Comments on: ‘Ultimate’ Free Will and Materialism

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:42:53 +0000

While I think that epistemology is a very important discussion in itself it’s not really relevant to this topic which is regarding a common fallacy about free will and materialism.

I’ll address that topic over on your blog fella. (When I get a moment).

By: Dale Campbell

Dale Campbell — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:56:19 +0000

On souls, I like C.S. Lewis’ quote: “You don’t have a soul, you are one… You have a body.”
And I’d have severe concern at the ‘Christian’ logic behind the view that murder is only murder if a person has a ’soul’…
Moral/ethics linked to value-judgments, linked to worldview, linked to epistemology. If we wish to know ‘how we should act’ I think it starts there… (and this also relates to what kinds of ‘evidence’ you’ll accept/consider when it comes to ‘evidence’ for God/spirituality)
But yes, I don’t think ‘free will’ (at least the way it’s often discussed) either proves or disproves God.

By: Damian

Damian — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:30:07 +0000

I agree that ‘how we should act’ is an important question. But this post was to put to bed one particular fallacious line of argument regarding what we call ‘free will’ and how that applies to those of us with a materialist worldview.

And as I mentioned on your blog, I really don’t know how two people can ever see eye-to-eye on some issues when one starts their ‘morality’ with the belief that there is a supernatural component to the world and others who, like me, don’t. And we see this played out all the time: the issue I raised of whether it is ethical to take the morning after pill (where a fertilised embryo is barred from adhering to the wall of the uterus) ends in very different conclusions depending on whether you believe there is a magical ’soul’ created at the moment of conception as opposed to the belief that it is nothing more than two cells without plans, feelings or personality.

The materialistic view (mine, at least) sees that people gradually emerge and that there is a period of time where there is a balance of suffering/benefit is in favour of the mother and, gradually, where the child qualifies as a human with equivalent rights. But it’s a grey area and up for debate. Whereas if you believe that all people are equal and have souls from the moment the first cells start dividing (which modern-day Christians often do) then you’ve got no choice but to see this as an act of murder.

So who’s right? And how do we know? I’ve looked and looked at as much evidence as I can find and found nothing that suggests to me that there is a God or some kind of spiritual aspect to our world. What more can one do?

The best we can really hope for is compromise – which, on the whole, seems to be what happens anyway.

By: Dale Campbell

Dale Campbell — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:06:56 +0000

Cheers for the post, Damian. Always fun stuff to think about, but I think the most urgent/important thing is not debating the existence of free will (whether or not we are ‘choosing’ to do ‘1′ or ‘2′, or whether we ‘do’ ‘1′ or ‘2′ as emergent functions of a complex system). I think it’s most urgent/important – in the light of the manifest awareness that we can [and cannot] do certain things – to discern which action(s) (i.e. ‘1′, ‘2′ or ‘3′) are best for a given circumstance (i.e. ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’ or ‘z’, etc.).

That we ‘act’ (i.e. that we are active agents) is certain (unless you’re either 1) a crazy post-modernist materialist insisting we’re cogs in a machine or 2) a hyper-hyper Calvinist leaving no room for human human freedom!!)…
How we should act is the real question…