Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Where We Begin

Presupposition)

I have already discussed the physical-materialist view of determinism, and also the contrasting-premise-but-identical-conclusion view of fundamental chaos. I wish to say something more about that fundamental chaos view, which asserts that since the building blocks of reality—and of our own persons—are subject to random quantum mechanics, every system and decision that is built upon those transient parts must also be random and nondeliberate.

For a moment, let us assume that this theory is correct. Let us assume that all of our choices and behaviors are based upon their material composition, and that the root of that material composition is random and unpredictable.

Even then, this view presupposes that we all begin at the material. It assumes that there is nothing that comes before the random fluctuations of the quantum mechanic layer.

Back to the Metaphysical)

But who is to say what might come before the random? If you were to fall asleep in a thousand theaters, and in each one suddenly wake up in the middle of the second act of a play, the first line of dialogue that you heard would always appear to be random. But none of them actually would be random, they would be the continued thrust of all the unseen moments that came before.

From the metaphysical view, where the material world begins is the same as suddenly gaining consciousness in the middle of the play. Who is to say that there is not an imperceptible spirit whose invisible choices travel through the spiritual realm and then continue their thrust into the material world via quantum mechanics? And the quantum mechanics only seem random because we cannot see all the parts of the play that came before.

If we ever are certain that we have found the true root of the material, that still does not mean we have necessarily found the root of being. Indeed, the more our understanding of the material leads us to conclusions that defy our basic perceptions, such as humanity being all preprogrammed or humanity being all chaotic, the more it seems apparent that the material is not telling us the entire story. The more we know of the physical world the more it seems incapable of aligning with reality by itself. It continually and increasingly becomes apparent that there is something immaterial at play as well.

With that, I will end my examination on these matters for now, though I won’t be surprised if I return to them at some later date.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Chaotic Nature

Competing Nihilism)

I have already criticized the logic of the determinist in my previous posts. Today I will continue by introducing an alternative view that emerges from the same physical-materialist foundation, but which comes to an opposite conclusion.

The determinist, as already discussed, concludes that there is no free will or metaphysical reality because they assume that the environment, stimulus, and reaction are all part of a biochemical closed loop. Because every aspect is controlled, all behaviors are entirely predictable, if only one could measure all of the participating factors.

However there is another argument that also concludes that there is no free will, but by arguing that our material nature is nothing put pure, unpredictable chaos. This notion is based on the observation that our most fundamental components—protons, electrons, leptons, and quarks—seem to be subject to random quantum mechanics. If the lowest level of our material trembles between random states of reality, then how can we claim that everything built up from them, including ourselves, could act in a way that is deliberate, conscious, and chosen?

Both these viewpoints go to great lengths to deny the reality of human choice, but by totally opposite means. On the one hand humans are rigid, fixed machines that only act and react according to predictable programming, on the other hand humans are unpredictable, wild, and chaotic, whose behaviors have nothing to do with thought or reason.

Consistent Inconsistency)

As with determinism, this chaotic view once again defies our basic experience. Perhaps the chaotic view seems to provide a solution for why our behaviors are not totally ordered, but it raises an even bigger problem for why our behaviors aren’t totally chaotic either. Sometimes we do keep to plans, we do hold to our word, and we do follow through. And sometimes we maintain that reliability our whole lives long. How do we have these consistent streaks if at our beginnings is nothing but chaotic noise?

Our own experience balks at the idea that we are either totally predetermined or totally chaotic. These arguments sound intelligent because they take a long time to explain, but they are each childish in their lack of nuance. Their complexity does not bring life into sharper understanding, they try to flatten it into an over-simplistic single dimension.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools- Romans 1:22

Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Deterministic Machines

The Materialist Position)

I have previously criticized the materialist position, which is that only the material exists and is real. In the physical-materialist view there is no metaphysical reality, such as soul or spirit or transcendence. Debates between the material and the immaterial viewpoints are often based on interpretations of the human experience. The materialist must maintain that even the things that are typically not associated with matter have their origins within it. For the materialist view to be correct all thoughts, feelings, convictions, hopes, and anguish must have an explanation in atoms and protons and minerals.

Many critics of materialism have pointed out the horrifying conclusions that follow when we strip morality and emotion of their spiritual origins. I would like to emphasize a few of these points, observations that have only been briefly mentioned elsewhere, but which deserve the special attention that I will bring to them with this series. I will start today by defining one of the core beliefs of materialism, and tomorrow I will make my critique of it.

Deterministic Machines)

The theory that describes how a person can make choices under a physical-materialist worldview is called determinism, which asserts that there actually is no choice at all. In a physical-materialist view, humans possess no free will. They are nothing more than deterministic machines, and all that they “choose” to do is actually predetermined by their chemical construction and environment.

Each one of us is born with certain synapses and pathways already formed in our brains. That is the programming that determines what behavior we will exhibit in response to certain inputs. The inputs come from the environment that we live in. If the temperature is cold, our brain interprets that fact and executes whatever reaction is programmed as a response.

Since the environment is out of our control, and since the initial state of our brains is formed before we are born, we have no control over what inputs and reactions will come into and out of us. It has all been predetermined, and we are simply reactive beings, constrained to behave in a way that is outside of our own control.

Even if we change our programming, we only do so in predetermined ways. So if a child is pre-programmed to touch a hot stove, and is burned, and then remaps his brain to not do that anymore, he does that remapping as a pre-programmed reaction to feeling pain. Thus, even the changing of one’s mind is predictable.

And we predetermined machines are perfectly capable to interacting with one another by hooking up our cognitive inputs and outputs to form a larger machine. What you say to me you are predetermined to say, and how I respond I am predetermined to respond, and the same for you, and then the same for for me, back-and-forth, until one of us terminates the conversation because we are predetermined at that point to do so. And what each of us takes away from that conversation will be exactly what we are predetermined to take away.

Commentary)

This model may sound very strange, very different from how we perceive our day-to-day experiences, but it is the only logical conclusion once one decides that only the material is real. So long as there is nothing but matter, choice and free will can only be an illusion, a perception that is ironically pre-programmed into us, just like everything else.

Tomorrow I will discuss the absolute license this theory gives to all immoral and unethical behavior. In short, if everything we do is predetermined, if we have no choice over our own actions, then we are not responsible for any evil that we might do. There is no blame for even the most horrific of crimes, because the people that did those things only did so because they were predetermined to do so. Come back next time where I will discuss this even further.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Rights and Materialism: Part Two

In yesterday’s post we talked about God as a basis for our fundamental human rights, and also a more materialist/biological basis for them. I made the point that it is a false choice that we have to believe in only one basis or the other. We can conclude that our rights are made manifest both in the personhood of God and in the inherent nature of the human species.

I would go further, though, and say that not only can these rights be simultaneously rooted in both sources, but they need to be. The materialist/humanist may say that since the same rights can be found in our biological nature we don’t need God for our morals to exist, but that simply isn’t true. If our rights are secured in our biological nature exclusively, it is insufficient. Those rights would then be inherently weak and artificial. Today we will explore why.

Circular Dependency)

Let us quickly summarize how the materialist/humanist view might describe the origin of our rights. In essence, we are members of the human race, and the human race’s survival and flourishing depend on certain qualities for its members. For example, “life” is a quality that is essential to humanity’s survival, and “liberty” is a quality that is essential to humanity’s flourishing. Thus, “life” and “liberty” are basic human rights because they are necessary to the experience of being a human.

We can describe this as a simple equation. If we call humanity “X,” and the preservation of life “Y,” then we can say:

Y is essential for X
So X must secure Y
And if X didn’t have Y, then there would be no X to require Y
So X is also essential to Y

And perhaps the failing is starting to become evident. Y is a basic human right only because X requires it, and it also only exists as a concept because X does. The link between people and their rights is therefore circular, and rights only exist within the context of people themselves. Rights therefore have no recognition outside the orbit of people, they are not anchored in anything deeper than ourselves. If we say our rights come from some sort of “natural law,” it can only be natural within the scope of people, but no further. To the universe at large, there is no difference whether a rock is thrown into the sea, or a person. Nature doesn’t care whether these so-called rights of “life” or “liberty” are meted out to a species. The universe allows drones whose sole purpose is to serve the queen (no liberty), and it allows species to go extinct entirely (no life).

Now why is this a problem?

Removing Rights on a Large Scale)

The fact that the rights only exist within the context of humanity means that they are essentially made up, a mirage caused by the distortion of being a human. Yes, they might be important rights for people, but there is no deeper, more grounded basis for them. As such, it is easy to logically get around the authority of those rights.

Suppose that there was a subset of people that started to see themselves separate from the rest of all other people. In our above equation, they do not see themselves as “X,” they see themselves as “W.” W would then exist outside of the equation that X requires Y, and Y requires X. Therefore, it may be necessary for X to uphold Y, but there is no reason why W must uphold Y also.

And this is not just a theory. This exact behavior has happened a multitude of times throughout history. Perhaps most famously, it happened when Nazi Germany declared themselves an Aryan race, separate from the race of humanity, and therefore morally justified in torturing and killing other races as needed. And from the materialist/humanist view, this atrocity is entirely logical. Why would the Aryan have any more obligation to observe the rights of Jews, than the Jews would have any obligation to observe the rights of cattle?

And Nazi Germany was no exception. It has been the rule in all the world for thousands of years that one nation, upon defeating another, would enslave the defeated people, all because they were not part of the conquering identity. Humanity is constantly splintering itself into different collectives, viewing their group as more real, more elevated, more “human” than the others. Once you do that, then there is no reason not to enslave, or murder, or violate any rights of any outsider, because they are not the same humanity that you are, and their rights are local only to them, and your rights are local only to you.

Removing Rights on a Small Scale)

It doesn’t have to be so broad as an entire people seeing themselves as fundamentally distinct from another people, either. This separation of self from the species happens on a much more individual level.

Suppose I really do see myself as a member of the global humanity, and I really do believe that every other person and group of people also belongs to the global humanity, and I really do believe that we, as a collective, need to maintain certain rights for the betterment of us all. Could I not still carve out exceptions for myself, while still maintaining the rights for the broader humanity? I agree that X should not violate Y in general, but couldn’t I, a lower-case “x,” violate Y on a small scale? After all, poison is in opposition to the nature of a person’s life, and yet many will partake of alcohol, slightly poisoning themselves, and so long as that poison is kept beneath a certain threshold the person will still live. And in nature there are species where some of the adults will kill their own young, which is obviously in direct opposition to the continuance of that species, but if enough of the young do survive then the species can still go on.

So why can’t I permit myself to violate a human right on an individual level? Especially when it causes greater life and flourishing in me, personally? Maybe the victim of my theft will have a diminished quality of life, but mine will be increased, and so the population overall remains level. And if I kill my neighbor, what of it? So long as we don’t all kill our neighbors, the neighbor’s loss will have negligible effects on the whole.

I can even agree that society should prosecute and punish those that thwart its general human rights, that they are justified in condemning me if they catch me. But if they do not catch me, then there is no other authority that I have to answer to. Because, once again, I have violated a right that applies only to humanity, and if humanity cannot punish me for it, then there is no larger, universal law that I have to answer to.

This is why the materialist/humanist worldview by itself is insufficient. By its cyclical, self-contained nature it is easy to start making exceptions to it, creating entities that are outside of the humanity-rights circle. This view of people and their rights, taken to its logical conclusion, is nothing short of horror!

Tomorrow we will see why adding God as another basis for our rights answers all of these limitations, though, and how it does so in a way that cannot be broken.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Rights and Materialism: Part One

The Origin of Our Rights)

A society and a government often define morals based off of the “rights” of its citizens. If an action violates another person’s rights, then that action is considered immoral and faces legal or social repercussions. If something has no rights, then nothing that you inflict upon it can be immoral. Throwing a rock off a ship into the ocean is not immoral, because the rock had no rights, but throwing a person off the ship into the ocean is immoral, because the person has a right to life and bodily autonomy!

This, of course, raises the question of where do our rights come from, and how do we know what they are? In our western civilization, rights have traditionally been seen as endowed by our Creator. It was understood that God made man, and gave commandments that spelled out the rights that God gave to man. Man has a right to life, because God said “thou shalt not kill.” Man has a right to his property, because God said “thou shalt not steal.” And so on.

Alternative Basis for Rights)

Of course, not everyone believes in God, and not everyone agrees with the rights described in scripture. They therefore have the burden of providing another basis for our rights, and another method for knowing what those rights would be.

A person with a materialist, humanist worldview might argue that we do not need the dictates of God to identify basic human rights. They might observe that certain behaviors and states are necessary for the survival and flourishing of the species. Since we are members of this species, we should consider those behaviors and states to be natural rights, as to do otherwise would be paradoxical to our being.

And I would not disagree with such an observation. There are, indeed, certain biological realities that suggest the proper sort of behaviors between people. Members of the same species killing one another is obviously detrimental to the whole, so that leads us to the same “thou shalt not kill” that was also given on Mount Sinai. Furthermore, the historical record has shown that the greatest advancement and achievement of the human race has been motivated by people who had a claim to their own property and labor, and so we can again arrive at “thou shalt not steal.”

More Than One Basis)

But I, as a Christian, do not see this as an either/or situation. The fact that we can arrive at many of the same core human rights by biological examination and intelligent reasoning does not mean that God and His dictates do not also exist. Indeed, I see these as two parts of one testimony, supporting and reinforcing one another.

And, we do need both. The materialist-humanist may think that since we have the biological basis we do not need another basis in God, but this could not be further from the truth. I will explain why this is the case in tomorrow’s post.