4 ms·

Free Will vs. Determinism as the Core of Political Disagreement

5 points by jackfoxy 15y ago

yummyfajitas 15y ago
I'll ignore all the political baiting the author does ("...hate-filled healthcare-reform protesters...") and actually focus on his core arguments since they are intellectually interesting. the belief in free will leads to a lack of compassion for those who suffer The belief in free will merely suggests that one should look more closely at why a person is suffering. I.e., was the person born into bad circumstances, from which virtually no set of choices could have allowed them to escape? Or are their circumstances caused by choices they made themselves? To borrow examples from my own life, I (an atheist) have a great deal of sympathy for the average hard working upper middle class Indian. I have far less sympathy for the typical "poor" American (far richer than the Indian) who chooses not to look for a job.
LeafStorm 15y ago
Let's think about this for a second. The Abrahamic religions (which are the ones that the author is skewering here) teach that all humans are made in the image of God. This implies that (a) human life has inherent value, and (b) humans have a moral responsibility to God. This means that people have a reason - really, an obligation - to be compassionate towards each other. On the other hand, an atheistic worldview backed by determinism implies that (a) humans have no more intrinsic value than a tree, and therefore (b) humans don't have a moral responsibility to anyone. This means that there is no real reason for people to be compassionate to others. So, religious people with a proper understanding of their religion's doctrines should be far more compassionate than equivalent atheists. The fact that we don't see that compassion borne out can be attributed to three factors: First, there are unfortunately many religious people who have bought into the "Gospel of Ben" - "God helps those who helps themselves." This isn't actually anywhere in the Bible, Ben Franklin made it up. And unfortunately this is something that appeals a lot to politicians. Second, many religious people believe that charity should be handled by church, and not by the state. They also believe in separation of church and state and the limitation of state power, which were actually principles developed by Christians. The author is committing a fallacy in assuming that all charity must be state charity. And third, many "organic atheists" are still operating based on their conscience, which the atheistic worldview does not actually have room for. There cannot be a supernatural conscience if there is no supernatural, and evolution has no solid way to explain the development of a moral system that goes against survival.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Actually, it's not even all Abrahamic religions. Muslims and Lutherans believe in predestination, Catholics seem confused and Jews like to argue about it (the wikipedia article doesn't describe Jews/Catholics views very well). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

5 points by jackfoxy 15y ago

I'll ignore all the political baiting the author does ("...hate-filled healthcare-reform protesters...") and actually focus on his core arguments since they are intellectually interesting. the belief in free will leads to a lack of compassion for those who suffer The belief in free will merely suggests that one should look more closely at why a person is suffering. I.e., was the person born into bad circumstances, from which virtually no set of choices could have allowed them to escape? Or are their circumstances caused by choices they made themselves? To borrow examples from my own life, I (an atheist) have a great deal of sympathy for the average hard working upper middle class Indian. I have far less sympathy for the typical "poor" American (far richer than the Indian) who chooses not to look for a job.

LeafStorm 15y ago

Let's think about this for a second. The Abrahamic religions (which are the ones that the author is skewering here) teach that all humans are made in the image of God. This implies that (a) human life has inherent value, and (b) humans have a moral responsibility to God. This means that people have a reason - really, an obligation - to be compassionate towards each other. On the other hand, an atheistic worldview backed by determinism implies that (a) humans have no more intrinsic value than a tree, and therefore (b) humans don't have a moral responsibility to anyone. This means that there is no real reason for people to be compassionate to others. So, religious people with a proper understanding of their religion's doctrines should be far more compassionate than equivalent atheists. The fact that we don't see that compassion borne out can be attributed to three factors: First, there are unfortunately many religious people who have bought into the "Gospel of Ben" - "God helps those who helps themselves." This isn't actually anywhere in the Bible, Ben Franklin made it up. And unfortunately this is something that appeals a lot to politicians. Second, many religious people believe that charity should be handled by church, and not by the state. They also believe in separation of church and state and the limitation of state power, which were actually principles developed by Christians. The author is committing a fallacy in assuming that all charity must be state charity. And third, many "organic atheists" are still operating based on their conscience, which the atheistic worldview does not actually have room for. There cannot be a supernatural conscience if there is no supernatural, and evolution has no solid way to explain the development of a moral system that goes against survival.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
Actually, it's not even all Abrahamic religions. Muslims and Lutherans believe in predestination, Catholics seem confused and Jews like to argue about it (the wikipedia article doesn't describe Jews/Catholics views very well). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination