by I M Probulos
Homo habilis? (2.33-1.44 million years ago)
Homo erectus? (1,900,00-100,000 years ago)
Homo neanderthalensis? (600,000-30,000 years ago)
Anatomically modern humans? (200,000-150,000 years ago)
Before language? (When humans were grunting and pointing?)
After language?
Anatomically modern humans refers to modern humans or anatomically modern homo sapiens refers in paleoanthropology to individual members of the species homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans. The approximately time frame is the last 200,000 years and would be contrasted with archaic homo sapiens in the middle Paleolithic. That is why it is correct to refer to our species as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo neanderthalensis are considered a separate species.
Downside of Accepting Determinism
There have been studies on the effect that "having no free will" has on subjects.
A recent experiment shows that belief in free will has measurable consequences. The psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler asked subjects to read a passage by Francis Crick , co-discoverer of the double helix, that casts doubt on free will. Crick wrote in The Astonishing Hypothesis (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993) that “although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.” Subjects who read this passage were more likely to cheat on a test than control subjects who read a passage about brain science that did not mention free will. Mere exposure to the idea that we are not really responsible for our actions, it seems, can make us behave badly.
What does this mean? Does it mean that, as a result of this book, millions will take to the streets and loot, rape, and murder? Actually, anarchy most often occurs during police strikes, riots, hurricanes, blackouts, and other opportunistic events–not based on the religion or the belief than an all-seeing God will punish you. Also, as I will point out later there is no correlation with religious faith and crime–if anything it looks bad for Christianity and fundamentalism.
The fact that someone watching us impacts our behavior is certainly not surprising. In fact, research has shown that posting “someone looking at you” significantly modifies behavior. Thus, there is empirical justification for God, Santa Claus and those enormous posters of dictators watching your every move. There has to be a reason that 85% of the world's population believe in a personal god, karma, or powerful spirits. The concepts of heaven and hell, good and evil, reward and punishment all evolved to promote positive societal behaviors over negative ones.
Thomas Hobbes writes that the Leviathan, or state, impact the civilizing of a society than other factors (such as religion). For a very in-depth on the evolution of morality and subsequent positive behaviors I recommend The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker. [Amazon Link]. It is long (832 pages) but an extraordinary book.
Perhaps it’s best to view this phenomenon as similar to a college freshman drinking and staying out late excessively–without parental influence or a curfew. Not every freshman acts this way and it depends on whether they were motived internally by a moral sense or externally (it’s ok as long as I don’t get caught). More people experiment with marihuana once it is legal. Lottery winners, who, unfamiliar with financial concepts or investment, often blow their winnings within a year on cars, clothes, and jewelry.
I would also add that a certain percentage of the population is not internally motivated to behave, excel, or resist impulsive or addictive behavior. Without clear punishment–and getting caught–they will lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever it takes to accomplish their goals or tickle the reward centers of their brain. Once again, this is the result of nature and nurture, and, with certain combinations, can always create a perfect storm of undesirable traits and behaviors.
The same argument could apply to atheists. Without a supernatural sky-daddy watching their every move many suggest they would steal, lie and murder–without regard for others. To me this is more a reflection on an individual’s personal moral system and that they do not feel that being good, for the sake of being good, is a reward in itself. If a religious person is altruistic because they believe they will go to heaven or to avoid hell whereas an atheist is good because that is simply the right thing to do, who is the better person? Who is really altruistic?
Reasons to Behave
Society has rules and laws; stay within the law; don't steal, lie or murder. In small societies there is considerable peer pressure to behave. The mores of your social group and social order break down when everyone acts selfishly. The gene may be selfish but social humans are not. If we had not learned how to cooperate we would have died hundreds of thousands of years ago in the African savannah.
Using reason the morality of humans has evolved and improved over the centuries. Compassion and empathy is built into our species but there is also evidence of it in other species. See this video [YouTube Link] where a lion nurtures a baby baboon after she has killed its mother. It really makes you think.
Many philanthropists (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Mark Zuckerberg) are not religious yet give away millions and even billions to help others. If we do not think we will live forever in heaven, then there is more incentive to leave a mark while on earth and leave a legacy of which we can be proud. It is the legacy we leave to our children and humankind.
