Book review: Afraid to Believe in Free Will by Carl E. Begley

This book is a bit of an odd one, because I can’t quite nail it down. I suppose I was expecting a comparison between Calvinism and Arminianism, and this is definitely not that. It’s quite academic in flavour, looking at the philosophical and psychological history of belief in free will along with an analysis of societal contexts within which a stronger belief in free will would help.

First things first: I found this pretty interesting. I’m sure I’ll bring up stuff I’ve read here in conversations, and it definitely got me thinking. I’ve never put any time or effort into thinking through the ideas of whether or not we have free will, or whether or not belief in free will makes any difference, and this book has kick-started that thought process for me.

However, it’s fair to say that I don’t really get this book. It’s very academic in everything except the overall structure, which is frustrating – it took a while for me to understand where the author was going with this, and after having read it I’m not sure I get it even now, other than him saying that we ought to believe in free will. To say it’s branded as a Christian book that Christian input is fairly quiet throughout, and even when it comes in it’s analysed in the same way as any other philosophical source. The Bible’s quoted to back up Begley’s arguments and not to initiate thought, so I certainly didn’t feel like I’d learnt ‘the Christian view’ of free will here.

What particularly frustrated me was the way that the book looked at a couple of examples to demonstrate how belief in free will affects society, but the focus then shifted too far (in my eyes) onto the author’s own view of those particular situations; apparently offering financial support to the unemployed makes them lazy and reliant on good, hard-working citizens; of course communism is an idea from the devil himself; and scientific evidence shows that child abuse isn’t as harmful as society tells us it is. Yes, that last one is perhaps slightly skewing what the author says, but the particular chapter it’s in is long story about the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association and the confusion between the two – I still have no idea what the difference is, and I still have no idea how that relates to a belief in free will.

So in conclusion this has started some good thought processes, but I don’t think it’s done the best job at it – it’s got an academic tone without an academic objective, it gets too bogged down with the examples without explaining fully what we should conclude, and it doesn’t reinforce a Christian focus enough.

I got this ebook for free from BookSneeze.com in exchange for an honest review.

Atheists: do you have the faith for evolution?

PhotonQ-Homer’ s Evolution Theory (Photo credit: PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE)

Probably one of the most often-used comment on this blog from atheists goes something like this:

You’re a Christian? Doesn’t that mean you don’t even believe in evolution? Ha ha ha, hey everyone! Look at this clown! Not only does he not believe in atheism, he doesn’t even believe in evolution, which everyone knows is a fact! What an idiot.

Well, atheist, just in case you still don’t realise that evolution is not, in fact, a fact, I think you may need to read a book written by an atheist. Here’s a little quote from it:

Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

Hm. So why is he not happy to force every piece of evidence into the evolutionary theory? In his own words:

My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense.

[D]oubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution.

So there you go. It’s called Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, and of course it’s on Amazon and elsewhere.

The meaning of an atheist’s life

The single biggest problem atheists are presented with is that they have faith in something that they know isn’t true. Here’s how it looked in a recent conversation I had:

Atheist: You believe in an invisible god, that’s just the same as believing in an invisible unicorn – you can’t disprove its existence, therefore it must exist.

Me: No, I’ve met God, therefore I know He exists.

Atheist: That’s silly.

True story. But the analysis isn’t so easy. If I have met God Christianity is definitely true and atheism is definitely false (and so is belief in the invisible unicorn). If I haven’t met God, both Christianity and atheism may be true, because not having met someone doesn’t make them cease to exist.

So the question for atheists is really: without evidence of a supreme supernatural Being(s), is the logical conclusion to attempt to meet the Being(s), or to believe that there is none?

Atheists like Richard Dawkins violently believe that there is none, but they’ve encountered a pr0blem: what about morality? If we are nothing more than mutated animals who have an ability to communicate about imaginary things then morality is not objective; it is no more ‘right’ to stay faithful to one partner than it is ‘right’ to tell the truth or to laugh at someone’s misfortune.

Without objective morality it’s impossible to discern whether the Holocaust was good or bad. That’s a problem, because people just know that the Holocaust was bad.

Don’t worry, though. Some atheists have settled down to work to figure out how we can have objective morality and a meaning to life without the existence of God, and they’ve come up with an answer. Ready? To get meaning from your life, pick from one or more of the following:

• take drugs to improve your mood
• get lots of money
• buy lots of stuff
• watch lots of telly

Having done at least one of the above I think it’s fair to say that they all suck, so giving Christianity a go is easily the best idea an atheist will have all day.

