"These [the Bereans] were more fairminded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11; NKJV)
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Why Sam Harris Is an Atheist
As we saw in our last blog post, Sam Harris set out to demonstrate "How Science Can Determine Human Values," to quote the subtitle of his book. It was a bold attempt to find an objective moral standard based on science. And, in our opinion, he largely failed in the attempt. While he offered many opinions of his own on a wide variety of subjects, he gave few specifically scientific reasons for them. Instead he mainly went over the same ground that numerous theologians and philosophers have traversed for many centuries before, all the while not professing to see any valid objections to his own highly colored opinions. In the end Dr. Harris comes across as an atheist trying hard not to sound like Nietzsche.
In his wandering peregrinations of the mind, however, Dr. Harris stumbled into an age-old trap, the hoary controversy over determinism v. free will. Dr. Harris says that there is no such thing as a free will, but unlike religious determinists of the past such as Augustine, Calvin and Edwards, Dr. Harris is an atheist and a thoroughgoing materialist (and a neuroscientist at that). But this creates a dilemma for him. On the one hand he wants to say that everything that occurs in the human mind has a natural cause, and therefore can be studied scientifically by neuroscientists such as himself. But if this is the case, Dr. Harris' own thought processes have been biologically determined, which raises an intriguing question: how can scientific reasoning be valid? There would be no necessary correlation between what goes on in the scientist's mind and external reality.
Dr. Harris himself is aware of the problem and states it this way: "The problem is that no account of causality leaves room for free will. Thoughts, moods and desires of every sort simply spring into view – and move us, or fail to move us, for reasons that are, from a subjective point of view, perfectly inscrutable" (p. 104).
This, in turn, affects our view of moral responsibility. Dr. Harris challenges traditional notions of sin and culpability. If we only understood the underling causes of bad behavior we would be more compassionate with the erring. At the same time it would open the door to a scientific solution to the problem of human evil.
But then Dr. Harris seems to step back and modify his position somewhat. He argues that a person could be held responsible for his behavior if he had the intention to do harm. However, if our "thoughts, moods and desires" are rooted in our biology and "simply spring into view," then does not the intention also have an underlying social or biological cause? How then, can we hold a criminal responsible for his actions?
Moreover, if our thoughts simply spring into view for reasons that are inscrutable, then what about Dr. Harris' own research? It is remarkable that he managed to earn a doctorate from UCLA with thoughts that "simply sprang into view." And how about his book? How did it come about? (It became a New York Times bestseller.) Dr. Harris is caught on the horns of a familiar dilemma: science depends on the assumption of causality in nature; but causality in the mind means that the scientist himself is non-rational. Dr. Harris, it seems, has led us to a dead end.
Again Dr. Harris appears to back off from his earlier assertions. He tries to argue that while biology and physical circumstances provide the motives for thought and action, that does not mean that we cannot still think rationally. "The fact that reason must be rooted in biology does not negate the principles of reason" (p. 131), he says. We are motivated to think, but we still think. "There is a sense in which all cognition can be said to be motivated: one is motivated to understand the world, to be in touch with reality, to remove doubt . . .As we have begun to see, all reasoning may be inextricable from emotion" (p. 126). But then he goes on to say ". . . the inseparability of reason and emotion confirms that the validity of belief cannot merely depend on the conviction felt by its adherents; it rests on the claims of evidence and argument that link it to reality" (pp. 126-127). It is a little hard to see how the one "confirms" its seeming opposite, but apparently what Dr. Harris has in mind is that our thought processes, while being driven and directed by our emotions, are nevertheless still capable of being rational. A passion for truth should lead us to pursue the truth with all the mental acumen and intellectual rigor at our command. But the problem remains: if everything we think is the result of chemical changes in our brains, how much mental acumen do we really have? Is it not all an illusion?
Dr. Harris is quick to point out how emotion and bias influence the thinking of religious believers and social conservatives. But the argument is a two-edged sword – it cuts both ways. Is it not possible that Dr. Harris' own thinking has been shaped and molded by his personal biases? He notes at one point that dopamine receptor genes seem to play a role in religious belief: people with the most active form of the gene seem to be more religious. Might not a prescription for the drug L-dopa take care of Dr. Harris' atheism problem? Is it not possible that he is an atheist because he wants to be an atheist? The devout Christian sees evidence of Intelligent Design everywhere; Dr. Harris sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bob, free will is not free from the atomic interactions of the biology that houses it. We know this. So what we're really talking about is will. And this is where the language you think is using reflects your own understanding of . This is the heart of your misunderstanding about Harris' use of determinism. We can disagree over opinions but we cannot disagree over the facts. And the facts show that your mind is what your brain does. They causally related. Your mind is not free of your biology and Harris explains this in detail. How you missed it is somewhat of a mystery.
ReplyDeleteAnd like many quick critics of Harris, you jump to the conclusion that what Harris means by determinism is that we are automatons. In one sense this true, but this is not the sense Harris painstakingly tries to explain.
You are driving and come to T intersection. You can turn left or right, backup, or stay in place. These are your choices. Let's say you turn left. That's the fact. Now here's the subtly of Harris' determinism: Could you have done otherwise? His answer is unequivocal: although by appearances you had the four choices, you really had only one that you acted on. You could not have done otherwise or you would have! The appearance of choice is deceiving; for determined reasons you had no choice but to turn left (and here's the key point) because you did. That and only that is the determined fact in all the talk about freedom to make choices. As Harris argues, you simply could not have turned left and turned right and backed up and stayed in place, and to talk about freedom of choice in possibilities using these terms as if they were equivalent possibilities to the act - the probability of 1.0 - of turning left is incoherent. There are no other possibilities because you turned left. If replaced atom for atom with another person at that exact moment, those who advocate free will are suggesting that this replaced person might choose differently. And that's bunk. That's why our biology determines our actions, meaning our brains can only act on all the assorted input right up to that moment. That's determinism and it's a very controversial in philosophical circles but will be resolved not by word play and metaphysics but established unequivocally by the evidence revealed by neuroscience. And unlike you, when it comes to how the brain actually works, I will grant to neuroscientists a greater degree of trust and confidence in their growing knowledge about how the brain woks than I will priests and metaphysicians who come to the issue with an agenda to support their beliefs over reality.
The devout Christian sees evidence of Intelligent Design everywhere; Dr. Harris sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
ReplyDeleteThe devout Muslim sees evidence of Allah everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
The devout Hindu sees evidence of Vishnu everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
The devout Iroquois sees evidence of Sky Woman everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
The devout Sikh sees evidence of Ik Onkar everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
You would be right about the Muslim, but wrong about the Hindu and the Iroquois. I don't know about the Sikh.
ReplyDeleteYou would be right about the Muslim, but wrong about the Hindu and the Iroquois. I don't know about the Sikh.
ReplyDeleteHow do you figure?
Surely, devout religious people see evidence of their own religion as opposed to some other?
The difference is between a monotheistic worldview and a polytheistic one. In a monotheistic worldview the world makes rational sense because it was designed by a single intelligent being. I think that Christians, Jews and Muslims would all agree on this. In a polytheistic worldview the world is essentially chaotic because the pantheon is chaotic-- the gods pretty much like human beings, they compete and fight with each other, and each has his/her own sphere of influence in the universe. This means that the idea of cosmic justice becomes extremely problematical. Whose in charge, what are the rules, and what happens if you break them? In some polytheistic systems there might be some abstract principle of justice to which even the gods are subject, but as a general rule, on their construction of things, heaven is just as much of a mess as is earth down here.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is between a monotheistic worldview and a polytheistic one.
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does that make?
In a monotheistic worldview the world makes rational sense because it was designed by a single intelligent being.
Non sequitur.
I think that Christians, Jews and Muslims would all agree on this.
(...facepalm...)
Yeah but Christians and Jews and Muslims are monotheistic.
Spot the problem.
In a polytheistic worldview the world is essentially chaotic because the pantheon is chaotic-- the gods pretty much like human beings, they compete and fight with each other, and each has his/her own sphere of influence in the universe.
According to whom? In any case, what does that have to do with anything?
Surely, devout religious people see evidence of their own religion as opposed to some other? Monotheism or polytheism doesn't change that.
It's one thing to see evidence for one's religion; it's another thing to see a rational order to the universe. An ancient Greek would have seen evidence for the existence of Zeus in a thunderbolt. But in their view the gods on Mt. Olympus acted pretty much the same way we do down here, and that makes it difficult to account for the order and rationality of nature. The fascinating thing about the Greeks is that they observed the order, and then tried to explain it philosophically. In that endeavor their polytheistic heritage was of no help whatsoever. In most other polytheistic cultures science got nowhere. In monotheism there is an overarching unity to the cosmos because it was created by a single Intelligent Being.
ReplyDeleteBut in their view the gods on Mt. Olympus acted pretty much the same way we do down here, and that makes it difficult to account for the order and rationality of nature.
ReplyDeleteNon sequitur.
In most other polytheistic cultures science got nowhere.
What are you talking about?
In monotheism there is an overarching unity to the cosmos because it was created by a single Intelligent Being.
So what?
This is what you originally said...
The devout Christian sees evidence of Intelligent Design everywhere; Dr. Harris sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
There's your text.
It works perfectly well for any other made-up mumbo-jumbo whether it's monotheism or polytheism or anamism or whatever nonsense is at hand.
The devout Muslim sees evidence of Allah everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
The devout Hindu sees evidence of Vishnu everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
The devout Iroquois sees evidence of Sky Woman everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
The devout Sikh sees evidence of Ik Onkar everywhere; the devout Christian sees it nowhere. Has our perception, or lack thereof, been affected by our natural inclinations?
It's all goddidit.