Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

news, commentaries and articles dedicated to a non-dualistic view of the world

Comment: Naturalism, Evangelical Christianity, & Free-Will

Naturalism views us as physical beings in a knowable physical world. As human perception supported by reasoning is seen as the best way to understand the world, Naturalists look towards the empirically-based sciences – natural sciences and much of the social sciences – as primary sources of reliable data. Unlike reductive materialists, Naturalists are willing to discuss our ‘I’ aspects of our world – consciousness, free-will, and sense of self – without necessarily reducing them to physical brain processes. Many even see emergent properties and superveniences as ways of explaining our special ‘I’ properties independently of the underlying physical processes. However Naturalists still reject magical and mysterious explanations, no matter how couched in pseudo-scientific terms.
Evangelical Christianity sees a different reality to the physical realm of naturalism. We are in a perceivable physical world controlled by another more mysterious, all-pervasive reality – eternal, undetectable physically, conscious, all-powerful and, not surprisingly, intimately interested in humans as groups and individuals. Not surprisingly, evangelicals call this consciousness ‘God’. Again not surprisingly humans are special in being both physical and non-physical beings unlike all other living things. We have a ‘soul’.  Evangelical Christians seek to understand and comply with God’s demands through selected use of ancient Middle Eastern texts – their Christian biblical canon – as their foundation for living and moral judgements as well as the basis for their evangelising, their spreading the word.
Free-will, our making of unforced choices, is accepted as fundamental to our moral sense, societal control, and use of punishment. For most of us the belief in human free-will is unquestioned. Our law even reflects this attitude. However we live in a physical world best described in causal terms with events explainable by examining the effect of prior events. So is our free-will the one and only uncaused exception throughout the 4 billion year history of Earth? Philosophers have worried about this apparent contradiction for ever since they have been philosophising.
Not surprisingly philosophers respond with (1) full-blown free-will acceptance, (2) free-will scepticism, and (3) compatibilism with the latter being a scaling down of free-will enough to meet our societal needs.  As there seems to be a fundamental incompatibility between an unfettered free-will and our understanding of a physical world and a naturalist is committed to all experiences coming from the physical world, he or she seems likely to advocate free-will scepticism (‘it’s an illusion’) or to a scale-downed free-will of compatibilism (‘just enough for some moral responsibility’). Uncaused free-will seems an unlikely choice with an assumed human physicality.
The Evangelical Christian has a more packaged solution to this dilemma. God gives us uncaused free-will with the total ‘soul’ package. This is a necessary in a world-view that advocates salvation from freely choosing God (through their doctrines of course). So it is not surprising that the evangelical would hold the view that transgressors can be and should be rightfully be punished. It is so simple. Fortunately most people in Australia, the 92% who do not attend a Christian church regularly, probably see morality as primarily a human affair although they may seek inspiration from beliefs about God and Jesus.
One could expect different attitudes to social justice and crime and punishment between Evangelical Christians and Naturalists. The evangelical would have a more defined sense of right and wrong and the necessary consequences of people choosing to do wrong (or evil to use their term). Punishments can be justifiably swift and harsh. Naturalists have little choice to question simple ‘he did wrong’ style of punishment. How much was he truly free to make a choice must loom large in the naturalist world-view? There are many reasons for punishment and incarceration and these must be worried about to avoid knee-jerk reactions of choosing wrong and punishment.
Upon reflection unfettered free-will in our causal world is problematic and Naturalists have no recourse to a simple religious response to the contradiction. But perhaps that is the cost for our species becoming mature enough to deal with ourselves in the world.
Alex McCullie
1 comment

News: More Morality & Brain Links

Australian ABC Science reports that neuroscience continues to link brain function and human moral behaviour with God’s involvement becoming more and more a fantastic speculation. This time it is magnetic effects on moral choices from Massachusetts Institute of Technology research with similar results to loading the brain while making moral choices. Under load and magnetism, apparently, we turn to choices based on outcomes more than the perpetrator’s intentions. Again this seems choosing between the utilitarian and deontological ethical systems.

Alex McCullie

No comments

News: A.C. Grayling on Cherie Blair

Great AC Grayling article at Richard Dawkins site about the ‘morality’ of Cherie Blair’s decision to be lenient on a religious (Muslim) assaulter of another. Would we treat the surviving 9/11 perpetrators with some leniency for also being religious, which they certainly were?

Alex McCullie

No comments

Comment: Non-Theist Morality Link

Reuter’s FaithWorld blog, listed here on the right, has an article suggesting that our concepts of “morality” and our noblest thoughts may actually have basic physical causes. This must be so shocking for many!

Even in the early twenty-first century we still pander to inflated egos, deluding ourselves about being more than physical purely to explain our lofty pretentions – noble thoughts, moral principles and spirituality. The implications of evolution are quite simple. We are one of many living things existing within a larger physical world and everything we have, comes from that simple proposition. There is no denying we have remarkable brains capable of complex processing – physical processing. However there is no ghost in the machine (thank you Gilbert Ryle).

Check the article: Is a moral instinct the source of our noble thoughts?

Alex McCullie

No comments

Link: Moral Animal Debate with Peter Singer

Here is a link to a debate with Peter Singer on Morality without God, hosted by Veritas Forum.

