Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 63<br />
quantum effects, which are indeterministic, as for example our retina <strong>and</strong><br />
visual system is sensitive to the arrival of a single photon, but it does not<br />
seem plausible that this indeterminism is important in affecting behaviour:<br />
it is doubtful whether our behaviour would be significantly different if our<br />
neurons were completely deterministic in their operation. In cricket a batsman<br />
facing a fast bowler has to have a very fast <strong>and</strong> reliable lot of computations<br />
going on in his brain or he would not be able to get his head out of the way<br />
of a fast moving ball. It is true that the person in the street tends to equate<br />
free will with indeterminism, if he or she is asked to make a philosophical<br />
comment about it. The question, however, is whether the concept of free<br />
will that is implied in everyday talk is or is not compatibilist. There is no<br />
clear answer here because there is not a precise boundary between everyday<br />
talk <strong>and</strong> metaphysical talk. Compatibilism seems right in relation to any<br />
sensible account of free will. Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us:<br />
I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum<br />
mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden <strong>and</strong><br />
eat a slug.<br />
It really is extraordinary how many physicists in their popular writings<br />
come out with the idea that quantum mechanical indeterminacy leaves room<br />
for free will. Roughly speaking – I shall make a qualification or two shortly –<br />
we feel free in so far as we are determined by our desires (together of course<br />
with our beliefs).<br />
Some help here may come from J.L. Austin’s suggestion that ‘free’ is really<br />
a negative word, used to rule out one or another way of being positively<br />
unfree. 104 We set a prisoner free <strong>and</strong> she goes wherever she wants. Before that<br />
she was unfree in that she wanted to go elsewhere, but could not do so. In<br />
a shotgun marriage we say that the bridegroom did not want to marry the<br />
bride but wanted even less to be shot by the prospective father-in-law. In<br />
another context the bridegroom could be said to be free, because he is doing<br />
what he wanted, that is to avoid being shot. In one way an alcoholic is free to<br />
stop drinking: he is not bound h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> foot <strong>and</strong> having the drink poured<br />
down his throat. On the other h<strong>and</strong> he may say that he is not free (or not<br />
able) to stop drinking. He wants to overcome his craving for drink but cannot<br />
do so. Here is a case in which he is thwarted in respect of a higher order<br />
desire (to modify his desire to drink) by the sheer inalterability of his lower<br />
order desire. We can modify the relative strengths of another person’s desires<br />
in various ways: reasoning, rhetoric, persuasion, threats, promises. None of<br />
these are incompatible with determinism: indeed they all presuppose it, or at<br />
least (remembering quantum mechanics) an approximation to it. This is the<br />
notion of free will <strong>and</strong> responsibility of most use to the law. The main reason<br />
for punishment is deterrence. Deterrence is the imposing of conditions that<br />
change the relative strengths of a person’s desires, such as not to be fined or