Dawkins Goes Limp on Free Will
by MikeGeneOver at Uncommon Descent, GilDodgen links to a debate between Richard Dawkins and David Quinn. It is worth a listen, as Quinn does a very good job of nailing Dawkins on his straw man arguments. However, what caught my ear was the way Dawkins didn't want to talk about free will. Why is this significant? Well, UD member eldinus spotted the same problem I saw. According to eldinus:
"I'm just not interested in free will, it's not a big question for me."-Dawkins
I find it funny Mr Dawkins would say that after he said the following as part of his "Dangerous idea""¦
"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?"-Dawkins
Now, Dawkins must know that he has argued this before. So why did he act like he wasn't interested in this issue? Also, if you listen toward the middle of the debate (where Quinn first brings up free will), Dawkins seems to be denying his "Dangerous Idea." What's up with that?
[BTW, Krauze was the first one to comment on Dawkins' determinism.]
October 20th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts digs up a comment at UD: "I'm just not interested in free will, it's not a big question for me."-Dawkins [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Dawkins on free will — October 20, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
October 20th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Dawkins didn't write Darwin's Dangerous Idea; that book was written by Daniel Dennett.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 20, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
October 20th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
However, the quote from Dawkins is correctly attributed: it comes from his answer to an "Edge" query, found at:
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 20, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
October 20th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
The edge link is already provided in the OP.
The reference is not to Dennet's book, but the quote.
Dawkins:
Comment by Pez — October 20, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
October 20th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Allen,
I know Dawkins didn't write Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
The Edge query was, "What is your dangerous idea?"
Comment by MikeGene — October 20, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
October 20th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Yep, you're absolutely right – my bad. I should have followed the link first.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 20, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:26 am
I have never heard of David Quinn before. I'm going to assume this is why Richard Dawkins doesn't usually debate in a setting in which it can be recorded and disseminated to others.
Comment by Fred Haster — October 21, 2006 @ 2:26 am
October 21st, 2006 at 6:28 am
(I tried posting on this subject on UD – but experience suggests it won't get published. This blog is much more open and gives me another chance.)
I thought this was a very interesting debate with two passionate, but polite and rational protagonists. Both of them made good points.
1) I am not sure why anyone thinks Quinn "nailed Dawkins on his strawman arguments". I know that Dawkins does use strawmen and suggest extremists are typical of religion as a whole. But he didn't do that on this programme. I believe Quinn accused Dawkins of attacking a strawman twice on the programme and both cases were unjustified:
a) That Dawkins equates believing in God with believing in fairies. This wasn't a strawman. It was an analogy to clarify his view of religion.
b) Dawkins talks about scientists who are also YEC when many religious people belief in an old earth and evolution. But Dawkins never denied this. He just used the YEC scientist as an extreme example of compartmental thinking.
So it was actually Quinn who was attacking positions that Dawkins was not proposing.
2) Dawkins appears not to have thought through atheism and free will and was badly caught out. Quinn leapt on this as a debating tactic but actually it is a very difficult question for both atheist and believer and I am disappointed that Dawkins did not pick up on this. The problem of free will is that we want to say that our conscious actions are caused by something other than laws of nature or random chance – but adding a God doesn't really help much – except at as a simplistic God of the Gaps solution i.e. here is something we don't understand, therefore God must exist.
Quinn's only argument to support his position was that other materialists have said there is no room for free will and atheism. He didn't offer any arguments of his own. I believe those other materialists (if they really said this) are wrong. Free will is quite compatible with all our actions being explicable through laws of nature. My dog clearly exhibits free will. But I can also predict what he will do much of the time and it is logically possible that eventually science will progress to the point where we can trace the causal chain through a dog's brain and predict its actions in great detail (although this would be formidably difficult to do in practice). This discovery does not remove his free will. Free will is just another way of describing what he does. It also does not excuse him from praise and blame!
3) Quinn was strongest talking about the role of atheism and religion in war and strife. I feel Dawkins attempt to brand religion as the root of much evil is misguided. I wish he would stick to discussing whether it is true. I suspect religion is a benign myth on balance.
4) Quinn trotted out the centuries old arguments about first causes and morality. But they are, like free will, just God of the Gaps arguments. We don't understand x, therefore God exists. Again I am disappointed Dawkins didn't pick this up.
Nice programme though – I am glad it came up.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 21, 2006 @ 6:28 am
October 21st, 2006 at 9:56 am
Hi Mike,
You rhetorically asked…
This is a good question. Why is this significant to the ID/Darwin debate?
Mike, you are very good at posing leading questions as a form of argumentum ad hominem, is that what is happening here? I would be interested in understanding the answer to your own rhetorical question. I believe what Dawkins meant was that he was not interested in debating the question because he felt it wasn't a key question to the topic. His spur-of-the-moment poor phrasing wasn't that "significant", IMO. There are plenty of worse examples of American politicians claiming they "misspoke" under conditions far less impromptu than this. BTW, do you think Dawkins uncharacteristically agreed up front to "debate" David Quinn or is it possible this was an ambush set up by a radio personality?
Let me offer some answers as to why this might be significant"¦
1. Dawkins is hypocritical, therefore we should disregard his arguments
2. Dawkins is hypocritical, he is a typical example for the "other" side
3. This is a key question and shows Dawkins is wrong about religion
4. Dawkins is wrong about religion, therefore he is wrong about ID
This post is not about defending Dawkins (he can defend himself). My question is about the purpose and attitude of this blog. Are we presenting arguments for and against teleological hypotheses for life, or is this just another rallying point for pro-religious soldiers engaged the Culture War dedicated to defeating the other side?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 21, 2006 @ 9:56 am
October 21st, 2006 at 10:54 am
Yes, we want to say that we understand and act according to rational, logical norms or rules, which are absolute (ie, they'd hold in any universe, no matter what physical laws it had) and so aren't reducible to physical laws, which are logically contingent.
Obviously, this depends on what you mean by "free will". Whatever you mean by it, if "free" is compatible with being controlled in toto by outside deterministic factors then it must have a rather unconventional meaning…
And there you have it. You've given an ascriptionist definition of free will, where something is "free" by virtue of us describing it as "free", rather than being anything instrinsic and objectively different about that thing. Yes, nothing stops you from describing your dog as "free" and holding him worthy of blame or praise, just as nothing stops Basil Fawlty from doing the same with his car.
Comment by Deuce — October 21, 2006 @ 10:54 am
October 21st, 2006 at 10:56 am
Hi TP,
You write:
Did I say it was significant to the ID/Darwin debate?
Huh? Dawkins claims he is not interested in the issue of free will. Yet less that a year ago, he wrote a deliberately provocative essay that paints a Clockwork Orange picture of reality, where we are scolded for punishing child murderers who simply did what they did because of "antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment." I point out the discrepancy and TP accuses me of personal attacks.
How can this be? Dawkins is one of the world's leading scientists and has been voted one of the world's greatest intellects. He himself claims that he goes wherever the evidence leads. How can someone like that ever be "ambushed" with philosophical arguments? Then again, if Dawkins has carefully built up such a public image by hiding within the Ivory Towers and coming out only in carefully chosen "debates," he could indeed be ambushed by someone as obscure as Quinn.
You are either projecting or relying on your stereotypes. I think it significant in the sense that the Emperor has no clothes. Dawkins is far more influential than all of us here combined. As part of his influence, he postures as Mr. Objectivity who simply follows the "evidence." The debate with Quinn seriously undermined those perceptions. When a popular illusion is shattered, it is significant. Maybe that is why you are bothered by my blog.
It's far too late for him to erase the Edge essay.
Are those the only options you can come up with? As for arguments for and against teleological hypotheses for life, a good place to start is here. As for some rallying point, are you saying we cannot criticize Dawkins without being accused of engaging in some culture war?
Like I have been saying for years, for many critics, it is wrong to publicly criticize Richard Dawkins. It's as if he is some guru and his writings are sacred.
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 10:56 am
October 21st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Hi Mark,
I'm going to stick with the free-will topic.
You write:
I think you have misunderstood the essence of Quinn's argument. He explicitly ties free will to morality and responsibility (and while he accurately conveys Dawkins' views (see the Edge article), Dawkins denies it). With your dog example, we may praise or blame it, but not in any truly moral sense. For example, if a dog kills a human, we do not think the dog has been immoral or unethical. And we euthanize the dog not to punish it, but because we know the dog is dangerous. In fact, in situations like that, we often look to the owner of the dog when it comes to responsibility and punishment. I think Quinn is pointing out that Dawkins position would also label our sense of responsibility and free will as "delusions." And that is, indeed, what Dawkins effectively argued in his Edge article.
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 11:17 am
October 21st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Not at all. I use the words "free will" in the usual sense to mean the ability to act on intentions, desires and so on – as opposed to involuntary actions such as breathing. We all recognise such actions countless times every day in a wide range of species. Dogs clearly exhibit such free will. (It is less certain for snails and ants – which may be acting entirely at an involuntary level.)
You have used the word "controlled". I only said "caused". Opening a tin of dog food causes my dog to jump off his seat and come and wait to be fed. Indeed I can reliably predict his response. But it doesn't control his behaviour. He does it because he wants to and he is exercising free will.
You can apply the same to humans. An expert psychologist (or salesperson) can predict the decisions of some subjects with great reliability under some circumstances. But those subjects are still exercising free will and still responsible for their actions. I can predict with some reliability that if I offered you $10 million to send me a Christmas card that you would do it. The offer would cause you to send me a Christmas card. You would still be exercising your free will.
Imagine that one day we get to understand the detailed electrochemical pathway where a dog gets hungry, hears the tin opened, forms an intention, and acts on it. We even find we can point to the part of the brain where intentions are formed. Do we suddenly conclude that dogs do not have free will? What if we do the same for humans?
Comment by Mark Frank — October 21, 2006 @ 11:51 am
October 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Mike
I need to clarify exactly what I am saying.
1. I agree that in the Edge piece Dawkins does imply that moral responsibility and free will are delusions. I think he is wrong and might well retract what he wrote for Edge with further thought (it is after all designed to elicit controversial off-the-wall ideas – not fully worked out statements).
2. Quinn may have linked free will to moral responsibility (I am not sure he did); but on that programme he did not offer any arguments to show that free will or moral responsibility is incompatible with atheism (except to say that many materialists think free will is incompatible with atheism). He just asserted that they are evidence for God.
I believe that both Dawkins and Quinn are wrong. It is false dichotomy. Atheism, materialism (whatever that means), and determinism are compatible with free will and moral responsibility. I used the example of the dog because a dog exhibits free will (but not moral responsibility). However, I agree that dogs don't justify the full range of moral judgements that people do. The same applies to young children and some types of the mentally retarded. That's because they are not able to assess the rightness or wrongness of their actions. It doesn't mean they lack free will. If you have children you will know that two year olds have all the free will you could ever ask for – and close to zero moral responsibility. Free will is necessary, but not sufficient, to be a full moral agent.
If you want to discuss moral responsibility as evidence for the existence of God I will happily do that as well. But then the examples need to switch to adult humans and it didn't come up in the programme.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 21, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Yes, if you were to show me a complete deterministic account of some creature's action, I would conclude that "free will" as applied to that creature was superfluous. In other words, I would conclude that I had simply been projecting reasons and rational thinking onto something perfectly non-rational, and in fact there was nothing intrinsic or objective about the organism to correspond to the label, making "free will" as applied to that creature a label only (or a "description" as you put it), not something described. The alternative would be to conflate the appearance of free will with objective reality, which would be an error.
Comment by Deuce — October 21, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Hi Mark,
You write:
I don't view "free will" as the ability to act on intention and desires. I would just call that "will." In my mind, free will is seen in the ability to choose against the desires and urges that our biology and environment push us toward. Thus, in my mind, opening a tin of dog food and having your dog to jump off his seat and come and wait to be fed is not an example of free will. The dog is just following the dictates of its urges. Stimulus-reaction.
In this instance, sure. What you have described is a reflex arc that is initiated by triggering mechanoreceptors in the dogs ears. Would it also be free will when your quadriceps contract because someone first stretched the patellar ligament?
Ultimately, science is going to be taking a back seat on this issue for the simple reason that I have direct, solid experience with the ability to choose. What science would have to show is that in all cases, this internal reality I experience, where I freely choose against the urges and desires of the moment, is itself programmed by antecedent conditions. It would have to establish the reality that Dawkins paints. But then again, science does not show things. Science is a word that we assign to the electrochemical pathways that take place in the brains of entities we call 'scientists.'
Is human action solely the result of antecedent conditions acting through our physiology, heredity and environment? Do we have the ability to freely choose against such influences? If we think we do, is that a delusion?
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Hi Mark,
You added some helpful clarifications:
Where we agree is all that matters. I cannot seriously consider what Richard Dawkins might say in some imaginary, possible future. As it stands, he has explained his position. If you think his position is wrong, use your blog to write a detailed debunking of Dawkins' position.
Quinn clearly linked free will with moral responsibility. Yes, he does not explain why free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with atheism, as people like Dawkins have offered that explanation:
In short, moral responsibility is a delusion.
What makes you think the "full range of moral judgments" is not another delusion? It may be nothing more be a delusion that has provided us a selective benefit as we evolved. As Dawkins argues, "constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live."
Time is short. But the question is whether moral responsibility is simply something human beings pretend to exist.
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Yes, if you were to show me a complete deterministic account of some creature's action, I would conclude that "free will" as applied to that creature was superfluous. In other words, I would conclude that I had simply been projecting reasons and rational thinking onto something perfectly non-rational, and in fact there was nothing intrinsic or objective about the organism to correspond to the label, making "free will" as applied to that creature a label only (or a "description" as you put it), not something described. The alternative would be to conflate the appearance of free will with objective reality, which would be an error.
So if a scientist were to do the same for you – you would have to conclude you have no free will – only the appearance of free will?
Comment by Mark Frank — October 21, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Mike
There are now so many strands I don't know which one to follow up.
The post is primarily about free will – not moral responsibility – so I will stick to that. Quinn and Dawkins (at least in the Edge question) appear to think they are incompatible. I believe that's because Dawkins hasn't realised they are compatible and that's why he went "limp". Quinn, as you admit, added nothing to this.
Assuming you are more interested in the philosophical issues than scoring points off Dawkins – I will continue in that vein. My debate with "Deuce" is about how free will is compatible with determinism and a biological explanation of behaviour. So with you I will make another point. Suppose free will were some property of some actions that was incompatible with any biological explanation of the actions. Then how does this add up to a proof of the existence of God? All it says is that there is the thing called free will which is rather hard to pin down. How do you go from there to "therefore God exists"
Comment by Mark Frank — October 21, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
If my past actions could be shown to have been entirely determined, then I would have to conclude that my memory was bad – that I remembered acting for reasons, but in fact I had never done so (or that the scientist had made an error). If I were told that my reason for accepting, or not accepting, that conclusion at that very moment was actually a set of deterministic causes, then I would have to conclude that the scientist was irrational: to say that a physical state (which is logically contingent) is a logical relationship (which is not) is similar to saying that a square is a circle.
Comment by Deuce — October 21, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Two can play at that game. I asked for clarification and MikeGene accuses me of making accusations.
I wrote…
"My question is about the purpose and attitude of this blog. Are we presenting arguments for and against teleological hypotheses for life, or is this just another rallying point for pro-religious soldiers engaged the Culture War dedicated to defeating the other side? "
You asked…
No, we could be blogging about the finer points of knitting too, but I interpreted something different what I read the About Us link…
Let me restate my question. Is this About Us statement still an accurate description of the purpose of this blog. If so, how is your pointing out this particular discrepancy of Dawkins consistent with this stated purpose?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 21, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Hi Mark,
But Quinn clearly couples free will and moral responsibility: "We believe, for example, that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person bad because we believe they are freely choosing those actions."
Once again, we see that criticism of Sacred Dawkins is not allowed. Now I'm just "scoring points."
I'm not making an argument for the existence of God. The blog simply points out that Dawkins, who has argued for determinism and the delusional status of morality, backed off these views in the debate. Why do you think he did that?
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Hi TP,
You ask:
Do you understand the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law? Yes, there are plenty of blogs here that don't adhere to the "letter of the law" spelled out in About Us. In fact, that's one reason we have grown into a fairly popular blog about intelligent design. But like you said, you won't find extensive discussions and debates about knitting or Islamic terrorism here. That's because we adhere to the spirit of the law.
Here's how it works. Yesterday, I check up on some blogs and come across the debate as mentioned on UD. I listen to the debate and am struck by Dawkins handling of free will, as Krauze's original Jan 5, 2006 TT posting comes to mind. After listening to the debate, I check out the UD comments and find that someone else noticed this. Noting that our blog has been rather quiet for the last few days, I figured this would be a quick, easy, and interesting topic to keep the blogs coming. And presto, you have the above blog, thrown together in less than 5 min. Big Time Agenda. I guess I forget to get About Us approval. Shame on me.
What's next? Are you going to complain because I posted a picture of my dog on our blog?
Or did you ever notice how so few of the ScienceBlogs blogs are about science?
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Hi Mike,
I thought the RNA World and A Telic View of the Universe were excellent threads. They were even active. I was looking forward to hearing from Bradford on the RNA World and, believe it or not, I was hoping you would enter into the EAM discussion on the other thread.
While I think cute threads about Dogs and Rabbits are off-topic, I look at them as relatively harmless distractions with potential benefits. They can be constructive in that they help create a friendly atmosphere (and I can show off by knowledge about Bun Bun).
You can start an active thread by trolling on several subjects including, for example, how unbelievably stupid it was for the US to attempt to fight a two-front war in Bagdad this last month and how incredible it is that anyone is surprised with an "increase in violence" as a result (not that I have an opinion on it).
Mike, personally I would love to hear your views in OOL and EAM. It is sad if that isn't interesting enough. If TT works hard enough and stacks the deck with one sided articles, it can make Telic Thoughts as popular as Uncommon Descent. However, I am pointing out some discrepancies in that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 21, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Hi Mike,
"Do you understand the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law?"
I think you're selling yourself short here. To quote from the About Us page, this blog is about "teleological concepts, including intelligent design." In other words, intelligent design is the main topic, but we can occasionally stray into other subjects of teleology, such as philosophy of mind or the question of free will. This fact is reflected by our "Featured Books", which include a couple dealing with these very subjects.
Comment by Krauze — October 21, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
October 21st, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Hi TP,
Topics such as the OOL and EAM are indeed interesting. Interesting enough that I dare not comment given that I cannot participate in any significant manner during the week. But there is always my web page to check out. Better yet, I've started a trilogy! How's that for interest?
EAM would be a good topic for this thread. If animals like dogs make choices, then it stands to reason that animals, and their choices, have significantly shaped their own evolution. Such internally driven choices become selection pressures, once again relegating natural selection to the back seat. The ground is very fertile here.
As for The Rabbit, he's not off-topic!!
Mike
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 am
I guess my assumption was wrong. You are more interested in criticising Dawkins than discussing the underlying philosophical issues. Of course, criticism of Dawkins is allowed. If you read what I have written above, you will see that I have done so myself and agreed with some of your criticisms. I just thought you might want to move on from there.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 22, 2006 @ 2:30 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 3:05 am
Deuce
You and Mike are saying some interesting things about free will.
The scientist has tracked down the physical chain of causality and you tell her (let's assume it is a woman) that she must be irrational. Yet if she had done exactly the same for some other person you would not be able to make that claim.
It appears you have a model of free will where it is an additional factor that accompanies some of our actions (but not all) which is not directly observable by outsiders and is logically incompatible with a physical explanation of the same actions.
What makes you think any other being has this same factor?
Meanwhile Mike has written:
This paints a picture of overcoming primitive desires such as hunger and sex. But desires arising from our biology and environment can be very sophisticated. Why not include the desire to comfort suffering people, the desire for recognition, the desire to see justice done, the desire to fulfil oneself by solving a complex problem, the desire to be loved, the desire for self-respect?
If you recognise that these also arise from our biology and environment (and why not?) then it seems that for Mike only capricious action counts as free will.
Clearly I am not going to persuade you guys. But perhaps I have demonstrated that free will is a very subtle and complex discussion. Which is probably why Dawkins made a hash of it.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 22, 2006 @ 3:05 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:29 am
And it appears that you have a conception of "free will" that forces you to conflate logical rules with physical ones. It's also fairly clear that you have an ascriptionist account of free will in mind, where it's just a term that is subjectively ascribed to things, but doesn't correspond to anything objective underneath. What makes this really bizarre is that it implies that a bunch of people, none of whom intrinsically have any free will, are all ascribing "free will" to each other. But what could it possibly mean to ascribe free will to someone when you don't have it yourself?
No, I don't consider it "an additional factor" that "accompanies" some of our actions. I consider it an intrinsic factor that causes some of our actions. Look, there's nothing particulary confusing about this. I reason and act based on my knowledge and understanding of logical norms. Other people seem to be doing the same thing, but I can't absolutely prove it (from my perspective). It's logically possible that they were preprogrammed and are acting blindly, and don't actually understand any logical norms, or even that they are simply acting randomly, and just happened to act as if they were rational. It's also logically possible that all my memories are false and were implanted a few seconds ago. However, it's not logically possible that a logical norm is a physical law or state. I've answered your questions the way I did because given a choice between the extremely unlikely and the incoherent, I'll take the extremely unlikely.
Anyways, the idea of something that "accompanies some of our actions (but not all) which is not directly observable by outsiders" shouldn't seem strange at all to you, because there's at least one thing for which we *know* this to be the case: subjective conscious experience. If free will requires and builds on conscious understanding of logical norms, as I hold, then the same would be true of it as well.
Comment by Deuce — October 22, 2006 @ 9:29 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:07 am
I think the key to your position is:
A "logical norm" is a fairly loose phrase but to me it means something like a mathematical result "2+2=4" or a syllogism. If that's what you mean by "logical norm" than I agree. But I can't see that acting out of free will is a logical norm. Logical norms are universally and necessarily true under all conditions. It is not universally true that you are acting out of free will. It may or may not be true.
Perhaps you could rephrase this (examples would help) to show where the logical impossibility lies?
Comment by Mark Frank — October 22, 2006 @ 10:07 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 am
Hi Mark:
On the other hand, you seem to be almost desperate to get the topic off Richard Dawkins. I have indeed spent some time "discussing the underlying philosophical issues" with you (you even admitted, "There are now so many strands I don't know which one to follow up"), but as I have made it clear many times over, I don't have the time to engage in sustained discussion that will continue during the week. I have to bite off topics that I can chew in the short time that I have over the weekend.
So why is it that you don't want to address some of my questions:
1. Now, Dawkins must know that he has argued this before. So why did he act like he wasn't interested in this issue?
2. Also, if you listen toward the middle of the debate (where Quinn first brings up free will), Dawkins seems to be denying his "Dangerous Idea." What's up with that?
3. The blog simply points out that Dawkins, who has argued for determinism and the delusional status of morality, backed off these views in the debate. Why do you think he did that?
Instead of trying to turn Dawkins into a victim, why not explain his behavior?
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2006 @ 10:41 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:49 am
I am not conscious of trying to turn him into a victim. I just wanted to talk discuss something else. I have only met Dawkin's once (and heard him twice) so I know almost nothing about his motivation and thinking. Any speculation on my part about why he said this or that would be just that – speculation But it's your blog – so if that's you want to talk about that I will back off and let people who know him better contribute.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 22, 2006 @ 10:49 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:57 am
Mark,
You can talk about free will all you want. Use your free will to continue your discussion with Deuce or start up news ones with other opponents. I care not. I was replying to the point where you were trying to drag me into a lengthy philosophical discussion when I have made it abundantly clear that I don't have the time for such things.
As for speculating about Dawkins' thinking and motivation, I suppose I myself am relying on stereotypes. Over the years, I have watched countless critics speculate about the thinking and motivation of ID proponents. Perhaps I should not have extrapolated that experience to you. Are you saying that you have never speculated about the thinking and motivations of ID proponents?
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2006 @ 10:57 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:05 am
[...] Telic Thoughts has some commentary here. [...]
Pingback by The Design Paradigm :: The God Delusion :: October :: 2006 — October 22, 2006 @ 11:05 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Mike – I expect I have speculated about various people's motives and thinking from time to time. But I hope that when I have done so I have made it clear that it is speculation. On the whole I don't find it very interesting … But maybe that is because I am just an automaton underneath and lack a soul
Comment by Mark Frank — October 22, 2006 @ 11:50 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
If I were to speculate on Dawkins' motivation, I'd have to consider this back-tracking to be quite calculated to serve… Richard Dawkins. He's just published another anti-religion tome, so we know his views as an Evangelical Atheist haven't changed. His position on free will may have encountered some contrary scientific evidence since the Edge piece was published, but that's unlikely.
He's more likely to have better thought the Edge premise through, and realized that actual freedom of will better serves his socipolitical position than a mere illusion of free will can. I would suspect that he has come to recognize the internal inconsistency between his mechanistic metaphysics and his evangelical fervor to convert people to that mechanistic metaphysics.
IOW, if there is no freedom to choose, it's a waste of time and life to expect people to freely choose.
Comment by Joy — October 22, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 am
I have read that Dawkins regrets the edge piece.
I personally was pleased to see it and think the myth of libertarian free will and how that effects the way we think and feel about each other and how we treat each other is one of our biggest problems.
Joy,
There is freedom to choose if we select between options, that is what we do.
We don't expect people to choose freely. That is why we hold people responsible and use threats and penalties in an attempt to influence their decisions.
There would be know point if they could choose freely.
Stephen
Comment by stephnlawrnce — June 22, 2007 @ 7:58 am