Alex McCullie

No comments

News: God-based Morality Is Dangerous

The Pope, as a primary spokesman for God-based morality, again demonstrates its immorality to people. It’s that thorny issue for God according to the Pope and the Roman Catholic church apparently, but for few others. Is it morally okay to use condoms to reduce HIV infection? According to the Pope on behalf of his God it is No.  The Pope is quoted in a Times article as saying

‘that contraception was “an offence against the law of God and nature”’ (full article here)

Morality is a human issue. We should not allow self-appointed spokespeople for invisible - many would say non-existent - deities to proclaim absurd moral laws to deliberately harm others.

Alex McCullie

No comments

News: Homosexuality is Wrong : Christian Blog

Here’s a link to a Christian blog that represents a commonly held view amongst evangelists that homosexuality is inherently evil. This article uses Christian bible quotations to refute an earlier Newsweek article that says Christians can rightfully believe that it’s okay to be gay. Well perhaps it’s not!

I think some religious people need to deal with their own sexual hangups rather than demonising others.

Alex McCullie

No comments

News: Bully Others for God at School

Christian Today, an on-line Christian newspaper, reports that one in four children in the UK are bullied for faith-based reasons.

A survey published today by a leading bullying prevention charity has found that one in four school students admits to being bullying – often violently – because of their religion.

Beatbullying, which runs interfaith bullying prevention programmes, said its research indicated that that there was little provision for young people to talk about their faith and that almost half of young people do not talk about religious or faith issues at all.

The survey of 819 young people also found a degree of religious segregation, with 20 per cent of the young people surveyed saying that their circle of friends consisted mainly of people from the same religious background. (full article 17 Nov 2008)

It amazes me that religious people continue to believe and promote that strong religious belief leads inexorably to good moral behaviour. There seems to be no evidence supporting this stand. We see so many cases of strong faith being destructive. People’s moral behaviour should be seen as a strictly human affair with strictly human solutions.

Alex McCullie

No comments

Links: Morality – a strictly worldly affair

As soon as you jetison the supernatural, you as a naturalist are forced to see human morality as strictly human affair without divine fear or favour. If unlike most, you want to think about morality and moral decision-making, here are naturalised resources that may help. You’ll need to think about the type of decisions that qualify as moral ones and, as Steven Pinker points out below, the boundaries of moral and non-moral issues shift and change. Also you should look at how how we currently make these decisions and typically they are make at a subconscious level. And, finally, what methods or tools can be used to reflect on moral decisions. Don’t forget that ethics and morality is a big part of philosophy and can provide useful ideas for reflection.

Neuroscience is doing a lot of research today on how we make moral decisions – links below. I’ve also provided links for some interesting research areas about humans in a physical world – (1) Marc Hauser and moral grammar; (2) Lakoff and Johnson “Embodied realism” and (3) evolutionary psychology.

A good place to start is with Steven Picker’s article The Moral Instinct (NYT, 13 Jan 2008).

Alex McCullie

Neuroscience

Scientific American – Mind Matters (see feed on this site) regularly covers recent research. Like the rest of science, neuroscience is about describing how we make moral choices and not the best ones for a good life. Here is some recent research to whet your appetite – Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Thinking about Morality.

Joshua Green, Harvard University, conducts neuroscience research into moral decision-making using iMRI scanning techniques. You can download his PhD thesis and other papers.

Patricia Churchland, Philosophy University of California. To quote her website “I explore the impact of scientific developments on our understanding of consciousness, the self, free will, decision making, ethics, learning, and religion and issues concerning the neurobiological basis of consciousness, the self, and free will, as well as on more technical questions concerning to what degree the nervous system is hierarchically organized, how the difficult issue of co-ordination and timing is managed by nervous systems, and what are the mechanisms for the perceptual phenomenon of filling-in. Also check my links sections for links to YouTube videos.

Moral Minds – Marc Hauser

Marc Hauser, Psychology & Biology Harvard University proposes that we evolved a common moral grammar enabling rapid moral decision-making at a subconscious level.

Radio broadcast              Interview with Discover magazine

Complete an online moral sense test (hosted by Harvard)

Book reviews – (NYT by Richard Rorty) (The Guardian)

Embodied realism – George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

George Lakoff Linguistics, Berkeley and Mark Johnson Philosophy Oregan University with others have developed a theory from neuroscience, linguistics and philosophy that sees the brain, correctly, as an embodied within our bodies and, therefore, brain processing should be seen as a natural consequence of our interactions with our environments. Furthermore our cognitive processing is seen as metaphoric with the higher-level concepts being processed metaphorically by the same responses used by lower level perceptions.

Books:

Lakoff, G and Johnson, M 1980, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago

Lakoff, G and Johnson, M 1999, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic Books

Johnson, M 2007, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding, University of Chicago

Book reviews: (NYT)  (Steen)

Edge interview with George Lakoff

Evolutionary Psychology/Biology

This applies the implications of evolution on our behaviour including moral decision-making. Even though a controversial area the area of study contributes to our understanding of human moral behaviour.

Steven Pinker Evolutionary psychology, Harvard – many articles available

Other articles

Jon Haidt, Psychology Virginia - Moral Psychology article (The Edge)

1 comment

Links: Moral decisions as brain processing

I’m collecting interesting links of articles and research showing that moral decisions are strictly a human (brain) affair. Each link is dated as research findings are updated frequently in the fast-moving area of neuroscience. I’ll post this entry under Links so keep checking.

Alex McCullie

No comments

Next Page »

Freethought Union
Powered By Ringsurf
Powered by WebRing.