismantle the very concept of human freedom. The latest example comes from Penn biologist Anthony R. Cashmore in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in an article in which he claims that human free will is fiction. Here’s the Abstract:
It is widely believed, at least in scientific circles, that living systems, including mankind, obey the natural physical laws. However, it is also commonly accepted that man has the capacity to make “free” conscious decisions that do not simply reflect the chemical makeup of the individual at the time of decision—this chemical makeup reflecting both the genetic and environmental history and a degree of stochasticism. Whereas philosophers have discussed for centuries the apparent lack of a causal component for free will, many biologists still seem to be remarkably at ease with this notion of free will; and furthermore, our judicial system is based on such a belief. It is the author’s contention that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism—something biologists proudly believe they discarded well over 100 years ago.
This article is a classic example, not only of the many attempts to destroy human exceptionalism afoot in the sciences, but also, of how some in the life sciences (in particular) seek to supplant philosophy and religion as the sources for determining meaning (it would seem there isn’t any), ethics, and morality. We should not let them get away with it.
February 17th, 2010 | 1:31 am
“We should not let them get away with it.” I very much agree, and I would add we should not abet their project as Stephen Barr does when he champions blind watchmaker Darwinism in these pages. If blind watchmaker Darwinism is true, there is no scientific ground on which to oppose Cashmore’s conclusion.
February 17th, 2010 | 2:19 am
Well, of course Cashmore would say that: that’s what the stochastic processes in his brain just happened to come up with, at least according to his own theory. The best response is to take him at his word, and give his theory the same credence we would give to the random typing of a monkey. That the sequence of symbols he came up with happens to look like a coherent statement from a rational being must just be an accident, there is no need to assume he knew what he was saying.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:27 am
I think Cashmore’s right, actually, or at least that he’s consistent, and his linking of belief in free will with belief in God – cited in the ‘Secondhand Smoke’ post – is absolutely on the button. If I didn’t believe in God I’d be the hardest determinist you could ever meet.
C.S. Lewis explores this very point, iirc, in the third chapter of ‘Miracles’, and reaches a very similar conclusion, which is that if we have an exclusively materialist worldview, as Cashmore apparently does, and if we are consistent in our thinking, then we have to ditch any notion of us having free will.
Chesterton went even further in ‘Orthodoxy’, when he pointed out that in such a worldview, good logic was as unreliable as bad logic, both of them being mere ‘movements in the brain of a bewildered ape’.
February 17th, 2010 | 8:53 am
We all experience the reality of making choices every day. (“Should I go to the bank on my lunch hour, or should I wait till tomorrow?”) Determinists deny that these choices are freely made. They try to persuade us by rational argument that we ought to accept their position. The problem is that this “ought” itself embodies an appeal to freedom. Determinists ask us to be loyal to the pursuit of truth, but such a commitment is impossible if we cannot make free choices. Therefore any attempt to prove that the experience of choice is illusory is self-defeating. See Germain Grisez
February 17th, 2010 | 9:29 am
I agree with Lon. Forgive the poor doctor. Whether its true or not, the good doctor believes he had no choice in saying it.
After all, if there is no free will how can the automaton doctor make an “argument” and how can biologists “discard” anything let alone Vitalism. No, Doc Cashmore believes the world is an illusion, something discarded by Descartes a while ago.
February 18th, 2010 | 11:34 am
Especially in light of Thirsty Gargoyle’s comment, it’s clear vitalism should not have been rejected in the first place. Sine it has been, most of us find ourselves with a strange combination of opinions–that animals are complicated machines, but human persons are free, because of … reason, maybe? Or God? No wonder Cashmere finds this implausible.
Why would Smith call vitalism unscientific? Unscientific compared to what?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact