In 1871, Thomas Huxley, a zealous advocate of Charles
Darwin, claimed that “Mind is a function of matter,” and, of course, matter is
exclusively under control of the laws of science. This leaves no room for
freewill.
Similarly, in his recent book, “Free Will,” atheist Sam Harris writes, “Free will is an illusion.” Consequently,
what feels like freewill is nothing more than chemical processes. This leaves
no room for human culpability. If our thoughts and actions are entirely controlled
by biochemical reactions, then we couldn’t have done otherwise. Hence, there is
no basis for guilt and culpability.
However, this denial of freewill and culpability (DFC) is
highly problematic for a number of reasons:
DFC goes against
everything we intuitively know about ourselves and our lives. When I make
any decision, like flipping through the TV channels, it seems that I am freely
choosing one station over another. Of course, like anyone else, I am subject to
powerful biological-genetic forces. Admittedly, I am biologically predisposed
to not like loud and glitzy programming. Therefore, some will say, “Well, this
proves you’re pre-programmed to make certain choices.”
Although there is truth in this claim, it falls far short of
proving that pre-programming is the only
factor involved in my choices.
Of course, Harris and the other atheists will respond, “Your
experience of free choice is just an illusion.” However, if I can’t trust my
sense that I am making freewill choices, then I can’t trust my senses that I
even exist, that I am a person, or that I am culpable for my actions! If something that I experience with such clarity
is illusory, perhaps my very existence and the existence of this world are also illusory. Perhaps I’m just someone
else’s consciousness. Perhaps, as some Buddhists claim, we are just part of one
universal consciousness and lack any individual existence.
If our intuitions and perceptions are simply part of this
great delusion, then science and all reason are also part of this same delusion, along with Harris’ DFC thinking.
In other words, if I apply such skepticism to my perceptions
that, to some degree, I am making culpable, free choices, then I have to be skeptical
about everything else in my life!
To an extent,
freewill and culpability differs among people. However, one DFC writes that
there can exist no freewill distinctions among us, since freewill is entirely absent:
- There are only two types
of people in the world. Those who believe in free will and those who do
not. There is no grey area or wiggle room… There is no such thing as a
little freewill.
However, many recognize that we do possess differing degrees
of freewill. The heroin addict is more constrained in his free choices than
before he became addicted. He can think of little else besides his next fix.
And what about captives given a drug – LSD or truth serum - to
control their behavior? Do not they have less freedom of choice and culpability
than before? Or the comatose? Or when someone puts a gun to our head, forcing
us to commit a crime? Should we not take these considerations into account?
If these observations of relative
freedom are true, then the narrow, unvarying materialistic view denying any area of freewill and culpability is
clearly wrong. From the perspective of the DFC, everyone is equally and completely controlled by brain chemistry. Consequently, there can
be no room for varying degrees of freewill and culpability – the very thing
that our justice system and schools depend on!
We can perceive a
distinction between purely chemical determination of our behavior and our
relatively free responses. Wilder
Penfield, the father of modern neurosurgery performed experiments demonstrating
that brain activity doesn’t seem to account for all of our mental experience. Lee Edward Travis sums up his
findings this way:
- Penfield
would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients
and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was
applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and
struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the
electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s
mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the
patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but
also a nonphysical reality that interacted with the brain. (The Mysterious Matter of the Mind,
95-96)
There appears to be a distinction between brain chemistry
and a nonphysical reality – the home of freewill. J.P. Moreland commented on
another interesting aspect of Penfield’s findings:
- No
matter how much Penfield probed the cerebral cortex, he said, “There is no
place…where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to
decide.” (The Case for the Creator,
Lee Strobel, 258)
If our mind is no more than a physical brain, then we should
expect that electrical charges could stimulate
every kind of response. However, this
isn’t the case. It seems that our choices and beliefs cannot be entirely
accounted for by the physical brain.
There seems to be a
nonphysical basis for thinking. Strobel writes:
- In
their journal article, Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist
at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, describe their study of
sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were
later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having
well-structured, lucid thought processes, with memory formation and
reasoning, during the time that their brains were not functioning. The
effects of oxygen starvation or drugs – objections commonly offered by
skeptics – were ruled out as factors. (Strobel, 251)
This contradicts the atheistic narrative that thinking and
choosing depend exclusively upon physical
brain activity. In order to maintain their narrow materialistic worldview, the
atheist is forced to discount this kind of study along with the many accounts
of extra-body experiences.
DFC is also humanly
demeaning. This is very significant because it will affect how we view
ourselves, our fellow humans and also how we treat them. If humans are no more
than sophisticated chemical machines, there is a greater likelihood that we
will use them like machines and destroy them when they no longer serve our purposes.
DFC undermines
everything upon which civilization is based – justice, right and wrong, reward
and punishment. A world where we cannot do other than what we have been predetermined
to do has no room for any consideration of virtue or vice. If biology alone made the rapist rape, then it is
not just to punish him. After all, he could make no other choice. Consequently, no punishment is just and no reward
is deserved. It’s just a matter of chemistry not morality.
DFC is a major threat
to the existence and well-being of civilization. The deniers of FC,
nevertheless, admit the need for punishment, but this is a punishment apart
from truth and justice. Instead of “justice makes right,” it is only “might that
makes right” – the might of the majority to protect their own interests. They will
bring charges against the burglar, not because he deserves punishment but because
he has violated the interests of the majority. Therefore, the burglar will be
punished, not because he has done wrong or that he deserves punishment but
because he is the rebel who has violated social norms in a biochemically predetermined
world.
What will the denier teach his son or the school system
teach their students? That there is no right and wrong and they couldn’t have
acted otherwise? They will naturally ask, “Why then am I being punished?” The
answer cannot rise above, “You have violated our norms, and society must
restrain you.” This can only breed cynicism.
DFC is the death to
all meaningful relationships. When the DFC is caught having an affair, he
can only say, “I couldn’t have acted otherwise, so don’t blame me!” Instead,
resolution of such interpersonal conflicts requires the offender to say, “Please
forgive me. I know I really hurt you terribly. I promise to not do this again!”
However, biochemical machines cannot truthfully make such promises. They can
only say, “If my biochemistry permits, I will not do this again” – hardly an
adequate response. Consequently, the denier must live in the shadows of the
lie.
DFC logically undermines
itself. How? Because its very philosophy is no more than the product of a
biochemistry, which would not allow the DFC to decide otherwise. Truth can play
only a very diminished role in the world of materialistic determinism.
Why do Intelligent People Become DFCs?
Why do we trap ourselves in narrow, dysfunctional boxes,
which effectively narrow our estimation of self and of life? One DFC friend
explained to me the great relief he had experienced once he rejected freewill.
He was no longer responsible for his behavior, and his sense of guilt became
greatly diminished. With this diminished estimation his humanity, he no longer
had to blame himself for not living up to his moral ideas. Who can blame him!
But what will he say to his wife who has caught him cheating? “I couldn’t do
otherwise?” This will not work long in the real world.
More commonly, in our multi-cultural world, any basis for
true, objective culpability has been eliminated, whether by moral relativism or
the pre-determining forces of nurture and nature, a close relative of DFC.
Consequently, we cannot judge, since no one is culpable. What then is left to
positively influence our neighbor and our children? The mantra, “Love conquers
all!” The idea is this – if we just love enough, we can overcome all hate,
anger, and criminality.
Consequently, the Jews failed to love the Nazis enough, and
the beheaded, kidnapped, and raped Christians failed to love ISIS and Boko
Haram enough. It’s just another way of rewarding the bully and of blaming the
victim.
Instead, the thriving society needs both the carrot and the
stick, both positive and negative reinforcement. Our elected officials and
institutions must be held to account. Our employees need to be monitored. Kindness
is often not enough. While some will learn through love and kindness, others
require severity. We need police and prison. Just look at what happens when the
police go on strike – Bedlam!
The innocent need protected and the guilty need punished. As
soon as we reject this distinction, we condemn society and those we had wanted
to love.
How then do we deal with our crippling feelings of guilt and
shame? It doesn’t seem that we can meaningfully forgive ourselves. Instead, we
need the assurances that Christ Himself has forgiven us and has separated us from
our sins and moral failures, as heaven is separated from earth. It is only with
this assurance that we can move on, without denying the truths of our freewill
and culpability.
