Hard Determinism

Philosophy has its own vocabulary sometimes. Like the theological upper crust, there seems to be a set of terms used to confound the "outsiders". Theologians will refer to the likes of "soteriology" or "orthopraxy" or "supralapsarianism" for their specialized terminology. Philosophy has its own.

One of these terms is "determinism". Now, on the face of it, the word seems simple. Do you believe that all things are determined, or do you believe that they are ... not? Of course, as soon as you simplify the term, it becomes necessary to obfuscate (another specialized term just intended to obscure the conversation) it. So there is "determinism", but is it "hard determinism" or "soft determinism"? I don't know. What's the difference?

As it turns out, in the arena of the concept of determinism there is a host of terms. There is determinism, compatibilism, oh, and incompatibilism. In each of these, of course, are further descriptives like "hard determinism" or "classical compatibilism". And the dance just keeps getting more complicated. What was the question, again? Oh, yes. The question that all these terms seek to discuss is the question of free will. Do we have genuine choices or are all our choices determined for us? And you can imagine that the question would have a broad spectrum of possible answers ... everything from "No, free will does not exist" (hard determinism) to "Absolutely! The only thing we have is free will, which means that no choices are determined by anything at all" (indeterminism).

One might think that I, a firm believer in the Absolute Sovereignty of God, would be a hard determinist. I'm not. I'm a compatibilist. I believe that God's Sovereignty is compatible with Man's free will as long as we leave God's Sovereignty with its capital "S" and Man's free will in lowercase letters. (Thus the name "compatibilism" -- Sovereignty and free will are compatible.) But if you thought that I was a determinist, I would not be the only surprise. You might also think that the atheist would be the indeterminist -- that all our choices are our own choices without any causes. And there you'd be wrong, too. As it turns out, the strongest voices these days for hard determinism -- there is no free will -- are atheist voices.

Sam Harris is the well-known American anti-theism (well beyond atheism) author. He published The End of Faith in 2004 that outlined the dangers of religion in America. In 2006 he published the better known Letter to a Christian Nation in which he urged an end to Christianity in America. Harris now has a new book out entitled Free Will. This one is a grand argument that no such thing exists. Free will is a myth. Our choices are determined (hard determinism) by our biology, genetics, environment, and all.

It's difficult to set aside the logical problems. I mean, why tell us there is no free will if there is no free will and we have no option of doing anything about it? Why urge us to a course of action of we have no choice of what course of action we take? Why are you telling us this? But there is another important consideration that would take precedence in my mind over the logical problem. You see, it isn't merely Dr. Harris who is taking this line of thinking. It is most of science. Take, for instance, the continuing declarations of psychology that assures us that most of what we see in human behavior is a product of neuroses, hormones, and brain chemicals. We don't choose these actions; they are the products of ... wait for it ... biology, genetics, environment, and all. People aren't bad; they just come with imperfections that cause bad behavior. Geneticists assure us that it isn't poor character that causes alcoholism or other addictions. We are genetically inclined to them. "Hey, look, man, I know you're struggling with this, but don't let it get you down. It's not your fault." Neuroscience will tell you that some 350 milliseconds before you are conscious of a choice, your brain has already fired off the choice you think you made. See? That's cause and effect, and we've turned it around. So it's not just Harris here. It's a lot of voices getting louder.

So what difference does it make? Well, if Harris et. al. are right, we don't make genuine choices. If we don't make genuine choices, we cannot be held responsible for those choices. If we cannot be held responsible for those choices, then government and God would certainly be unjust for doing so. Crime and punishment would become a moot point. Instead, all "evil" would be a perception that needs to be remedied either by elimination of the concept that "x is evil" or by curing the biological or environmental causes of such occurences, not because they're "evil" but because they're ... inconvenient. Justice becomes meaningless. Punishment is pointless. Remedies become mechanical, physical things over which we actually have no control anyway. But, hey, the good news is that we can eliminate the "Justice Department", right? I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that most hardcore atheists are still unlikely to hang their hats on the Hard Determinism tree. On the other hand, you Free Will folks that are quite sure that God has limited Himself to Man's Free Will have other problems to deal with. Good luck with that.