27.01.2016 Views

THE CITY

h6c7p5d

h6c7p5d

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Winter 2015<br />

PROBLEM #1: FREE WILL<br />

The New Atheists are up front about our lack of free will. Sam<br />

Harris states it explicitly: “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are<br />

simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge<br />

from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we<br />

exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we<br />

have.” 2 (Ironically, the publisher of Harris’s book is Free Press.) Or<br />

consider this example from the website of the Center for Naturalism.<br />

From a naturalistic perspective . . . [h]uman beings act the<br />

way they do because of the various influences that shape<br />

them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or<br />

environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside<br />

the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest<br />

of the world. This means we do not have what many people<br />

think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without<br />

our being fully caused in turn. 3<br />

Not being free has devastating implications for other important<br />

areas of life. It impacts things as important as ethics. Consider the<br />

following, again from the Center for Naturalism.<br />

From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the<br />

interaction between individuals and their environment, not<br />

from a freely willing self. . . . Therefore individuals don’t<br />

bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in<br />

the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances<br />

both inside and outside the body, they couldn’t have done<br />

other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold<br />

individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and<br />

sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within<br />

the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how<br />

people learn to act ethically. 4<br />

The question is this: how can we hold anyone responsible if they<br />

are not responsible for their actions and “couldn’t have done other<br />

than what they did”? This seems hopelessly confused. Furthermore,<br />

2<br />

Sam Harris, Free Will (New York: Free Press, 2012), 5.<br />

3<br />

http://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism/tenets-of-naturalism accessed<br />

November 9, 2015.<br />

4<br />

Ibid.<br />

101

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!