HT

No church in the wild

Kanye West in 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ok, bit of a confession to make, and you’re not allowed to judge me for it. Deal? Deal.

I find Kanye West’s music really interesting to listen to. I know he swears, and talks about drugs and guns and all that gangsta stuff but I find that whenever I hear one of his new releases it’s just good, musically speaking.

But something that’s really interesting is the religious content that seems to worm its way into his songs – he’s clearly a spiritually troubled man, and tries to explore that through his music. And maybe that’s most obvious in his current track, No Church in the Wild, which contains specific references to ‘Jesus [who] was a carpenter, Yeezy, he lay beats / Hova flow the Holy Ghost’. The most interesting ideas come in the chorus though:

Human beings in a mob
What’s a mob to a king?
What’s a king to a god?
What’s a god to a non-believer?
Who don’t believe in anything?

The rhetorical questions he asks seem to be sensible; what’s a mob to a king? A mob expresses the dissatisfaction of the people, but at the end of the day the king can just sit back on his throne and say, ‘I don’t care what they think.’

What’s a king to a god? A god could put a king in power, or take him out of power. So in comparison to a king, a mob has no real power unless the king changes his mind. In comparison to a god, a king has no real power without the god’s will being aligned to his.

What’s a god to a non-believer? Well, actually, still a god. A god doesn’t care whether someone believes or not, they still have their power. So let’s apply this to Christianity.

On not a small number of occasions I’ve been in a conversation with an atheist when I’ve asked: ‘What will happen to you when you die? If the Bible’s wrong nothing will happen, but if it’s true you’ll be punished for eternity – sounds like a big risk to take!’ And the answer is always the same: ‘I don’t believe in all that stuff, so I don’t mind taking that risk.’

And that’s completely illogical. When I do a bungee jump, my belief in the bungee cord’s ability to keep me safe has no bearing whatsoever on whether I’ll be safe! So the object of your faith is more important than the strength of your faith.

So, atheists, stop having such blind faith because it’s just silly. And Christians, let’s start telling people about our great God who is in complete control and has offered eternal purpose and life to those who believe.

Related articles

• No Church In The Wild (holymansam.wordpress.com)

The God Delusion Debate: atheism undermines science

Here’s a good website to click on. Professor Richard Dawkins debating Dr. John Lennox and (to my mind) having his atheistic worldview shredded before his very eyes. I’ve probably watched about half of it, but here’s a little taster.

Richard Dawkins has explained (of course) that science is the only logical option because it relies solely on evidence and therefore is provable, whereas faith is required to be blind. Here’s where John Lennox steps in. He explains that atheism undermines science. Science assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe, or else you could draw no conclusions. However, there is no evidence for the rational intelligibility of the universe and therefore science requires faith before you’ve even started moving. As with every single argument against Christianity, the assumptions on which you’re building your argument are disproved by the very argument itself.

Here’s another good bit. Dawkins says that you should never really have any level of faith, because it’s always blind. John Lennox’s response: ‘I presume you have faith in your wife. Is there any evidence for that?’ Richard Dawkins: ‘Yes, plenty-’ he then hesitates, receiving a raised eyebrow from Lennox. Dawkins’ ‘evidence’ for his wife’s faithfulness is her tone of voice, a look in her eyes…sounds terribly subjective to me!

You can watch the whole debate for free right here.

Margarine’s illegal

Well, in the UK it’s actually not, but it used to be! What we call ‘margarine’ isn’t normally margarine, it’s normally sunflower spread or something like that. Margarine is pretty unhealthy, so people tend not to go for it any more.

But I was chatting about it last night, and an interesting question was asked: I know that sunflower spread isn’t margarine, but seeing as everyone calls it margarine, doesn’t that sort of make it margarine?

If I go to a supermarket and ask for a tub of margarine I know what I’m expecting, and the shop assistant knows what I’m expecting – even though it’s not actually margarine.

So – what is margarine? More importantly, what is truth? What I say truth is, will be different to what someone else says. Is truth subjective and malleable, like the meaning of the word margarine, or is truth objective? Are the shop assistant and I simply both wrong? Do two wrongs make a right?

It’s complex I know, but there is an answer! Thankfully, truth is not only objective, truth is a person who we can actually know. Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6), and he’s the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). I don’t think he cares what we call margarine, but he wants to ask us: ‘Who do you say I am?’ (Matthew 16:15)

Good luck

I sat an exam for work over the summer. The last thing one of my colleagues said to me as I left the office to go home and study was:

Good luck!

Not very creative, I hear you say. But what he said got me thinking. I’m currently working in an office built by the Chinese – it’s very nice, but I’m working on floor 3A, because apparently the number four is unlucky.

Why is four unlucky? Does eating food from a square table make you more prone to getting indigestion? Or why does a black cat crossing your path spell bad news? At the end of the day, what is luck?

One web definition says that luck is ‘an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another’. In other words, it’s something that influences circumstances which isn’t people’s efforts, and isn’t simply chance – a ‘lucky’ person is more likely to roll a 6 in the chocolate game.

So belief in luck is belief in a higher power which is uncontrollable, unknowable, and unobservable. Luck is the all-powerful god who you can’t ask a favour of. Now the person who said it to me is an atheist. He’s happy to believe in a higher power which secretly changes the course of history so long as that higher power doesn’t have a personality.

Belief in luck sounds pretty depressing to me. ‘Regardless of what you think, say, or do, luck will do exactly what it wants, whether you want it or not.’ I think I’ll stick with Jesus: ‘we know that for those who love God all things work together for good’ (Romans 8:28).

I passed the exam, by the way.

Evidence against God…

…does not exist. I know that’s sort of a cop-out, but it’s the simple truth.

There have been many conversations on this blog about the scientific method and its use in proving or disproving the existence of God but the fact of the matter is that the scientific method simply doesn’t work when it comes to anything important, like the existence of God!

Don’t get me wrong, the scientific method is a good thing. It helps to start conversations and discover more about creation but when it comes to some of the simplest questions it becomes neither use nor ornament.

So if I ask the question, ‘Why am I here?’ or ‘What is the purpose of matter?’ the scientific method can’t do anything more than provide something to talk about!

The fundamental problem is that you can’t use the scientific method to prove the use of the scientific method. You could use other methods (like making up whatever you want) and the scientific method would not be able to prove that it was a better method of investigation.

Humanism – more silly logic

A commenter posted a link to the Humanist homepage, assumedly to explain why atheist evangelists aren’t illogical…allow me to quote from their website:

All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely and reach their own conclusions about what they believe.

That’s taken from the banner at the top of their page, and this is taken from the test you can take to find out if you’re a humanist:

1 Does God exist?

A) I am sure there is a God ruling over the universe.
B) It depends what you mean by God, but I think so.
C) I don’t know.
D) There is no evidence that any god exists, so I’ll assume that there isn’t one.

Ok, so we should be free to reach our own conclusions…providing our overriding assumption is that there isn’t a god.

Note the options available:

A) – I am sure – something must have made a person who would answer this way (like me) think that they’re sure, so humanists must say that people answering with (A) are liars.

B) This answer would show that someone just generally thinks something in one direction – a bit of a silly outlook but fair enough.

C) A good answer, but not one the humanists approve of – according to the answer page this answer would make you:

perhaps a bit dependent on authority or other people or pure emotion

Is it just me, or does that seem a little unfair?!

D) Completely illogical in every sense of the word. Stating as a fact that there is no evidence for a god doesn’t make it a fact, you have to say really ‘I haven’tseen any evidence for the existence of a god’, and using that as a reason for reaching an unfounded assumption seems a bit extreme – doesn’t it?

Even before I was a Christian I would have been able to tell you that the only answers that make any sense at all would be A and C, so thanks for the original comment and the opportunity to discover more layers of ridiculousness in the atheist faith.

The undeluded truth?

Ravi Zacharias wrote this essay – here’s a nice little excerpt.

Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins suggests that the idea of God is a virus, and we need to find software to eradicate it. Somehow if we can expunge the virus that led us to think this way, we will be purified and rid of this bedeviling notion of God, good, and evil. Along with Christopher Hitchens and a few others, these atheists are calling for the banishment of all religious belief. “Away with this nonsense” is their battle cry! In return, they promise a world of new hope and unlimited horizons once we have shed this delusion of God.

I have news for them—news to the contrary. The reality is that the emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. Furthermore, one would like to ask Dawkins, Are we morally bound to remove that virus? Somehow he himself is, of course, free from the virus and can therefore input our moral data.

In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral law giver) by introducing terms like “evolutionary ethics”. The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.

Our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet t he truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.” We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument.