Month: October 2017

Sam Harris

Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free will, part 7 of 9

We continue considering that Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne deny free will: find the entire series here.

Sam Harris next proposes a metaphorical scenario wherein a scientist develops the ability to control people’s thoughts. He thinks it demonstrates that “the undeniable fact that the conscious mind is not the source of its own thoughts and intentions.” Indeed, yet the deck is stacked as the metaphor is, of course, meant to prove a point. In the metaphor we know that the scientist is running the show and that the person being acted upon is not. But in real life we do not that we are not running the show and that something else is. He notes:

This discloses the real mystery of free will: if our moment to moment experience is compatible with its utter absence, how can we say that we see any evidence for it in the first place?

Now you understand why he is an Atheist as he basically argues the same about God, one could paraphrase him here thusly:

This discloses the real mystery of the question of God’s existence: if our moment to moment experience is compatible with God’s utter absence, how can we say that we see any evidence for God in the first place?

But this is merely question begging: do we not see evidence for free will (for God)? Of course, we do but his Atheistic, materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic worldview will not allow him to admit it—in both cases. sam20harris2c20atheism2c20true20freethinker-1580448

Now, having traveled the same road as Jerry Coyne did, Sam Harris now turns tail just as Coyne did:
None of this, however, renders the choices we make in life any less important.
Yes, you read it correctly, after presenting a case for lack of free will he claims that we make choices. But how do we and why make such as claim at this point?

It is at this point that Coyne and Harris appear to part ways as Coyne denies choice making but Harris affirms it.

He explains:
…many people confuse determinism with fatalism….the fact that our choices depend on prior causes does not mean that they do not matter…Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world. Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe.
So, apparently, we do not have free will: we merely make choices, make decisions, have intentions, make efforts, have goals, exercise willpower and these are all causal. The term “Alrighty then!” comes readily to mind.

One gets the feeling that Sam Harris is traipsing into what Vox Day noted about Harris’ modus operandi:
Unfortunately, Harris appears to have adopted Richard Dawkins’ favorite device of presenting a bait-and-switch definition in lieu of a logically substantive argument.

Harris continues:
…it is true to say that a person would have done otherwise if he had chosen to do otherwise…From the perspective of your conscious mind, you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world.
So, you chose to do or not do and these choices are causal yet, you are not responsible for your choices…or something. He seems to be hinging this part of the argument upon the “conscious mind” as opposed, apparently, to the unconscious mind that makes no choices but simply dances to thermodynamics’ tune.

He claims that:
…thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?) unauthored, and yet author to our actions.
But thoughts do not simply arise, they are products of previous thoughts, combinations of thoughts, etc. And they can also be authored such as when you purpose to take time to ponder something or other.

Basically, he concludes with:
…free will is nowhere to be found…Thoughts and intentions simply arise in the mind…the illusion of free will is itself an illusion.
Apparently, his view is that the unconscious mind has no free will and just spits out data based on neural reactions. Then our conscious mind sifts through this data and we make choices. How this is not free will is unclear.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism
Facebook: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism

Savage Nation

Annals of the World

Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion, part 3 of 3

What About Atheism?

I know, I know, some of you are chomping at the bit to ask Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett a question. So, please, release your death-grip on the bit and ask away, “What about atheism?”
Indeed, do atheists have to accept, and be held similarly responsible for the wicked deeds done by atheists, in the name of atheism, premised upon atheism? According to the New Atheists the answer is clearly that atheism gets a pass and is not responsible. They claim this for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history and it was largely so due to atheism spiked regimes. Other evasions include the claim that athe“ism” is not a particular belief system and that thus, atheist are not bound to any particular tenet. Yet, in this view atheism, meaning individual atheists, is in reality as diverse as any religious group (consider the inversion of this and you will see that the argument for religious violence is fallacious).

christopher20hitchens2c20daniel20dennett2c20atheism2c20true20freethinker-2180072

Yet, of all of the passes that have been recommended for atheism’s account not being charged for the wicked things done in its name, with it as a premise, Prof. Daniel Dennett has certainly conceived of the most, shall we say, interesting. During his debate with Dinesh D’Souza (Is God (and Religion) a man-made invention? ) he stated:

“…it occurred to me – let’s think about Stalin for a moment. Was he an atheist? You might say well of course he was an atheist. No, on the contrary. In a certain sense, he wasn’t an atheist at all. He believed in god. Not only that, he believe in a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”

Simply fascinating. Since Joseph Stalin was not an atheist (even though he was) but was in reality a theist (even though he was an atheist) the responsibility of his wicked deeds are charged to, you guessed it, theism.

christopher20hitchens2c20daniel20dennett2c20atheism2c20true20freethinker-7543733

In a manner of speaking, it is true that atheist are theists since they see god in the mirror. Whether it is Joseph Stalin or Pekka-Eric Auvinen who referred to himself as a “god-like atheist”1 and stated, “I am the law, judge and executioner. There is no higher authority than me”2 before committing a massacre at his high school (consider more likewise examples at this link).

Yet, claiming that atheists are not responsible for the atrocities committed by atheists or with atheism as a premise and claiming that theism is responsible instead is no way for anyone to argue much less a professor of philosophy.

from Apologetics315 on Mon, 04/12/2010 – 11:25pm

Today begins a series of 23 essays contributed by various apologetics bloggers from across the web. This

VIDEO: Origins of & First Crusade by Prof Matt Philips

Anammelech

James White on the Christopher Hitchens vs. Frank Turek debate

Sa'id ibn Bitriq

Sa'id ibn Batriq