It is astonishing to me the fervor with which some in the life sciences seek to dismantle the very concept of human freedom. If they have their way, we will go from, “The devil made me do it,” to perhaps, “My genes made me do it,” or, “My genes as mediated by my experiences made me do it,” to now apparently, “My chemicals made me do it.”
At least that is what Penn biologist Anthony R. Cashmore seems to be advocating in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in an article in which he claims that human free will is fiction. First, Cashmore claims that our behavior is controlled by a “trinity of forces,” one of which is the “inherent uncertainty of the physical properties of matter.” From the article, “The Lucretian Swerve: The Biological Basis of Human Behavior and the Criminal Justice System (no link, here’s the Abstract):
If our genes and environment govern our actions, does this mean that our behavior is deterministic? Not necessarily. Rather, there is a trinity of forces —genes, environment, and stochasticism (GES)—that governs all of biology including behavior, with the stochastic component referring to the inherent uncertainty of the physical properties of matter…Whereas biological systems may have evolved mechanisms to minimize some features of randomness, it is my contention that in contrast to this philosophy, other aspects of the complexity of living systems actually reflect selection in favor of random events
Apparently that uncertainty means that our behavior is not in our control–we just don’t know it:
I believe that free will is better defined as a belief that there is a component to biological behavior that is something more than the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature. Here, in some ways, it might be more appropriate to replace “genetic and environmental history” with “chemistry”—however, in this instance these terms are likely to be similar and the former is the one commonly used in such discussions
In other words, behavior is merely biology in action, rather than the actions or inaction of people with freedom to choose between what we want to do or not do, between right and wrong, etc.:
Although, like any biosynthetic process, the product may be quite distinct from the input material, it is still a direct consequence of these materials. I suggest that consciousness acts on behavior in a similar manner, such as to commonly reinforce the negative effects that are associated with antisocial behavior. Similarly, for some of us, consciousness heightens our desire to listen to music, for example, or to watch or participate in sporting activities. Whereas the impressions are that we are making “free” conscious decisions, the reality is that consciousness is simply a state of awareness that reflects the input signals, and these are an unavoidable consequence of GES. The mechanistic details of these conscious processes are unknown, and remain the major unsolved problem in biology
How convenient. Nonetheless, a belief in free will is “religion:”
A belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs. Indeed, I would argue that free will makes “logical sense,” as long as one has the luxury of the “causal magic” of religion. Neither religious beliefs, nor a belief in free will, comply with the laws of the physical world. However, despite thi similarity, although in scientific circles a skeptical viewpoint is very common regarding religious forces and their day-to-day impact on biological systems, it is my observation that similar skepticism is not widely held regarding a belief in free will
This means we are not responsible for even the most heinous acts, and the law should change accordingly, allowing some form of “punishment” and “treatment,” although how you punish someone for something they couldn’t help is beyond me. And get this:
We are conscious automata.” That is, Huxley believed (as I and many others do) that we are mechanical forces of nature and that, by some mechanism we have evolved the phenomenon of consciousness, which, I would argue, has conferred upon us the illusion of responsibility.
Apparently that means the Holocaust wasn’t really Hitler’s fault–it was all in his chemistry! And can you imagine any wife accepting the excuse, “Not my fault, it was my chemicals!” No, it might have been your hormones but you had the power to say no. That is part of what makes us human.
And here comes the scientism imperialism:
It is almost with a sense of pride that the authors of such texts may contrast this understanding with the alternative earlier belief in vitalism—the belief that there are forces governing the biological world that are distinct from those that determine the physical world. The irony here is that in reality, a belief in free will is nothing less than a continuing belief in vitalism—a concept that we like to think we discarded well over 100 years ago! It is my concern, that this vitalistic way of thinking abouthuman behavior—a style of thinking that is present throughout our scientific institutions—serves only to hinder what should be a major onslaught on determining the molecular genetic and chemical basis of human behavior.
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.
As I often say: If you want to see why society seems to be going so wrong, just check out the professional journals.
February 16th, 2010 | 8:54 pm
Dr. Smith, you wrote: “We should not let them get away with it.” Who is “them” anyway? Come on Dr. Smith, don’t be so hard on poor Anthony Cashmore and his friends — their chemicals made them come to the conclusion that they’re nothing but chemicals. It’s not their fault they’re wrong.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Sorry. Quite right. Not his fault.
February 16th, 2010 | 8:58 pm
[...] More details and analysis over at Secondhand Smoke. Comments (0) [...]
February 16th, 2010 | 9:45 pm
“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.”
The article link: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/04/0915161107.full.pdf+html
Science is not “trying” to supplant philosophy and religion as the sources of meaning, ethics and morality, although scientific studies surely influence philosophical and religious thought.
Human exceptionalism is a religious concept not a scientific one, and is unlikely to be “proven”. But that doesn’t mean that plants and non-human animals have the equivalent of human rights! Even atheist biologists recognize that humans possess the ability and right to use plants and animals to survive, just as lions, beavers, bluejays, oaks, carp and big bluestem rely on the environment for their survival.
What is your proposal “not let them get away with it”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Jeffrey, you are wrong again. Human exceptionalism doesn’t require religion to support. Indeed, the rational and secular reasons for it may be even more robust. I have a whole chapter on that in my upcoming book.
And some scientists are trying to supplant philosophy/religion. This article is one example. De Waal has stated that science should supplant those disciplines, as, interestingly he supported human exceptionalism (not calling it that), even though he thinks chimps have rudimentary morality. Again, details in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy.
February 16th, 2010 | 9:49 pm
Dr. Cashmore seems to have begun this inquiry trying to prove the notion that any damn fool can do philosophy. He failed in that attempt.
However, not all is lost; he did prove that any damn fool can do biology. So, that is something.
If Dr. Cashmore would really like to covince anyone he should provide the physical law that gives the meaning behind the concept “vitalism.” Heck, I’d like him to provide the physical law that provides the meanng for the term “physical law.”
February 16th, 2010 | 10:01 pm
My chemicals made me write this. Do not question science.
But seriously, there are mental and neurological disorders which blur the question of “free will” in some cases.
I will be seeking medication to treat compulsive blog disorder. Resistance is futile.
February 16th, 2010 | 10:36 pm
So metacognition entails vitalism? Gross oversimplification, I know, but it seems apt.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:40 pm
Smith, Smith, Smith, sigh.
You disappoint me, again.
Thanks for the flimsy summary of Cashman’s article.
Now, CRITIQUE it. Yes, this can be done in a succinct manner. Dedicate a column to it, for example.
Is Cashman’s argument adducing that free-will, as we know it, does not exist valid and sound? why or why not
Is Cahsman’s ‘pragmatic proposal’ relevant? Why or why not? Would it be an improvement – why or why not?
In light of your assessment of Cashman’s pragmatic proposal, explain then why embracing “free-will” is a necessary, correct, or “good” component of society? – should you think it is
Is Cashman correct – need we not fear or be pessimistic over a world lacking free-will?
Come on, I’m trying to help. Elevate your game.
BTW, science is a type of philosophy (not that you didn’t say it wasn’t). It is, of course, not a religion by definition (not that you said it was). Just sayin’
Oh, and did you catch the article demonstrating that bonobos, like chimps, will share and exhibit reciprocity?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
David. It’s a blog. The article is six or seven pages and there are copyright issues. Fair use only goes so far. Also, people don’t read really long blog entries and this one was already way over optimal length. Some of it also has to do with criminal justice, which I didn’t want to get into. I may write an article on it sometime. But it was worth getting a good talk about and I think I did the abridged version justice.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:41 pm
sorry, that’s Cashmore… I have a friend, Cashman, jeez. sorry.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:42 pm
sorry, that’s Cashmore, not Cashman. I have a friend Cashman, jeez. sorry
February 17th, 2010 | 12:13 am
That is all very sad.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:01 am
I wanted to discuss this with my dog but could not. He was running late for his Ancient Hebrew class.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:02 am
And it was his inaugural article announcing his membership at PNAS advancing his thesis: Folks, free will is an illusion. Period.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:43 am
The question of free-will is difficult one. It seems odd, at first, that we are made of physical stuff, some of which is responsible for our thought, which can act, or produce something which acts, in a non-deterministic and non-random manner. Yet there is a contradiction in holding the contrary: if he is determined to believe in determinism and we in free-will, then reason must of necessity be invalid. We had no choice but to err! So on what grounds can anyone claim to know when their reasoning is subject to this trouble.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Indeed, Jeff. Does a free thought, e.g. one that comes into my head to say, invent the wheel. Does that arise somehow from a purely materialistic/chemical action, or is there something non physical, or at least non mesurable or falsifiable, that stimulates the chemical/electronic reaction.
February 17th, 2010 | 7:54 am
While it may not be the most polite assessment, Professor Cashmore is a nutcase.
More disturbing is that his colleagues hired him, that upenn tenured him, and that this nonsense was even published or presented in a supposedly respected forum – National Academy of Sciences.
As noted by others though, none of them can help themselves.
February 17th, 2010 | 10:29 am
Isn’t consciousness and free will tautological? What’s the point of self-awareness if you aren’t self-aware? If I’m not really self-aware, why am I still self-aware?
In the name of the scientific method, wouldn’t our constant daily observations of our own free be enough to accept the theory of free will? Has anyone with conscious thought ever demonstrated through observation that free will is false to themselves?
February 17th, 2010 | 10:40 am
I was wondering, what would be the consequence of a world where it became generally accepted that there was no such thing as free will? What would happen to ideas about Freedom or liberty or choice? These are all predicated on an understanding of the nature of man that includes free will. What falls when we remove this building block in our cultural and political constructs? I wonder what the good professor envisions the shape of the human polity to be if he got his way. No one beleaves in a naked free will somehow unconstrained by the circumstance of the world. Most, if they think of it, recognize that free will is a demand if we are to consider ourselves as moral beings and as a free people. So finally whether we possess, in some technical sense, free will or not,it is imperative that we beleave that we do.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Michael: If we found out there were no free will and it changed our morality, it would prove that the thesis was wrong. If we decided we had no choice but to do what we wanted because we wanted to, it would show that we do have free will, because we changed our perception of duties and principles of right and wrong. The change itself would show the falsity of the premise.
February 17th, 2010 | 10:56 am
SMITH!!!!
Yes, I am fullly aware of the copyright issues. I do not expect a posting of the article. I agree with the length issues and what not, in theory. (but I disagree with what constitutes long… geez, are people really that poor at reading… I read Cashmore’s article in a few minutes. It’s not long. Your blog posts are NEVER long by my definition – that’s not a bad thing or a good thing)
In my experience, many academics are happy to disseminate their pedagogy, free of charge.
BUT, I do think you could give fire off a few quick shots.
“I disagree with his definition because…”
“I quesiton Cashmore’s proposal because… x,y,z”
“Cashmore’s premise is unsound because… a,b,c”
I would contend that the main focus of Cashmore’s argument is simply that the common, modern Western notion of “free-will” is so ingrained in our fabric that we rarely question it, but if we think about it, we do not have free-will, as is commonly understood, and/or it is difficult to logically defend. What follows from this, then is… blah,blah,blah. But Cashmore never says there should be no consequences for genes + environment = action.
If I turn the tables and ask someone to present a water-tight argument defining free-will and why we have it – I doubt anyone could do that without having holes poked into it.
READERS: before jumping in and agreeing or disagreeing or not caring or turning to late night adult pay-per-view. Read the article. Yes, you might have to dig, beg, borrow, or steal. (I like stealing – it’s not your fault, it’s your genes + environment; but there will be consequences to your actions)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 11:10 am
David: But he is the one with the burden of proof. We all experience free will everyday, in the same way we experience gravity. Now that may be a fiction, but before anything should be done about it, that fiction will have to be PROVEN to be false.
I contemplated, for example, whether to respond to your post. I decided yes. Cashmore would say I had no choice based on chemistry. But that flies in the face of experience of each and every one of us.
He says in the piece, that we are compelled to what we do by genes, experience, and randomness, the latter force one that he can’t define. That’s proof? I know there’s something there but I don’t know what it is? That’s may serve as the basis of a hyothesis, but it isn’t scientific proof. Cashmore’s thesis isn’t testable and it isn’t falsifiable. So, where’s the METHOD? In other words, it is just his opinion.
And we should change our moral views and criminal laws based on THAT? I think not. David, what we have in Cashmore is a biologist venturing out of his area of expertise into ethics and morality.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:00 am
Somebody, ANYBODY,
In about 500 words, 10 minutes of typing:
If Cashmore is so OBVIOUSLY wrong, then it should be so OBVIOUSLY easy to destroy his argument in a paragraph or two – without anyone being able to poke holes in your take-down of Cashmore.
Why have none of you done that?
Come on, show me what you got.
If you’re smarter than Cashmore, demonstrate it.
Let’s go. Man up.
Otherwise, Cashmore wins and he is smarter than you.
Why do you folks back down from a fight so easily?
February 17th, 2010 | 11:52 am
When I was in college, BF Skinner was the rage. His theory was also “no free will” – we are the products of our genetics and environment. And if you believed otherwise, that’s just because of your genetics and environment…
Very frustrating trying to discuss.
February 17th, 2010 | 12:13 pm
We don’t experience “free-will” like we do gravity. We can clearly attribute certain phenomenon to the defined physical force “gravity”. How can I know, with the same level of confidence, that I go to the grocery store because I truly freely choose to, or my neurochemistry compels me to a breaking point to up and go? Do I try a new dish because I choose to or because my neurobehavior of curiosity overwhelms me to a point of compulsion vs. regret? The evidence for the biological basis of behavior is mounting, as Cashmore notes. The evidence for the common notion of “free-will” (our genes/environment/stochasticism play no part) is not.
So, I will now turn the tables on you. If we experience ‘free-will’ like we do gravity, we should then be able to easily quantify and predict free-will. I cannot predict what I choose in 5 minutes.
It is an opinion.
But it is testable that we act based on genes – it may take 100s of years for the how to be teased out, but it is testable.
If not genes and environment, what else is there? (I would argue those are redundant as genes and stochasticism are part of the environment) You are left with the supernatural. To date I have seen no evidence of the supernatural.
Smith, come one, read page 2 of the paper, as I recall, Cashmore devoted an entire section to explaining his “proof” as you questioned in paragraph 3. (for example, he cited the Ford and Thanos paper in Cell). If you disagree with his evidence, sure. (I do, actually)
Cahsmore’s proposal was actually that we simply re-think free-will and the criminal justice system.
I can’t choose to be a mathematical genius. My genes forbid me. I can’t choose to be a musical genius, my genes forbid me. I can’t choose to be an NBA star, my genes forbid me. So therefore, as I can’t choose those things, how can I choose to believe in god, enjoy chess, or think Johnny Weir is the best skater?
Cashmore might say that changes do not falsify the premise. The environment changed then the definitions changed. If we don’t have free-will, that does not preclude change. We were forced to change by our environment/genes; this change resulting in a change of how we define/view ‘free-will’. If our genes lead to a sea change in our psychology, either through selection/manipulation or mutation, that is the direction evolution takes and the ensuing change results.
Proof isn’t necessary for a hypothesis. Not that anything can be proved anyways; it can only be demonstrated to a very high confidence level. Testing is what follows the hypothesis.
Many findings in science fly in the face of what we experience everyday. We ain’t as biochemically different from other species as we hoped, we evolved, Nature changes over eons, the Earth was once a steamy jungle and an ice ball, gravity isn’t god controlling everything on the planet, tiny amounts of matter can unleash immense energy under certain conditions, etc, etc.
I’m not agreeing with Cashmore; just sayin’.
Venturing out? What’s wrong with that? Aren’t you a lawyer/attorney (ex) venturing into science commentary?
Here’s the deal with science. Many (perhaps most) of the papers published are hypotheses – that’s how science works. Cashmore’s hypothesis is testable and falsifiable – it does not rely on a supernatural induction; probably not testable in any of our lifetimes, though, and many after that.
I don’t expect a long drawn out debate. Cashmore didn’t convince me. With a more compelling argument and better data, I could be convinced either way. I’m not decided. I’m just sayin’…
February 17th, 2010 | 12:15 pm
Doesn’t anyone else find this whole train of argument hysterically absurd?
“but if we think about it, we do not have free-will”
David,
How do you argue with a person who says what everyone sees is red is actually green, when everyone’s personal observations including the person is that red is red, every single time over all the ages?
I can no more disprove the fact you even materially exist than anyone can prove or disprove free will. All we have is our experience, and my experience has always and at all times been that I have, however influenced, the rational ability to choose any action humanly possible.
February 17th, 2010 | 12:22 pm
David
Did you ever order from a menu?
Some claims are so ridiculous that they do not need, or even merit, refutation.
February 17th, 2010 | 1:52 pm
Wesley: David’s right. IMHO saying “Cashmore has the burden of proof” is so much chickenhearted escape and evasion. A Class-A copout. Need one remind you that you’ve yet to offer any rational defense of human exceptionalism?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I think you are a figment of some undigested potato. You have to prove I’m wrong. He has made a scientific assertion without any scientific evidence, other than assertions by people such as Crick and Darwin. Indeed, his thesis can’t even be tested. So, how is it my burden to prove him wrong? And I would point out that HE is a matter of philosophy, based in part, on scientifically verifiable distinctions between us and animals. You can’t prove by science that we have greater or lesser or equal moral value to animals or rocks for that matter. Science cannot tell us right from wrong. It is beyond its capacity.
February 17th, 2010 | 2:27 pm
David:
You wrote:
I can’t choose to be a mathematical genius. My genes forbid me. I can’t choose to be a musical genius, my genes forbid me. I can’t choose to be an NBA star, my genes forbid me. So therefore, as I can’t choose those things, how can I choose to believe in god, enjoy chess, or think Johnny Weir is the best skater?
So, since your genes forbid you from matching the accomplishments of Leonhard Euler, Stevie Wonder, or Wilt Chamberlain, you therefore can’t choose anything? Did you really consider – after your admonishment to the author and commenters in this thread – this to be an effective, or even non-laughable, argument? Seriously?
You can choose to do math (however well or badly). You can choose to learn to play an instrument (however well or badly). You can choose to play basketball (again, however well or badly). You can choose to believe in God or to not believe in God or not to make up your mind either way. Whether or not you enjoy chess, you can choose to either play the game or not. You can choose to think Johnny Weir is the best skater in the world or not, just like you can choose whether or not turn on your TV to watch him.
I’m hoping you will choose to make better arguments or at least choose to drop the self-flattering “more intelligent than thou” puffery you seem to be inclined towards.
February 17th, 2010 | 3:56 pm
As Isaac Bashevis Singer said, “I have to believe in free will. I don’t have any choice.”
February 17th, 2010 | 5:44 pm
From above: “I would contend that the main focus of Cashmore’s argument is … we do not have free-will, as is commonly understood, and/or it is difficult to logically defend … But Cashmore never says there should be no consequences for genes + environment = action … it’s not your fault, it’s your genes + environment; but there will be consequences to your actions.”
This right here is what undermines any system of morality based on Cashmore’s first-principles conjecture.
If society exacts consequences on a moral actor (i.e. a person, a citizen) with the understanding that they had no free choice in the matter but were predetermined to act by their genes & environment, that means that the punishment is meted out to the person not because of what they did, but because of who they are. In fact, you could no longer make any meaningful distinction between what you do and who you are.
This would all but abolish the concepts of justice and moral responsibility.
February 17th, 2010 | 10:40 pm
[...] Is there such a thing as genuine libertarian free will if naturalism is true? PNAS article shows what naturalists think of free will. (H/T Secondhand Smoke) [...]
February 17th, 2010 | 11:39 pm
David,
You said: “The evidence for the biological basis of behavior is mounting, as Cashmore notes. The evidence for the common notion of ‘free-will’ (our genes/environment/stochasticism play no part) is not.”
Perhaps the problem lies in your concept of free will as either-or. I think we all acknowledge that we are to some extent a product of physiology and upbringing, but I’m not sure all our behavior can be completely explained by either.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:42 pm
I don’t know why you think what Dr. Cashmore has written calls for a mass repeal of the legal system.
If you are going to receive the death penalty for murdering someone, the thought of that restricts the amount of serotonin released in the brain, resulting in a negative connotation with the act, which makes person not go through with the murder.
If there was no punishment for the act, there would be no chemicals to stop people from committing the act.
We do the things we do, essentially, based on how much serotonin will be released in the brain.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Eric: He had a big section in which he discussed changes that will be needed in the legal system. For example, no psychiatrists. I didn’t have space to note it, but one can’t commit a crime if one can’t form intent. If we have no choice to do what we do, then no one can commit a crime–and Bush can’t be hated for “war crimes.” : )
February 17th, 2010 | 11:45 pm
David,
You said: “…the common notion of ‘free-will’ (our genes/environment/stochasticism play no part)…”
Perhaps the problem lies in your inability to conceive of a middle ground (as the above comment would seem to indicate). I think we all acknowledge that we are to some extent a product of physiology and upbringing, but I don’t think our behavior can be completely explained by either 100% of the time. I suppose that remains to be seen, if ever, but I suspect that ‘la plus ca change…’
February 18th, 2010 | 9:42 am
Well put, Geronimo. As Levitin notes, the threshold of what we commonly think of as “expertise” on an instrument seems to hover around 10,000 hours of practice. And while some people acquire skills more quickly than others for many reasons, the practice itself changes the brain.
The best case I can think of offhand for free will is made by children of alcoholics who resist nature, nurture, or both. Pressures may be strong on both sides, but they decide day by day whether to have that first beer.
February 18th, 2010 | 10:36 am
So then, you have absolutely no proof of “human exceptionalism” to offer, is that correct? In that case your assertion of it is simply idle speculation and totally worthless. You do understand, don’t you, that in this country we’re expected to prove our assertions, not challenge others to DISprove them? Suppose you went to court and argued “the defendant is innocent because he had teleported himself to Antares at the time the crime was committed. Disprove it!” Chances are you’d find yourself with a contempt citation.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
You can’t be that obtuse, History Writer. Science and experience can tell us what is unique about humans. But it can’t prove that such differences are morally relevant. That is the job of philosophy, values, and/or religion. Morality isn’t a scientific issue. Nor are “rights.”
February 18th, 2010 | 12:43 pm
Ultimately the subject of free will issues from questions of morality and responsibility. Are we moral agents or not, this is the question. The answer we give goes goes far towards addressing the subject of human exceptionalism. One indication of what points us towards the correct answer is that no discussion, that I am aware of, has included animals as possible moral agents or possessors of free will. They are however encompassed by our moral responsibilities. This would indicate a particular human capacity which enables us to distinguish between good and evil and to act upon that distinction therefore making us free moral agents, exceptional and unique. Any other conclusion is destructive to personal and social order.
February 18th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
Anybody else get the vibe from the extract that Dr. Cashmore has renamed “free will” to “stochasticism”, made a currently unprovable assertion that eventually “stochastic” features of the mind will turn out to be 100% deterministic, and called it a day?
I mean, this is philosophy, and it’s not even DECENT philosophy – it’s the kind of theory Plato ran through in “Meno” over 2000 years ago, to better effect.
February 19th, 2010 | 10:08 am
“Morality isn’t a scientific issue. Nor are ‘rights.’”
Then, dammit, stop trying to legislate them.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 11:51 am
????? So, should we not legislate civil rights protections for gays? Please. Much public policy is about values, not what can be scientifically proven.
February 22nd, 2010 | 7:14 am
Maybe Dr. Cashmore is simply trying to get away from the idea that “free will” is the product of some immaterial soul. He could point to cases in which people’s behaviors or moods or personalities underwent change due simply to chemical changes within the brain (due to injury, disease, or drugs). Unless you want to suggest that our immaterial souls can be changed or influenced by changes in hormonal balance, or the presence of intoxicants, you have to move to a position that “free will” has, actually, a physical basis rather than a spiritual one.
Note that this does not necessarily mean that the issues of choice or responsibility get jettisoned; let’s take the example of someone caught in a crime. He gets punished for it, & avoids that behavior in the future in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences. I suspect the Cashmore & others of his turn of mind would say that the unpleasant experience of punishment would be remembered in the miscreant’s brain, & whenever he has a temptation, this memory would come up & dissuade him from acting out because of that memory’s unpleasantness. All this is explainable by reference to various neurotransmitters & the instinct to avoid pain.
This would recast “free will” as a kind of biochemical feedback loop that determines our decisions. It’s not that we’re helpless puppets acting on impulse; we’re entities using our past experiences, as physically encoded in our brains, to best make our way through this world. The materialist would feel free & justified to dismiss our notions of an animating spirit within us as an illusion or false hypothesis to explain behavior.
I don’t know how much of this I would accept myself; I simply came up with this line of reasoning after reading the post & comments, & I suspect that Cashmore has spent not much more time thinking through his own notions before setting them down on paper. Unlike Cashmore, I think that our current notions of responsibility & culpability can still be kept even without recourse to an immaterial soul. I also have some reservations of the common notion of the “body” & “soul” being 2 distinct & seperable entities. As Mark Shea is wont to say, if you separate them, you end up merely with a corpse & a ghost; you need both together to make up a human being.
I haven’t had much coffee yet, so I apologize for not being as coherent as I should be when talking about things like this.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 am
Government Drone: Welcome. I don’t think so. He didn’t say that. Indeed, he said that our behavior should be viewed as any other biological process. The problem is that he couldn’t define what causes behavior, but it is really just chemistry. Thanks.
He does think that choices and responsibility get jettisoned. But he says we punish as a way to protect society, which is nonsensical. Moreover, criminal conduct, to be culpable, requires intent. So, his thinking in that sphere is very muddled.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact