Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists. For the naturalist the ontology of man can be summed up on a socio-biological level. In the words of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." Man, according to Dawkins, is a slave to his DNA and has no actual choice in his actions. There is no room for moral or rational deliberation, only an endless string of materialistic cause and effect. Man is a robot acting to a coding written by an irrational and immoral universe.
In this short film Brian Godawa reveals the experiential problem with such a view of reality. A college professor is forced to look his theory in the face and try to find a reason why he should not be murdered after being captured by a serial killer. After all, arguing that another man (a machine) should not act a certain way is like trying to tell the wind it should not blow. The wind does not blow through choice, it merely reacts to other physical forces. The wind, like us, neither knows nor cares.
We, however, do know and care. Quite a bit, actually. Perhaps because we were created by God.
Too bad for this guy.
In this short film Brian Godawa reveals the experiential problem with such a view of reality. A college professor is forced to look his theory in the face and try to find a reason why he should not be murdered after being captured by a serial killer. After all, arguing that another man (a machine) should not act a certain way is like trying to tell the wind it should not blow. The wind does not blow through choice, it merely reacts to other physical forces. The wind, like us, neither knows nor cares.
We, however, do know and care. Quite a bit, actually. Perhaps because we were created by God.
Too bad for this guy.
9 comments:
interesting! Thanks for sharing.
A couple thoughts:
1) Even within the theistic world-view, it would seem we are still subject to cause and effect, though not materialistic cause and effect. As such we can't help but do the things we do and believe the things we believe, even if "we" are the cause of that effect.
2) Lets suppose that the victim were a christian. He says, "You shouldn't murder me because God says it's wrong, thereby establishing an objective moral truth." The killer responds, "God is simply another self conscious mind. As such, he has no more ability to impose obligations upon me than Barack Obama does."
How would you respond to this argument?
That's supposed to be "Charles Martel" BTW.
I hit the "enter" key instead of "shift"
Hey Charles,
(1) I think the difference is a very important one. Determinism would mean that we are not the cause of our actions, they are merely the effect of some forerunner. However in self-determinism we are the first cause of our actions. There is no cause and effect here like in the first one. In determinism there is the cause (ex. DNA) and the effect (being the serial killer), where as in self-determinism there is the cause (me) and the effect (being the serial killer). The cause originates from me and therefore I am responsible for my actions. If I am responsible, then I can be held accountable for them. The choice is mine, it's not lost to irrational forces. We are rational, personal, and moral beings, and therefore can deliberate on what is right and wrong.
(2) The problem is with your presupposition. It's not merely because it is what God said. It's what is morally wrong. What God says is the moral law, because God is moral and what God says flows from His moral nature. The serial killer can deny the moral law, but he still acts contrary to it. The serial killer can choose to act contrary to it, but he cannot choose to make his actions ammoral. That is the point of the video, the professor can make no valid argument against his pending doom.
Obama is a moral creature but his nature is not THE morality from which all morality flows. Much like Obama has being, but Obama is not Being itself. God is Being, and we have being. God exists necessarily with no chance not to be, Obama came into existence and could go out of existence at any moment. He relies on God for his existence, much like the serial killer and the moral law. It's there and he cannot deny it, and seeing that he is a creature of God, he knows it in his heart. Once again, though, this does not mean that he cannot deny it. However for the killer to deny God's moral law would be like him denying his need for God to exist.
1) In self determinism the "self" still comes from somewhere, it's still formed by something other than itself. The self is a cause, but it's also an effect of a prior cause. In other words, why do you have the "self" that you do, which enables you (in part) to make the decisions you make?
I hope that I'm being too convoluted.
2) Then perhaps I should phrase it this way: Why do moral obligations flow from God's moral nature, and not from Obama's? It strikes me as a non-sequitor to go from God's ontological necessity to his ability to ground objective moral obligations.
I hope that I'm NOT being too convoluted.
(1) Quite simply because that's how God created man to be. "God created the fact of freedom, we create the acts of freedom." We might be a creation, but we were created to be the first cause of our actions. The self is a cause and an effect, but those cause and effects are in different categories. Our being is caused by another, but our acts our caused by us. Our acts are not the effects of the cause of God, they are the cause of us. Unless you see some contradiction or absurdity with self-determinism then I'm not sure what the real issue is here. We are not self-created being (impossible), we are self-determined beings (possible and actual).
(2) I exist, however I have the possibility to not be. There is nothing in my being that grounds my being. I came into existence, and therefore, have potentiality. Anything that has potentiality does not account for its own being. Therefore, there must be a Being that exists which has no potential not to be that accounts for all other being. God is such. He is the Pure Actuality, the Being that has no potentiality. God is and cannot not be (I do not mean logically, but metaphysically).
Therefore, God is the Being on which I rely for my being. God, however, is also morally perfect. So God is Being, I have being. God is morally perfect, I have moral capacities. The same goes for Obama. He is moral, but morally limited. So Obama can command morality, but he is not the basis for morality. Just like Obama can exist, but he is not the basis for existence. God's nature is. God is, and He is morally perfect, and therefore he grounds the moral law as he does existence itself.
Any moral commands from Obama, if moral, necessarily reflect God's perfect moral nature.
1) The issue is that you seem to think that materialism has a problem, regarding morality, because it’s subject to determinism. What I’m saying is that both materialism and theism are in the same boat on that subject.
Materialism has an individual’s particular DNA/experience as the basis for his decision making. Theism has the individual’s particular soul/experiences as the basis for his decision making. I don’t see how replacing DNA with the soul helps us escape determinism.
In materialism, person A inherits DNA from his parents (cause) which informs how he will act in situation B (effect).
In theism, person A receives a soul from God (cause) which informs how he will act in situation B (effect).
If you’ll permit me, the following line of reasoning is what led me to my conclusion. Perhaps if you pointed out where you would have taken the discussion in a different direction and avoided the conclusion, I might be persuaded that I was wrong:
Q1: On theism, why did that person do a bad thing, and why should they be held accountable for it?
A2: Because they chose to, therefore they’re responsible for their actions.
Q2: Why did they choose to?
A2: In addition to things like brain chemistry, psychology, life experiences and the such, the soul of a person, their self, factors in as well.
Q3: A moral agent can’t be held responsible for things that are thrust upon him, such as brain chemistry, or those other material motivators right?
A3: Of course.
Q4: Ok, then let’s remove those factors from the equation. Looking at the soul, why did a person commit a sinful act? Why does one person’s soul result in sin and another’s righteousness?
A4: Well, I guess souls must be created with differences, otherwise the only thing separating one’s behavior from another would be those material motivators. And the soul is created by God, So I guess God made them that way.
Q5: So then, wouldn’t someone’s behavior ultimately be determined by God?
A5: ?
2) I’m not sure I follow.
God exists. God is morally perfect. I depend on him for my existence. Therefore I SHOULD obey him. Outside of a “might makes right” way of thinking, I’m not sure how this works.
It sounds like you’re saying that we should obey God because God says (or it’s an outflow of God’s nature) we should. Circular.
Sorry if my tone comes off as snide. Not intentional.
What happened to my post?
Post a Comment