Technically if humankind created all gods and all religions then every word, every moral principal and every parable represents the evolution of man's moral character–so whether the message is love your neighbor, love your enemies, or feed the poor, that is our humanity speaking–the faithful simply attribute it to a god–but it is the best of us.
The Golden Rule from Many Sources
The Love your Neighbor meme predated the New Testament from numerous sources (From the Big Book of Lists):
One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.–Hitopadesa; Hinduism: 3200 BC
Thou shalt not avenge nor ear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.–Leviticus 19:18: 1300 BCE
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others." –Shast-na-shayast 13: 29; Zoroastrianism: 600 BC
"Hurt not others with that which pains yourself." –Udanavarga 5: 18; Buddhism: 560 BC
"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." –Analects 15: 23; Confucianism: 557 BC
Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.–Isocrates: 375 BCE
This is the sum of all true righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by. Do nothing to thy neighbor which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter.–Mahabharata: 150 BCE.
"Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them." –Matthew 7: 12 KJV; Christianity: 30 AD
As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.–Luke 6:31: 70 CE.
What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others –Epictetus: 100 CE.
Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess [the slave]: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious” –Quran: 4:36: 632 CE.
Policy Changes for Determinists
Focus on prevention of undesirable actions and consequences.
Once the event is over, let it go, immediately. It is done. There should be no guilt, no blame, no revenge–only forgiveness, prevention, and moving forward is relevant.
Change our attitudes and how were refer to concepts such as blame, punishment, self-control, willpower and revenge.
Increase mental health awareness.
Identify and work with those populations that statistically are more inclined to violence or disruptive behavior.
Incr
ease reparations to victims.
Less emphasis on victimless crimes.
Work with the poor, the unemployed, alcoholics, and drug users.
Reevaluate the death penalty (does it dissuade violence?).
More compassion for diversity developed either genetically or prenatally (homosexuality, autism, and depression).
Basic Statistics
The null hypothesis refers to a general or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena. Contrary to what they teach at the Creationism Museum, scientists should not assume the answer before they conduct the research. A good scientist follows the data–no matter where it leads.
Standard deviations/the bell curve of normal distribution. Gaussian functions are widely used in statistics where they describe the normal distributions. This basic concept is at the core of The Statistical Theory of Everything (STE), a deceivingly simple but profound way to view the world. A large standard deviation indicates that the data points are far from the mean and a small standard deviation indicates that they are clustered closely around the mean.
In probability theory, the normal distribution (Gaussian) is a very commonly occurring continuous probability distribution—a function that tells the probability that an observation in some context will fall between any two real numbers.
In 1946 the impacts of v-2 rockets on London is a close fit to the Poisson distribution, meaning it closely resembles the expected result from a chance dispersion (colloquially known as "random").
Remember, we love anecdotes and parables–we hate statistics.
Agency
Agency means something or someone is responsible. It did not happen by accident. We are the conscious and intentional agents of all our actions.
Humankind likes the idea of agency. The wind is the result of an active agent. Something or someone caused a hurricane–and they are to blame. You hurt me. I want to kill you now. You should be punished. It all started tens of thousands of years ago:
Someone is causing the night.
Someone is causing earthquakes.
Someone is causing volcanoes to erupt.
Someone is causing the eclipse
Someone is causing the lightning and thunder.
We like a world where everything is black and white; there are good guys and bad guys.
God is an agent, the Law of Attraction is an agent, the universe loves you is an active agent, Satan is an evil agent.
I live in an "agentless" universe. I am responsible. Ultimately, if I’m depressed, drink too much, drive my car and kill someone–the result is the same whether I have free will or not. I have caused another person harm and there are consequences.
In psychology there is a rational emotive therapy (RET) self-talk phrase which goes somewhat like this,
"he/she is behaving based on prior experience and is not actively trying to be evil, bad or hurt me but is only behaving as his/her awareness allows."
You will repeat that often during your first break-up or divorce. It is designed to help prevent looping self-talk where you constantly blame "an agent" for your thoughts, behaviors, and bad luck.
It is interesting that the biblical analogies for people are sheep and shepherds. While a portion of the population will always want to be sheep herded by a shepherd (insert, father, boss, king, or god) another percentage of the population will resist being herded and adopt a contrarian position. These people are the ones who discovered the earth revolves around the sun, the germ theory of disease, and that man is an evolved species and not divinely created.
We like revenge. It is difficult to determine if this is an instinctive or a learned behavior but a certain percentage of the population will scream "off with his head" after a particularly gruesome murder. After all what is the purpose of hell other than revenge and punishment?
Apologist Pro Free Will Arguments
Here is a quick list of debate arguments for free will. Being forewarned is forearmed.
Free will is at the very core of the fall of man and man's sinful nature.
We are no more than molecules; no more than the atoms in our brain.
Free will advocates often talk about the subjective impression of free will and/or consciousness. The issue is that this aspect cannot be “reduced” to atoms or molecules in the brain. It is not a fair comparison.
Anything goes argument: Without free will we would all rape and murder.
We will allow murders, rapists, and pedophiles free in the streets because they are not responsible for their actions.
There is no personal responsibility because it everything unfolds; this is a serious logical error.
Without free will, we no longer know what is good or bad. This is incorrect.
It would be "insane" or "illogical" to take someone to court if there was no free will. No, there is still a legal system.
Metaphysical libertarianism assumes that free will is supernatural agent outside of our brain.
The quantum mechanics hijackers impart an unpredictable or a non-deterministic component into neural processes.
Consciousness (and free will) is separate from the material world.
Scientists are "close minded" when we don't consider unknown, undiscovered or supernatural explanations. Assuming a materialistic world is not rational.
Parsing words: you said, “choose”, or “limited free will” or self-control or willpower.
Free will is of course a prerequisite for responsibility. No, we are still responsible and there are still consequences, regardless of all the factors that contributed to the outcome.
Without free will we would be nothing more than robots. [see robots]
Predeterminism (Calvinism) actually argues for the lack of free will but from theology.
Regarding scientists are "close minded," the quick answer is: for one, if we see evidence for something new or unexpected (e.g., the expansion of the universe, dark matter, dark energy) then we study it and look for a natural explanation; and two, if it is truly immaterial and supernatural it is outside this world and our ability to measure–so it is a scientific dead end. I think inserting the supernatural proposes more “anything goes” than reason.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
–I Samuel 15:2-3
Or:
Then God said, “Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains there. I will tell you which mountain.
–Genesis 22:2
When a deity tells you to do something–you had better do it–or else!
Case Study 1
I have lots more of these later but let’s assume Robert stabs his co-worker, Jeff, who prattles endlessly about his home, his boat, and his Mercedes–in the eye with a letter opener–after being teased about his poor table manners. Was Bob’s behavior predetermined, based on a causal universe at the moment of birth?
While technically accurate it would be better to explain it this way:
Bob was predetermined, by every causal condition that occurred in his life, the very second before he stabbed Jeff in the eye with a letter opener.
And if every causal condition was the identical, the decision would be the same. We are talking about the butterfly effect* here. Assume that Robert’s profile is:
Impulsivity, quick to anger.
Domineering mother
Absent father
Sister teased him for 18 years. She went to college and is very successful.
Was not a good student. Had a learning disability that was not discovered.
Was not able to go to college.
Dopamine levels low
Had not eaten for se
veral hours (low glycemic index).
High stress level in his job.
Fell off a bicycle at age nine; the resulting concussion killed a single neuron in the impulsivity area of his brain.
I am not arguing whether he is responsible and needs to be punished. This is clearly unacceptable behavior (bad outcome). Now assume that our variables add up to 100 where 50 and below he doesn’t stab and 51 and above he stabs.
And it was that one, single neuron that made the difference between the stab and not stab decision.
This is one of the main reasons for this book. Accepting we don't have free will does not imply a victim mentality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Robert has had a bad life, with both negative genetics and a negative environment stacked up against him and thus causing his anti-social behavior.
One apologist argument is that “life is considerably easier without free will, as we now never have to worry whether we have done, or will do, the right thing.” This is a huge error in thinking and simply not true. He is still responsible.
*a butterfly flapping its wings in South American can affect weather patterns in Asia.
I Like Robots
Another common apologist argument concerning hard determinism is that we become robots.
I think robots are great!
A well-functioning robot does exactly what it is supposed to do and does it very well. A computer that makes a mistake 10%, 1% or .001% is too many for most applications. You would discard it and buy a new computer. You do not "blame the computer" for having circuits that are not functioning properly.