I enjoy most of the comments left on my Church of the Churchless blog posts, the exceptions being from people who are preachy, closed-minded, or dogmatic (worst of all, preachily closed-minded dogmatic).
So when I got a email message this morning from frequent commenter Appreciative Reader, who disagreed with my contention that not believing in free will implies not desiring retribution as a guiding principle in a justice system, leaving rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society as the core remaining principles, I told him that I'd convert his message to a comment, then respond to it in a blog post tonight.
Which I'm doing here. I'll share my thoughts after the comment.
From Appreciative Reader: Sant64 argues, or tries to argue, in his comment above: “Every time an atheist is asked on what basis human life has value, they sputter.”
That’s a completely fallacious argument. It assumes that it is only belief in God that keeps men moral; and that without belief in God people would go looting and raping and killing their way through life. Which is a completely circular argument, and entirely mistaken: because only some out-and-out psychopaths would do that; and a psychopath would probably do that even if he believed in God.
Now that’s a completely clichéd argument; and an entirely done-to-death rebuttal of that pathetic argument. And there’s absolutely no reason to hash this out with those who put forward this argument, at least not unless they’re sincere and might sincerely listen to reason. The only reason I mention this, and spell out this cliched fallacious argument and its rebuttal, is that it occurred to me that no-free-will folks quoted in this and other blog posts seem to be making that exact same error.
Here’s what I mean:
(And before proceeding further, let me get two things out of the way, within the space of these parentheses. First, I completely believe that there’s no free will, as I’ve said many times, in as much as that follows directly and trivially from a scientifically-grounded materialist paradigm. And two, none of this has anything, remotely, to do with compatibilism!)
It's been argued recently that understanding that there’s no free will lets us stop wanting retribution, and instead base our justice system on simply deterrence.
Now, it suddenly occurs to me, to say that is to make the exact same error that Sant64 is making! That’s begging the question, much like he’s done; that’s a circular argument, much like his is; and that’s a fallacious argument, like his is.
It's assumed — completely baselessly — that believing in free will necessarily sets someone to seek retributions for wrongs done (or perceived). And that simply isn’t true.
For instance, take Jains. They expressly believe in free will, and an immaterial soul as well. Yet, basis the karma theory that the Jains first put forth, most of them completely abjure retribution, in as much as they believe any retributive act will bounce back on them as karma. For that matter, not just Jains, but every belief system that subscribes to the karma theory, including RSSB, will essentially dissuade people from seeking retribution, on exactly those grounds.
Even leaving aside that sub-section of people (Jains, and Hindus, and RSSB-types, and Sikhs, and Buddhists — the Indic lot, broadly speaking, basically) who specifically believe in karma, think about it: After all, why should only believing someone has free will want me to seek retribution? Let’s say, hypothetically, that I believe in free will. Let’s say I believe that someone has wronged me, because they have free will. Thing is, whether I seek retribution, or not, is entirely a function of how *I* am constituted. I may well, basis my own value system, not want retribution, even despite believing someone who’s wronged me has free will.
Likewise, even if I did not believe in free will: nevertheless, if retribution is how I’m wired, then that’s what I might go for, even against a highly evolved AI-powered self-driving car that may have harmed my near and dear ones. (Heh, like how in Asimov’s ‘I, Robot’, the detective is completely antagonistic to all robots, at a personal level, basis his own specific, personal experience once in the past with robots, despite knowing they’re simply programmed automatons simply following the program that’s been fed to them.)
In fact, I’d say that only the subsection of free-will-believers that believe in the Abrahamic eye-for-an-eye creed (specifically those who believe in the Old Testament, and those who believe in the Koran — and not who believe only in the gentler teachings of the New Testament don't subscribe to the OT nonsense, and certainly not others who don’t subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths at all) will insist on retributive justice because of believing people have free will. And in their case, it’s not so much their belief in free will per se, as their belief in the vile (im)morality taught in the Old Testament Bible and in the Koran, that is to blame.
———-
So then, what I’m saying is, the idea that realizing that there’s no free will is an argument for doing away with retributive justice, is fallacious, is what I’m saying. The one has nothing to do with the other. You can believe in free will, and still not want retributive justice. And you can believe people don’t have free will, and yet vote for keeping retributive justice. The free will part is completely redundant — or, at best, an incidental tangent — to deciding whether we want our justice system to be retributive.
(And, to repeat, I say this while believing, myself, that there’s no free will. I’m only pointing out this error in reasoning, as it appears to me, is all.)
My response: I'm not going to weigh in on the issue of whether atheists have a basis for finding value in human life, because I agree with Appreciative Reader that this is an absurd question.
I'll simply observe that most of my friends are atheists. They find value in life via many different ways. These are the same ways religious people find value in life: being of service to others; belonging to a community of people with shared beliefs; feeling part of a whole that is much bigger than oneself; embracing love and friendship.
Now, on to the question of no free will and its relation to retributive justice.
This question is a large part of every book I've read about the illusion of free will, including Robert Sapolsky's Determined. For if we accept that someone didn't have the ability to act this way rather than that way, and the way they acted was illegal or against a societal norm, then punishing them for an act that stemmed from circumstances, not free will, is as illogical as blaming a lion for killing a gazelle, or cursing a tornado for destroying houses.
I believe Appreciative Reader is confusing "is" with "ought." I'm quite sure that neither Sapolsky nor any other author arguing that free will is an illusion has said, as Appreciative Reader did above, "It's assumed — completely baselessly — that believing in free will necessarily sets someone to seek retributions for wrongs done (or perceived)."
That word, necessarily, is off base here, as it almost always is in reference to the brain, mind, and human behavior.
Sapolsky, for example, goes to great lengths in his 400 page book to explain how amazingly complex we humans are, how what causes an action or thought or emotion or anything else is determined by what happened a few seconds to a few minutes before, and also a few hours to a few days before, and also a few months to a few years before… continuing on to cultural and genetic influences that stem from hundreds of years to thousands of years before.
So while I and others who don't believe in retributive justice may also not believe in free will, it's very difficult to prove that the two beliefs are causally related in a necessarily sense. For it's very rare, perhaps nonexistent, for some human trait to be the result of a single cause. Even genes, as Sapolsky points out, create effects through interactions with other genes, and are activated by the environment though epigenetic influences.
What I see Appreciative Reader failing to recognize is that a no-free-will author like Sapolsky or Sam Harris isn't saying that giving up a belief in free will will make someone give up a desire for retributive justice. That's an "is" lacking evidence. Instead, what they're saying is that giving up a belief in free will "ought" to lead someone to consider the wisdom of punishing someone for an act that is either illegal or against societal norms. Note the "should's" in this quotation from Sapolsky's book, which are synonymous with "ought."
Suppose trials were abolished, replaced by mere investigation to figure out who actually carried out some act, and with what state of mind. No prisons, no prisoners. No responsibility in a moral sense, no blame or retribution.
This scenario invariably provokes the response "So you're saying that violent criminals should just run wild with no responsibility for their actions." No. A car that, through no fault of its own, has brakes that don't work should be kept off the road. A person with active COVID-19, through no fault of their own, should be blocked from attending a crowded concert. A leopard that would shred you, through no fault of its own should be barred from your home.
Again, there are always many, many, many causes acting upon us. Human behavior and human beliefs are inherently unpredictable. This is guaranteed by our 100 billion or so neurons, each of which has thousands of connections to other neurons. The most complex structure in the known universe is the human brain. That's why it doesn't make sense to say this necessarily causes that.
The situation is akin to thermodynamics. A molecule of air is inherently unpredictable. But measure a roomful of air and we can say what the temperature is. Likewise, Appreciative Reader makes good points when he says that some belief systems, like Jainism, accept free will but not retribution. Here he makes the excellent point that "whether I seek retribution, or not, is entirely a function of how *I* am constituted. I may well, basis my own value system, not want retribution, even despite believing someone who’s wronged me has free will."
This is just the point I made above. Individual personal behavior is very different from a collective abstract belief system. This is why it makes little sense for Sant64 to speak about atheists in general, just as it makes little sense for Appreciative Reader to speak about those who deny free will in general. For while we can make generalizations about large groups of people, those generalizations necessarily obscure the complexity of how individuals in those groups actually believe and behave.
I'll end by observing that while I agree with most of what Appreciative Reader said in his message to me that became a comment, I think he is off base with this contention: "So then, what I’m saying is, the idea that realizing that there’s no free will is an argument for doing away with retributive justice, is fallacious, is what I’m saying."
No, that argument is strong, because those who make it are speaking in "ought" terms of how a society should be, not in "is" terms of how individuals or groups within that society actually behave. Over and over, in his book Sapolsky speaks of how difficult it is for even him to give up the desire to punish people who do despicable crimes that Sapolsky finds abhorrent.
Virtually all of us have a long history of either explicitly or implicitly accepting free will. Changing to accept that free will is an illusion doesn't alter the memories, experiences, and neuronal connections of many years and decades. Altering our view of the world is a messy process. It proceeds in fits and starts, with steps forward and backward and sideways.
And while Appreciative Reader doesn't find this view of mine that I shared in a reply to his email message to be relevant to what he said in the message, my mind finds it relevant, though admittedly rather tangential.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry, Brian, but I find myself disagreeing, squarely. That’s just compounding a fallaciously begged question — an argument that begins and ends with an unstated assumption — with a No True Scotsman!
My question to the atheists still goes a-begging.
The question: “On what basis does human life have value”?
My elaboration of the question: “If we mortals are nothing more than meat and synapses and have absolutely no free will, then on what objective basis does human life have value”?
In response, BH writes ” I agree with Appreciative Reader that this is an absurd question. I’ll simply observe that most of my friends are atheists. They find value in life via many different ways. These are the same ways religious people find value in life: being of service to others; belonging to a community of people with shared beliefs; feeling part of a whole that is much bigger than oneself; embracing love and friendship.”
BH’s response doesn’t come close to answering the question I posed. Yes, it’s obvious that atheists find value in human life. But the question I asked is WHY atheists with hard determinist beliefs find value in life. Why do they find value in life if they REALLY believe what they say about people having no souls, having absolutely no free will, and possessing no more ontological reality than a Blade Hunter replicant?
I suspect that both BH and AR have the notion, common to atheists, that the concept of soul (that is, that each person is more than just a meat puppet, and is actually inherently sacred) was ad hoc cooked up by religion a few thousand years ago. And that the only reason some people believe in soul is that they’ve been brainwashed by Aquinas or Krishna.
If so, I have a radically different perspective. Both atheists and religious folks actually believe in soul. That is, they believe that each living person has an ontological value far beyond their material components.
That’s because everyone (with the exception of true sociopaths) knows this to be OBVIOUS. Everyone knows that other people aren’t just blood and pus and bones. They KNOW their neighbor isn’t a fleshy robot, a robot that can’t choose its own actions, a robot that is just a clever arrangement of material parts thanks to evolution.
It is OBVIOUS.
The religiously oriented have an objective answer as to why each human life has value.
But the atheist does not have an answer. The atheist has a philosophy that’s totally contradictory in respect to their hard determinist theories. Moreover, the atheist doesn’t live his life as though his “we are meat with no free will” theory was true.
If your theories don’t match your actual beliefs, your theories are wrong.
AR notes that S64 has first complained that AR has sidestepped his question; and then when AR, in response, clearly addressed that question, he (S64) then completely ignored that response, and he’s now gone back to repeating again what he’s said as if no response was made at all.
AR has not idea what S64 thinks he’s doing here, but clearly engaging in reasonable constructive discussion, with a view to arriving at reasonable understanding, is not part of it, not as AR understands it.
No issues, S64. Carry on, why not. I’m simply making note of this now, because you’d complained in the other thread that I’ve sidestepped your question. Won’t get in your way again after this.
Appreciative Reader, naturally you’re entitled to your own opinion about whether giving up a belief in free will reasonably implies giving up a desire for punishing people through retributive justice. All I can say is that this contention is well argued by every writer of each book about the free will illusion that I’ve read, and I agree with them.
On this subject, I can recommend Richard Oerton’s “The Nonsense of Free Will.” Oerton is a noted lawyer. I’ve written several posts about his book. In one of them (link below) I shared a mention of researchers who found a link between a desire for punishment and a belief in free will.
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2014/04/belief-in-free-will-linked-to-desire-to-punish
Here’s the abstract of the study.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-10005-001
———————————–
Belief in free will is a pervasive phenomenon that has important consequences for prosocial actions and punitive judgments, but little research has investigated why free will beliefs are so widespread. Across 5 studies using experimental, survey, and archival data and multiple measures of free will belief, we tested the hypothesis that a key factor promoting belief in free will is a fundamental desire to hold others morally responsible for their wrongful behaviors. In Study 1, participants reported greater belief in free will after considering an immoral action than a morally neutral one. Study 2 provided evidence that this effect was due to heightened punitive motivations. In a field experiment (Study 3), an ostensibly real classroom cheating incident led to increased free will beliefs, again due to heightened punitive motivations. In Study 4, reading about others’ immoral behaviors reduced the perceived merit of anti-free-will research, thus demonstrating the effect with an indirect measure of free will belief. Finally, Study 5 examined this relationship outside the laboratory and found that the real-world prevalence of immoral behavior (as measured by crime and homicide rates) predicted free will belief on a country level. Taken together, these results provide a potential explanation for the strength and prevalence of belief in free will: It is functional for holding others morally responsible and facilitates justifiably punishing harmful members of society. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
——————————–
And here’s a link to an article based on this study. Interesting that on a country level, a stronger belief in free will is associated with higher murder rates.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/free-will-nietzsche-punishment/
However, notwithstanding this research, it’s also clear that people hold all sorts of views about free will and punishment/retribution. People are complex. So sometimes a believer in free will doesn’t believe in retribution, while sometimes they do. And sometimes a non-believer in free will believes in retribution, while sometimes they do. The human brain/mind is extremely difficult to predict, being the product of so many influences.
The problem with the dichotomy of free will and its intersection with that of retributive justice has a lot to do with a third element: Locus of control.
And all three are entirely dependent upon what one believes of them.
Whether you believe you have free will or not, whether you believe in retributive justice or not, and whether you believe you control your actions or someone else has all the power over you, these beliefs influence your behavior and attitudes.
Of themselves, there may be little or no actual “truth”…these are concepts that can be argued for or against.
For example, individuals who were criminal offenders it would seem, would have an external locus of control (“I was made to do it…by the system…by that guy…by the boss…by the voices in my head..”.etc..)
And one might surmise that more personal responsibility would be found where the locus of control was internal (“this is on me…my responsibility”) and therefore fewer criminals would have a high internal LOC.
However, it is interesting to see that in a recently published research article, the exact opposite was evidenced: The greater the recidivism of criminal activity the higher the level of internal locus of control…And the lower the incidence of criminal activity, the higher the level of external locus of control.
Maybe, just maybe, Brian has a point. When an individual understands they can be and are influenced by other factors, perhaps they become more careful about the environment they live in.
Just maybe.
Or maybe when they come to understand that God is in charge, they also might conduct their lives in a more civilized manner.
And in BOTH cases the result is a reduction in criminal behavior.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780729/#:~:text=A%20statistically%20significant%20path%20model,to%20the%20other%20way%20around.
@ Spence
Those with, what you call high external locus of control are codependent on the presence of a trigger .. they can indeed be kind people, that given themselves, would not harm even an insect
Those at the other end are evil at heart .. people that start in their youth trampling on animals, plants and love to such blood out of others .. they enjoy what they do.
The first group might one day understand the mechanism to be an conditioned reflex.
Most people suffer from that mechanism although due to conditioning they do not over-re-act
You can see that mechanisme at work in the justification of one’s actions in Gaza
Some say the Sant Mat masters can’t really perform miracles. But I have proof to the contrary.
I’m talking about the Sant Mat guru who pulled a beautiful, white, 19-year-old college sophomore — when he was 53 years old! He not only pulled her, he married her!
And he wasn’t rich, he wasn’t famous, he wasn’t handsome, and he wasn’t even tall.
If you’re thinking “No big deal, gurus get young chicks all the time,” he did this pick-up feat years before he started calling himself a guru.
What this guru did stands as perhaps the most amazing feat — nay, miracle — in the history of Sant Mat.
Does anyone know to whom I’m referring?
@ Santmat 64
One need not to be a guru to be attractive for a younger partner, neither have other special attractions.
S64,
I don’t know, but I’ll guess, Sirio Carrapa?
@ um
“One need not to be a guru to be attractive for a younger partner, neither have other special attractions”
When you’re 53 years old and cruising for a teenager, it apparently helps to lie about your age to the younger partner, which is what this guy did. He told the teenager he was 15 years younger than he actually was. Even so, a miraculous accomplishment.
But apparently not so to um, who knows of plenty of instances where men in their 50s date teenagers.
The guy in question wasn’t Carrapa, nor did he live in Thailand. He and the girl were American.
OCH Santmat … with the passage of time, reading newspapers, watching TV, some documentaries and so on, one comes to know many “strange” things.
Why are you so interested in that fact?
I’m stumped. An American Sant Mat guru? That’s a miracle in itself.
@ um
I’m more interested in your “fact” that it’s common for short, poor, unfamous 53-year-old men to snag college coeds.
@ Sant mat … I … I did not use the word “common” nor made a suggestion in that direction.
What is COMMON however that people with age difference fall in love and probably some of them will “lie” at the outset.
Still curious why YOU are so interested in that guru and what he did.
He went within one lifetime from lying and chasing skirt to Sant Mat master? Yet another miracle!
Brian, thanks for that lovely data-rich comment! It was a pleasure to go through it, and through the links.
Incidentally, I don’t think I’d read either of those two blog posts of yours. It was amusing to read about your jury duty speech! And equally amusing was Richard Oerton’s argument — probably made tongue in cheek, but nevertheless argued rightly enough — that should free will be a thing, then it does not make sense to simply assume that someone who’s committed some crime is likely to repeat it again unless corrected.
And agreed, basis the research, there does seem to be a clear correlation between belief in free will and a desire for retributive justice.
I was in any event already of the view that there’s no free will, and further that justice should be rehabilitative as well as deterrent but not retributive. I now see, basis this research, that there is indeed a clear correlation between belief in free will and a desire for retributive justice.
———-
However:
You do see, don’t you, Brian, that what you’ve presented here, and presented persuasively, is actually an “is” argument? And not a “should” argument, not an “ought” argument?
In fact, it seems the causality works in the opposite direction! It’s not so much that belief in free will results in people wanting retributive justice; but instead the desire for retributive justice is what drives people to believe in free will as justification for their independently-arrived-at desire for retributive justice.
In other words, the “should” argument still doesn’t hold, does it?
That’s actually where I was coming from. All of these authors seem to be simply assuming, baldly assuming, assuming without justification, assuming without actually defending that assumption, that belief in free will is what drives a desire for retribution; and that realizing that there’s no free will means that people “should”, that people “ought”, to no longer want retributive justice.
And that “should” assumption is what does not make sense to me. Particularly so, in as much as it has not once been actually defended, so far as I can see. (And again, I base this entirely on what I’ve read here, on what you’ve written here. If these people have actually explicitly argued it out elsewhere, if they’ve clearly defended this assumption elsewhere, well then that I wouldn’t really know about.)
———-
On the other hand, there’s that intriguing research that shows a correlation between high homicide rates and a belief in free will.
While as far as I see the authors haven’t actually argued it that way, but I suppose that might be interpreted as people who believe in free will being more inclined towards retribution, and homicide would be one expression of that retribution, and so the higher homicide rates.
Should that interpretation for the research results hold, well then fair enough. That would mean that the causality works both ways: that wanting retribution makes people believe in free will, as justification for their retribution; and also that a belief in free will makes people want retribution. That does, indeed, join the dots completely satisfactorily.
Provided that interpretation, that I suggested, does hold, for that homicide-rate research. Does it, though?
@ um @ Sant mat … I … “I did not use the word “common” nor made a suggestion in that direction.”
That’s a lie, as I didn’t give a vague example of a couple with an age difference, but posted about an extremely uncommon case where a 53 year old man hooked up with a college coed.
“What is COMMON however that people with age difference fall in love and probably some of them will “lie” at the outset.”
So you’re admitting that your objection to what I actually wrote is BS. Predictable and tiresome.
“Still curious why YOU are so interested in that guru and what he did.”
Yes um, we know, as this line of silly inquisition is all you ever offer to this forum in your many thousands of 2nd grade English posts. “Why does this matter to you” as if that’s a profound question.
So here you are making a BS objection to what I wrote, and then walking it back, and then playing your little “what does this mean to you” interrogation. I often strenuously disagree with other posts here, but I give them credit for making actual arguments. You on the other hand offer nothing but meaningless blather.
@ Santmat
You must drink a cheap brand of coffee and badly toasted in order to make my words SEEN as you do.
Again, I am not interested in the private affairs of anybody, be they guru or not.
No need to attribute any meaning or value to others as an excuse and justification for making up my mind.
The very fact that I lent my ears to this guru and not to that guru, doesn’t say anything about the spiritual status.
If the coffee of a given brand doesn’t tastes, I just do not drink it, it doesn’t say that there is something wrong with their coffee.
In the same vain I am not interested in the partner choices of a gurur, whoever he is. if only for the simple fact that people with age difference do attract one another and get married. … and ii do not understand what business it is of others.
And what my poor command of english is concerned … be glad … hahahaha
if you understand … hahaha
He must be a Sant in the Thakar Singh tradition, devils working very strongly on his lower self and succeeding to some extent. Fight their temptations on your pure Self, Yogic Yankee!
The Unending Tiresomeness of the Um
“You must drink a cheap brand of coffee and badly toasted in order to make my words SEEN as you do.”
The typical um Yoda drivel.
“Again, I am not interested in the private affairs of anybody, be they guru or not.
No need to attribute any meaning or value to others as an excuse and justification for making up my mind.”
I’ll post whatever I want about any guru I want to post about. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem.
You’ve been hanging around these forums for decades now playing your rhetorical game of turning questions about a guru’s suspect ethics against the person asking the question.
I respect people who argue for a religion as much as I respect those who argue against a religion. As long as they present a good faith argument, I respect their right to voice their opinion on that religion and its leaders. But I don’t respect those like yourself who gaslight critics.
“The very fact that I lent my ears to this guru and not to that guru, doesn’t say anything about the spiritual status.”
Another warped Yoda comment. I’ve heard you say this nonsense for many years now, and it’s total BS. And very much so in the context of what I posted, which is a story, about a 53-year-old guru, who lied about his age, in order to get a 19 or 20 yr old girlfriend.
“If the coffee of a given brand doesn’t tastes, I just do not drink it, it doesn’t say that there is something wrong with their coffee.”
More of um’s idiotic hookah bar hokum.
Follow your own advice then um. If you don’t like posts here, stop reading them and stop saying that the posters are spiritually stupid.
“In the same vain I am not interested in the partner choices of a gurur, whoever he is. if only for the simple fact that people with age differences do attract one another and get married. … and ii do not understand what business it is of others.”
Who cares? If you don’t like what you read here about, then stop reading it.
F O L L O W your own incessant advice, you great know it all.
@ Sant64
Obvious you get frustrated if not more reading my words.
You need not to read them nor to answer.
What drives you is what meaning and value YOU attribute to my words, it is YOUR frustration not mine.
One of the Sant Mat teachers once said that if you would know what anger, frustration and other negative feelings does to your body, you would never do it again.
So enjoy your frustration to the brim it is not my body but yours and have some coffee. .. good one.
hahahaha … succes Sant
“The Um” has a ring to it. Very elevated!
I once saw a piece on a mountaintop Zen monastery in Japan. Coffee was available for visitors. They could buy a cup for $1 or $90. Same cup of coffee, nothing hidden, only the price was different.
We are all one. Your suffering is my suffering. Your joy is my joy.