Sam Harris on Free Will
Blogged by James Preece on 28th May 2012
Being a close minded religious type, I am of course not free to think for myself. This makes me very different from atheist materialist types whose free thinking is entirely the product of external influences and the laws of physics.
We religious people are famously terrified of hearing the views of people we disagree with, so here's an hours talk by atheist Sam Harris on the illusion of Free Will...
My favourite parts are the bits where they debate what they "should" do, now that they have discovered that they have no choice in the matter. The fact is of course that a tennis ball hurled out of the window doesn't have a "should", it only has a "does" and if people lack the freedom to choose how to act then "should", like the tennis ball, goes out of the window.
The atheists themselves observe: Either our actions are determined by outside influences (in which case we are not reponsible) or they are entirely random (in which case we are not responsible) or else we are somehow capable of ignoring the laws of physics and choosing to act one way instead of another. Like a tennis ball opting to go out through the door instead.
As Chesterton observed.. "You cannot live without dogmas about these things. You cannot act for twenty-four hours without deciding either to hold people responsible or not to hold them responsible".
I wonder what the publisher's of Sam Harris' book think? If he is not responsible for writing it... should he be paid?
Reader Comments
+1
shieldsheafson said...
If Sam Harris believes humans are rational (that we are able to grasp forms or essences and to reason on the basis of them) and that reason has as its natural end or final cause the attainment of truth (of understanding the world around us), then the choice of actions that best accord with the truth as discovered by reason, in particular, in accord with the truth about an human being's own nature or essence, must be free will.
No doubt, if there is any error in my reasoning, it will be pointed out.
+
+3
Gregory the Eremite said...
If you haven't already found it, head on over to Edward Feser's blog to find a weapons grade refutation of this reductive materialist nonsense.
+
+2
shieldsheafson said...
G the E: What a wonderful blog you have! I wish I'd known sooner!
+
+1
Gregory the Eremite said...
That's very kind of you!
+
+3
Catholic Shinobi said...
It seems the latest fad among atheists to deny free will, I've met so many who will argue at length with great vehemence in favour of the notion.
Maybe it is so they can go about doing exactly what they want without worrying about pesky morality? I suppose it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
I guess it goes to show without the gospel to free us humanity really is a slave to our fallen nature.
+
+2
New Friend said...
Of course every human has free will. Anyone who argues otherwise, atheist or whatever else, is simply wrong.
It is not a question of whether we have it. The question is whether we use it or decide, on occasions, to suspend it and delegate our opinions and decisions to others who we hold in such great respect that they override any thoughts that we have that they might be wrong.
That suspension is still an exercise of free will but it is a lazy use of it.
+
+2
Scout said...
Remember what the Pope said when challenged about priests who abuse children? "This is a disease and free will does not work where there is disease." http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Replay-the-Visit/Speeches/Speeches-16-September/Pope-Benedict-Interview
+
+4
Mark Dobson said...
That’s a very pertinent consideration and quotation, and it bears some thought.
Free will must, of course, exist, if it can be called 'diseased' and said not to 'work'.
In fact, the doctrine of original sin and concupiscence is an acknowledgment that human free will is somehow diseased and malfunctioning in all of us.
Only God offers us the real cure.
+
+2
Algeron said...
To James Preece and Catholic Shinobi: it seems you never made it to 38:30 in Sam Harris' talk.
+
+1
James said...
I just re-listened from 38:30.
He talks about "moral responsibility" (38:44) but then he says we are "not ultimately responsible" (40:51) and "not even partly responsible" (40:55)
Then he says "there is clearly a difference between the moral responsibilities that we can demand of an adult and those of a child" (42:32)
So are we responsible for our actions or not?
+