Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Repeat after me: “this has nothing to do with my views on religion”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[[This blast from the past was originally published here at UD 25oct06. With EXPELLED coming out so soon and given Dawkins’s prominent role in it, I thought it worth moving to the top of the stack (blogs have the data structure of a push-down stack). –WmAD]]

Last night Richard Dawkins did a reading from his new book, The God Delusion, at a bookstore in DC. After the reading he fielded questions. A friend of mine was in the front and got to be the first to go. He asked Dawkins if he thought he was being inconsistent by being a determinist while taking credit for writing his book. The answer so shocked my questioner friend that he typed out a transcript of what was said, which is pasted below. He recorded the audio on his laptop and has as an MP3, just in case someone wishes to dispute his recollection of this event. I post it here with my friend’s permission.

Richard Dawkins at Politics and Prose speaking on The God Delusion
Question and Answer

Questioner: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I’ve seen you written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about and the places where I think there is an inconsistency and I hoped you would clarify it is that in what I’ve read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn’t to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book from the initial condition of the big bang it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.

Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It’s not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I’ve ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write, has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should … I sometimes … Um … You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. And so again I might take a …

Questioner: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.

Questioner: Thank you.

Comments
Jpark320, one answer you seek can be found here, in ion channels. On the freedom of the will, the theologian Jonathan Edwards promoted the notion that there is free will, and he defined it as the determination of choice by that which most immediately pleases the mind. The will is free because it always chooses what pleases the mind; if a person's choice were ever that which did not most immediately please his mind, then he would not be free. This is only one of the definitions of free will that does not contradict the existence of perfect foreknowledge. Your pleasures can be known beforehand, and your obedience to them, and you would still be free to do as you please, indeed, certainly and deterministically free to do so. Edwards's book on the subject is The Freedom of the Will.Designed Jacob
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Did you read what happened in the 21st century nightlight? General relativity and quantum mechanics are having a little problem getting along, not to mention the fact that Newtonian calculations work really well in real life (ie like Baseball - Go Cards!) that we can determine stuff w/ almost 100% fidelity. So the "non-deterministic relations" you're talking about fizzle away w/near 100% fidelity also. Unless of course, with natural science, you can show that our thoughts (freewill if you, uh, will) are controlled at a level where quantum indetermination is significant - if you can please feel free to share. Btw, you know that we can determine where a electron will be located about 100% of time right (think those pesky shaped orbitals)? Just not its "exact" position. So let the freewill vs determinism debate roll on!jpark320
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Nightlight brings up a good point concerning quantum physics, and its decidedly non-deterministic nature. I believe many people that visit this site and others like it are versed in QP, yet nobody ever seems to bring it up. There are many interpretations of it, but most seem to point to “mind” existing outside of matter. It just seems odd to me that physicists are dealing with this stuff called matter that is anything but “material” and can be called just plain weird, while Darwinists like Dawkins are still acting like atoms are solid things bumping around aimlessly in space.shaner74
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
The determinism is 19th century physics. Hence, the whole debate above is a 19th century relic. The fundamental laws of physics prescribe non-deterministic relation between the past and future events i.e. by the laws of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the most precisely given initial & boundary conditions A at time Ta map into a _set_ of possible outcomes B1, B2, ... at later time Tb (Tb>Ta). The only constraint that QFT imposes are the probabilities of outcomes B1, B2,... Hence, at least in principle, the actual choice of outcome B in an individual instance could be a result of some elemental "free will" of the elementary quantum objects themselves. This possibility corresponds to panpsychism as the model for the "mind stuff". The "free will" is just one trait of the "mind stuff". Present natural science lacks at any model for the "mind stuff". Hence there is no scientific answer to question: what is it like to be any particular arrangement of elementary particles & fields?nightlight
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Ben Z, "And Peter Van Inwagen says free will and indeterminism are compatible but doesn’t understand how." From my understanding, Van Inwagen works the system from the reverse - if we do have free will (and I believe he considers it utterly apparent that we do), then a deterministic system cannot stand. I think his problem is he does not claim to understand the specific point at which what would otherwise be a deterministic system breaks down - but he insists that it must if free will is a reality. I think it's easier to argue free will in an indeterministic system than in a deterministic one, but that's just my ignorant at-a-glance judgement.nullasalus
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Dawkins never really takes this question on b/c he knows that his theory (determinism) does not chide well w/ reality (freewill) and tries to get off the hook by saying
Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism.
I think he knows the conclusion he will come up with if does try and I know people have been bothering him about this for years before the God Delusion came out...jpark320
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
It's interesting that Noam Chomsky believes determinism and free will are compatible and says he doesn't understand how. And Peter Van Inwagen says free will and indeterminism are compatible but doesn't understand how.Ben Z
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Free will is a problem for the strict materialist. What is the reality? From an experiential point of view, I experience drives and automatic behaviors that seem to be programmed. But, I also experience free will. I really don't try to theorize about it beyond that. As to how God relates to all of this, I don't know.bj
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue. Um...yeah, right. If there is even a hint of free will in the universe then you, Mr. Dawkins, have been shown to be wrong on so many subjects - especially the subject of religion.Lurker
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
It's good to see Dawkins admitting that there are at least some inconsistencies in his world view. That said, there are Christian determinists (predestinationists) and there are atheist compatibilists. I have never heard a definition of free will that truly satisfied me, so I don't feel qualified to form an opinion either way. I'm thus sympathetic with Dawkins when he says that we all feel as if we have free will, but it does not follow that we actually are free.Reed Orak
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
*sigh* When will you religious fundamentalists stop giving poor Richard a hard time?! Let him be inconsistent as much as he wants, while we have our laughs.Mats
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Dawkins: “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. " Of course, it's also quite stupid to refer to those who do want to blame or praise others as stupid--for it was determined that they would feel precisely that way. Likewise, it was stupid of me to refer to that attitude as stupid...and so on ad infinitum. So there's no point in making a fuss about culpability, etc (Although it's not like you have any choice in the matter.)great_ape
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Jaredl: Your point 1 seems to make an unwarranted assumption...Aristotle brought up the question as to whether or not the statement "The battle will be won tomorrow" (paraphrase) is true before the battle has been waged. If it is true beforehand, then doesn't that entail determinism? Statements can not only be true or false, but also "undefined" or "null". For example "Shut the door!" is neither true nor false. Similarly, the statement "I will sin tomorrow" is undefined in terms of truth value until you actually choose to sin or not sin. That is how I've always looked at it. (Sorry Dr. D if my post is also off track..)Atom
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Sometimes I get carried away, as you can see by my last post. It entirely fits the comment you made in the prior one, and goes contra to the stated thems of the article. Please delete it, and I apologize!leebowman
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
... the fact that God knows something is going to happen doesn’t mean he makes it happen. You just can’t have both free will and the God of classical theology.
Point one: Does God know everything that will happen to the iota? That's one heck of a lot of calculating. For one, it's absurd based on simple logic. What is the point of a scripted existence? Point two: It would absolutely rule out free will, making our existence pointless, at least from an 'active' creator's standpoint. We might feel we were doing our own thing, but to Him it would be like watching reruns. Early beliefs in absolute theistic determination, especially to the extreme as in Calvinism and Islam, are likely based on faulty logic, i.e. God is omnipotent, therefore He must know everything, and by extension, He must know the precise details of each and every event, every grain of sand, and of course, every hair on your head. He might 'could', but would He choose to? I doubt that a personal God would choose that kind of reality. Further, a belief in absolute determination can cause havoc, because 'technically', it gives one license to commit any act with impunity. All of the above are MHO.leebowman
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
JaredL: You are herewith limited to two theological posts on any thread. Your confidence in your theological position is out of keeping with its pedigree. Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Thomas were not slouches and did not derive the reductio ad absurdum that you do. Let's get this thread back on track, which is the connection between atheistic Darwinism, determinism, and the inability, as a matter of practical life, to live out the latter.William Dembski
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
RD: "it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable" I think I would find the opposite to be true - that it would be intolerable to live with such an inconsistency. But, I suppose most folks have such conundrums that we manage to blissfully ignore.Jack Golightly
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
What Dawkins is doing is a classic Enlightenment liberal move: he makes an Unprincipled Exception. He has his ideology, but to follow it makes life as he likes it unlivable, so he makes an exception to his ideas.Jaz
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Yes, I hold something similar to the “open” view of God’s foreknowledge. My view on the correctness of classical theism may be inferred from the fact that I’m not a classical theist.
Sorry to bother yah again jaredl. Just wanted to know your response to my question (since you said you were "bowing out") to your definition of sin. And the limits of "libertarian free will" or a definition of that. I agree with you on your logic, GIVEN YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS, but I think you need do defend those presuppositions. I guess for the argument of freewill in general, what do choices look like to somebody not confined by time? It's not like those of us in the 4 dimensions where if somebody asks us "What do you want to do today" we have to answer it in time (its not instant) and b/c of that limitation we don't know the answer. And this doesn't have to be specifically about God, but any being that is outside time and space - answer = We Don't Know. I would also agree that God truly wouldn't know everything if He was confined by time and space (I'm sure He would be a really good guesser though), but since He is not, we cannot really comment on how the interface between a timeless and matterless being is like with beings confined by such things unless He tells us. Apparently God can know and plan in 4 dimensions before things happen and men in those 4 dimension also truly have free will. Unless you know how things work outside our 4 dimensions or that limits of our 4 dimensions are still binding to God, it is something we just have to accept (but many do not like it... I do!). Main point: We have no idea what a being not confined by time and space is like, but we still place limits on God as if was.jpark320
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
" … since God created ex nihilo, ultimately God is responsible for The God Delusion."
Dawkins' response tells me he's not sure if he is, in fact, a determinist. If he is, he's definitely a 'secular determinist', whose philosophical bent would be blaming atoms (and I guess the Big Bang) for everything one does. Determinism in this flavor is meaningless (to me anyway), since you can't blame the superstructure for what one chooses to do with it.
" ... because free will exists, therefore, Dawkins is responsible for his book because he elected to write it, not God."
I agree, unless predestination is true.leebowman
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
The Hebrew Yahweh appeared to be limited at times with regards to the future.
Can you support this mike1962? I'm just wondering if you think only a couple of verses point to His limited knowledge, or that after a comprehensive look at all the verses dealing with God and His knowledge that it seems like He is limited. I think that some verses, isolated by themselves, make God seem cruel, however looking at all the verses about God's character I come out w/ that He is still an incredibly loving and just. Just wanted to know what you were actually thinking, thanks.jpark320
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
10 - Mike (and 11 - jpark320), Yes, I hold something similar to the "open" view of God's foreknowledge. My view on the correctness of classical theism may be inferred from the fact that I'm not a classical theist.jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
[T]here is no logical incompatibility with God having perfect foreknowledge and you having free will. This, despite a sound logical demonstration of the exact opposite, is exactly what I was referring to in post #8. And with that, I bow out, unless a weightier response should occur.jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
@ jaredl: What is your take on free will? Just curious :)
7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow. 8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning. (Assumption of Libertarian Free Will)(From 5 and 6)
I agree with 7 but not 8 ie "assumption of Liberatrian Free Will." It comes down on how you define sin, I suppose... I take the view that a sinner cannot please God in whatever he does and that even his "good" deeds are not truly good (given God defines Good) rather they are sin (don't want to argue this here just cf. Hebrews 11:6 "Without faith it is impossible to please Him.") So his free will can only choose sin and his choices are uniquely his and not God's ie God doesn't choose his sins for him. I guess your criteria just depends on your definitions of good and evil , and the limits of free will.jpark320
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
jaredl, Maybe we do have freewill, and God has perfect "foreknowledge" of tomorrow but perhaps our will was free only in the past, before the world was. And that this is merely a playing out of past choice. This is how C.S.Lewis handled it. Or maybe classical theism is just wrong. The Hebrew Yahweh appeared to be limited at times with regards to the future.mike1962
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
And, may future posters who take issue with this argument note - the fact that God knows something is going to happen doesn’t mean he makes it happen. You just can’t have both free will and the God of classical theology. That’s the point.
That is just silly. Just because I know you are going to do something doesn't mean you have no free will. And that is just me. God on the otherhand doesn't have the same relationship with time that you and I have, therefore, there is no logical incompatibility with God having perfect foreknowledge and you having free will. That having been said, I am not sure that God does have perfect foreknowledge but not for any of the reasons you give.Jehu
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
But since the God of classical theology created from non-being all that is, infallibly foreknowing all future consequences of that action, He therefore is also responsible for The God Delusion. The classical theist is also a determinist, unless he simply declares, by fiat, free will and infallible foreknowledge are logically compatible, and this despite the argument given in my post at #5.jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
jaredl , If I understand you correctly, I'd question (at least) your assumption #4: someone (God or anyone else) having advance nowledge of a certain outcome doesn't mean that he necessarily caused that outcome. In the end, free will is huge. Regardless of any philosophical assumptions that a person may hold, I have yet to meet the person who lives his life as though he doesn't exercise free will.SteveB
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
And, may future posters who take issue with this argument note - the fact that God knows something is going to happen doesn't mean he makes it happen. You just can't have both free will and the God of classical theology. That's the point.jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
once again, the smiley was a reference to statement 8.jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply