Scientists say the darndest things. Last January I blogged on an article Jerry Coyne wrote in USA Today regarding free will. At one point he said, “So if we don’t have free will, what can we do? One possibility is to give in to a despairing nihilism and just stop doing anything. But that’s impossible, for our feeling of personal agency is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to pretend that we do choose and get on with our lives.”
Coyne is still spinning the same gobbledygook. Recently, on Coyne’s own blog, a commentator took Coyne to task for acting as though humans have freedom, while being adamant that they do not. Coyne responded:
Yes, I think that all human actions are predetermined and not under some kind of dualistic control. Nevertheless we all, including incompatibilists like myself, act as if we have choices, for our feeling of agency is strong. So please don’t say that I shouldn’t make “should” statements because of that. I will act as though I have free choices even though I don’t. And of course you have to admit that what I say, determined or not, can influence the future actions of others.
And yes, Templeton had no choice, but I can still call him out, and maybe that will affect other peoples’ behavior.
Or would you prefer that I give up writing this website since I can’t express any opinions, criticize or praise others, and so on since everything (including my opinions) are all determined by the laws of physics.
Your line of thinking means that all determinists, even those who are compatibilists, have no right to express opinions about anyone’s behavior.
In reference to Coyne’s response, nuclear physicist, Dave Heddle, commented on his own blog that
if all actions are predetermined then you cannot act as if you have choices. Acting is a volitional process of the very type you are denying. In your model there is no acting, there is only a differential equation of the universe cranking out its next time step. He is so close! He admits that in his world-view everything is predetermined, but in the next breath he obfuscates that unsavory factoid by claiming that he can “act” as though he has free choices. He can freely choose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose. And Jerry can’t, as he suggests, affect the behavior of others when he has already admitted that all human actions are predetermined.
Spot on! Determinists who deny free will always end up affirming it through the back door. They really do need to make philosophy courses part of the core curriculum in science programs!
HT: Scordova
Thinking to Believe 
June 10, 2013 at 8:28 am
I don’t understand Heddle’s response. Coyne pretty obviously says we CANNOT freely choose our subscribing to the illusion of free choice, and yet Heddle makes this strawman: “He can freely choose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose.”
Furthermore, this is patently false:
“And Jerry can’t, as he suggests, affect the behavior of others when he has already admitted that all human actions are predetermined.”
If the first domino A falls in a chain, then the last domino Z is predetermined to fall. But it is nevertheless true that “domino M affects domino N.” Determinism does not destroy the efficacy of interim agents (analogous to dominoes or cogs), which is why fatalism doesn’t follow from it.
LikeLike
June 10, 2013 at 10:35 am
Stan:
“Determinism does not destroy the efficacy of interim agents”, BUT in the domino effect the interim agent N has no efficacy without M, nor does M without A.
Determinism in this respect therefore “determines” the efficacy of the interim agents in your domino analogy so the sentiment that domino M affects domino N is only with respect to domino L and backwards to domino A: neither domino M nor domino N have free efficacy by analogy, indeed no efficacy at all (no free will). Determinism does not destroy the interim agents efficacy because they have none of their own.
Determinism however is not a constant just as free will is not a constant, they are both subject to outside, external influence. The Determinist’s external forces contend only that the Laws of Physics determine material outcomes, setting aside spirit and will.
Jerry CAN affect the behaviour of others based on Newton’s 1st Law of Motion:
“Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” Jerry therefore can affect the behaviour of others as he becomes the external force. Whether he is right based on previous statements would need further questioning.
The domino/cog analogy compared to human behaviour is comparing apples and orangutans; therefore, your statement that Fatalism does not follow from it (an unfair comparison) is false; it may be true in other comparisons but not the dominos/cogs analogy.
There is little or no difference between Determinism and Fatalism both the Determinist and Fatalist in a life boat would not use the oars to reach the distant land allowing the currents and laws of physics to take the boat wherever, whenever, what will be, will be regardless, so “do nothing and accept fate that is predetermined”; but the free will spirit, on the other hand, would take the oars, row to the distant land and thereby save the crew thus rendering the outcome.
LikeLike
June 10, 2013 at 11:06 am
You said,
“neither domino M nor domino N have free efficacy by analogy, indeed no efficacy at all (no free will).”
Please don’t use the word “free” here; it is toxifying the point. The point is that if node M were removed, N+ would not fall, even though A-L will still fall. Thus it is an efficacious node. You don’t need “free efficacy,” whatever you intended that to mean, in order to have efficacy. M has an *effect* upon N, thus has *efficacy.* Efficacy does not have overtones of mindfulness, ownership, deliberation, intent, freedom, etc.
You said,
“The Determinist’s external forces contend only that the Laws of Physics determine material outcomes, setting aside spirit and will.”
Allow me to be pedantic for just a moment, here. It is more proper to say that physical interactions dictate material outcomes, *including* those of the will (which, we might say as determinists, is a nickname for the functions of the brain that are yet mysterious to us).
You said,
“The domino/cog analogy compared to human behaviour is comparing apples and orangutans.”
You might say this, but a determinist doesn’t. This is very important to recognize, because Coyne is saying “there is no dilemma here for a Determinist” and Heddle is saying “yes there is.” You can’t use libertarian views to support the claim that determinism has an intra-thetical dilemma.
You said,
“There is little or no difference between Determinism and Fatalism both the Determinist and Fatalist in a life boat would not use the oars to reach the distant land allowing the currents and laws of physics to take the boat wherever, whenever, what will be, will be regardless, so ‘do nothing and accept fate that is predetermined’;”
No, that is JUST the Fatalist. Fatalism is (usually) determinism, PLUS ALSO deontic passiveness. Nothing about determinism prescribes anything, let alone passiveness.
This is like saying that biological evolution prescribes eugenics. A eugenicist may appeal to the validity and mechanics of biological evolution (particularly genetic selection), but he can never extract *values* from the reality of biological evolution, and so biological evolution will never suggest any particular course of action in and of itself.
Similarly, while I am a determinist, I also have interests (which were instilled ultimately by things external to me). As a complicated robot with interests, I act accordingly. Recognizing of what I’m made and how my behavior is mechanistic does not alter the fact that I have interests and act accordingly, nor does it make me unable to do so.
I DO have a problem with Coyne here. The problem is that, like Sam Harris, he insists that we have “no choices.” I think this is completely false; given a menu of mutually exclusive items, we may have many *prospective* choices, but only *one* actualizable choice (“one actualizable choice” follows analytically from “mutually exclusive prospective choices”). The process of actualization is decisionmaking, and the actualization event itself is “chose.” We don’t need to burn our dictionaries and start afresh under determinism, like Coyne and Harris seem so excited to do.
LikeLike
June 10, 2013 at 11:20 am
Remove M and your domino effect is no longer a domino effect, the analogy is meaningless. Efficacy being the power to produce a desired effect (in the domino tumble) the removal of M removes the power of efficacy of domino N. Removal of M renders N inert, impotent in the domino tumble. How can it then have efficacy when the power of the desired effect(the domino effect) is neutralized? It cannot.
LikeLike
June 10, 2013 at 11:27 am
I am efficacious. And yet, if my parents never gave birth to me, or if I as a child had suffered an accident that put me into a coma, I’d be rendered inert.
I have dependencies; I am nonetheless efficacious.
LikeLike
June 10, 2013 at 11:50 am
[…] there’s a post that I take as critical of my views of free will. Called “Coyne on free-will: ‘we don’t have free will’ but ‘we have no choice but to pret…“, I am chastised for saying that I behave as if I have real libertarian free will, even […]
LikeLike
June 10, 2013 at 8:37 pm
“They really do need to make philosophy courses part of the core curriculum in science programs!”
Eh, I don’t know if I’d go that far. This kind of discussion has its place, but I don’t see it adding significant value to the vast majority of the sciences.
LikeLike
June 11, 2013 at 8:26 am
I tend to side with the physicist (Heddle). If you believe that the laws of physics undergird all phenomenon, then the fact that the laws of physics are nondeterministic at their most fundamental level should be of concern. Even if you think that nondeterminism implies randomness (I don’t) then one could say that the random choices the universe makes are completely unconstrained. What could be more free than a completely unconstrained choice?
Secondly, there is remarkable ordering power inherent in the laws of physics which all life forms have harnessed. This is evident in the ability of living organisms to use biochemical processes to lower entropy (concentrate energy for future use). Plants do this all the time by converting sunlight into carbohydrates. Evolution has selected organisms that are better at harnessing nature’s ordering power.
Evolution has also selected organisms for their ability to adapt to the real world which involves adapting to the laws of physics. Most people think they are acting as free agents, although constrained by many factors. So why would evolution have steered us wrong in the case of free will? Our future existence depends critically on an accurate understanding of the universe.
Scientifically, the question of free will is still an open issue and while nothing I’ve said proves the case for free will, I think most of the evidence so far supports the case for free will.
LikeLike
June 11, 2013 at 8:29 am
Literally none of the scientific evidence we have lends any support to libertarian free will.
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 4:35 am
While I don’t believe in the notion that we have no free will at all, I must admit an element of mystery when it comes to the choices we make and why certain people make a particular choice and others make another.
I believe the Lord is Sovereign and that His purposes will be carried out. To what degree that affects our choices I am not sure and cannot be dogmatic about it.
“…..until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. ” (Daniel 4:32)
Naz
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 9:59 am
Why is it that we rarely see a biblical argument against determinism that implements Romans 8:28-30. This seems to be the strongest case for determinism. If the Scriptures advocate determinism, we are left with no choice but to accept determinism. All of our philosophy must be soundly rooted in and supported by Scripture. I would like to see a Non-Determinist view on Romans 8:28-30.
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 10:39 am
I have not had the time to follow the comments. The only one I have read is your, Beaux (#11). I just wanted to point out that Romans 8, even on a Calvinistic interpretation, does not imply determinism. We cannot confuse the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate with the free-will vs. determinism debate. While some Calvinists are determinists, Calvinism, nor Romans 8, requires it. At best, Romans 8 means that God determines who will be saved. That doesn’t mean that all human actions are determined. According to softer versions of Calvinism, man exercises libertarian freedom all the time. The problem is that we consistently exercise it to evil, and because of our nature, we never choose God. So God has to regenerate us in order to change our nature, so that we can choose Him. So God unilaterally saves us, and once He has done so, we freely choose to be in a relationship with HIm.
My point is not to discuss the merits of this view, but only to point out that Romans 8 has more to do with the question of whether or not salvation is monergistic or synergistic, not whether humans have libertarian freedom.
Jason
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 10:41 am
Beaux:
I think that what you are seeing here is not Determinism but Natural Intuition; that is a pre-determined, predisposition toward Good, first for Self and then demonstrating that Good toward others. Consider this translation of the same verses for example:
“God (The Father that lives Inside of us) knew what he was doing from the very beginning. He decided from the outset to shape the lives of those who love him(Good) along the same lines as the life of his Son. The Son stands first in the line of humanity he restored. We see the original and intended shape of our lives there in him. After God made that decision of what his children should be like, he followed it up by calling people by name. After he called them by name, he set them on a solid basis with himself. And then, after getting them established, he stayed with them to the end, gloriously completing what he had begun.”
AND
” Moreover we know that to those who love God, who are called according to his plan, everything that happens fits into a pattern for good. God, in his foreknowledge, chose them to bear the family likeness of his Son, that he might be the eldest of a family of many brothers. He chose them long ago; when the time came he called them, he made them righteous in his sight, and then lifted them to the splendour of life as his own sons.”
BUT that does not mean that all will be lead by that Spirit but “Only as many as are lead by that Spirit” will enter the Kingdom:
KJV Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
NIV Romans 8:14 “Those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.”
There is a Choice to serve the Good but not everyone chooses to be lead by the Good Spirit. So Freewill “To be(ing) or not to be(ing) lead by the Spirit of Good is the question and is not subject to the Laws of Physics that Matter and Determinism depend on to support the argument, like Gravity that matter(body) is subject to. Free Will transcends the Laws of Physics because of the Spirit operative within the human Spirit of Intuition methinks.
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 10:44 am
I agree with Jason that while determinism is opposed to libertarian free will AND there are interpretations (in my mind, good ones) of God’s sovereignty that are also opposed to libertarian free will, that doesn’t mean that the Bible is on the side of determinism. Friend of enemy is not necessarily friend, here, though I agree that determinism is probably the best view to adopt for theology.
It isn’t just Romans 8 that appears incompatible with libertarian free will: Romans chs. 8-11 all seem incompatible.
Here’s a semi-parody article I wrote recently called “Romans: Free Will Version,” which contrasts the words of Romans against what we’d expect to see if libertarian free will were true.
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 11:25 am
Beaux, a comment on Romans 8:28-30,
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
I read verse 29 as saying that God has foreknowledge of our choices which then follows that he can “predestine” us according to His purpose. Saying God has foreknowledge of our choices does not mean we have no free will. He just knows what we are going to choose. Perhaps His knowing of our choices influences His actions?
I think we’re treading where even angels fear to go here…….enough said.
Naz
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 11:26 am
Naz, it says that God “predestines and calls” in ADDITION to saying he foreknows. If predestination and calling are reducible to mere foreknowledge, then Paul is being triply redundant.
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Stan, I would say that predestination and calling are not “reducible” to foreknowledge but rather are subject to foreknowledge. Unlike us, God can see the future, therefore he can call and predestine. As for being redundant, I think there are many scriptures in which Paul uses seemingly redundant language to stress or emphasize a point. Paul is not trying to get a passing grade for grammar, he’s trying to convey a wonderful thought about God’s love.
I really don’t understand how this works in God’s mind but I have to assume that His foreknowledge must guide His actions to some degree.
That said, I’m not sure how fruitful this discussion can be since every time I see this debated it always ends in the same stale mate. Not to mention it makes my brain hurt 🙂
“If God is for us, who can be against us” should sum it up……..
Naz
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Naz, your idea is popular among those who try to harmonize libertarian free will with Scripture. They hope that God’s predestination is contingent upon the foreknown “free will” activity of the individual.
But this is explicitly contradicted by Scripture, in Romans 9:11-12. Paul says that the fates of Jacob and Esau were locked-in so that God’s election would stand — NOT by works (that is, the future actions of Jacob and Esau) but by Him who calls (that is, God’s arbitration).
Furthermore, by “spoiling” that election to Rebekah, he manipulated her and Jacob; they enacted their scheme to swap Isaac’s inheritance as a result. And one cannot say, “Perhaps they would do that anyway.” Romans 9:11-12 says Rebekah was told *so that* God’s elective purposes would become manifest.
When we claim that God’s predestination is somehow contingent on future freely-willed actions of man, we also directly contradict Romans 9:16, which is the thesis of Paul’s reference to Rebekah and her sons: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort.”
LikeLike
June 12, 2013 at 6:13 pm
I don’t understand why everyone seems to want to call Free Will “Libertarian” Free Will. Is there Republican Free Will, Conservative free will, American free will, Chinese free will? It seems to me that Free Will is not reducible at all and has no qualifiers; we are past masters at complicating the issue when in point of fact it is what it is, like a rose is a flower by any other name! Are there different definitions? Probably in academia which is the essence of redundancy that strives to cut and dice every nigglable aspect of niggling a niggler can niggle over for wiggling room.
By the way Naz, I know you said that you “really don’t understand how this works in God’s mind but ….have to assume that His foreknowledge must guide His actions to some degree.” I appreciate your honesty in that respect but really, do you think a god would need guidance on how to act, how to behave, foreknowledge notwithstanding? Any more than gravity needs guidance on how to act or behave? I will chalk it up to a proverbial slip of the keyboard.
Nevertheless I must point out that if you let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus that let “Good” do it, then who can be operating in you? Is there anything else you need to know about how God’s mind works? Because when you see Jesus work who do you see work? Therefore when we see you work who should we see at work other than? G_ _ ! Because the mind of God cannot work anywhere if not in the mind of the human being.
Forget for a moment about the supernatural god that created the earth and the planet and the cosmos, that is the ancient belief in supernaturalism but Jesus did not operate with that supernatural god; Jesus operated with the God that lives inside everyone of us; inside your brain, inside your mind and if you can grasp this you would not have to assume how anything works on God’s mind, you should Know it! By the words that Jesus spoke…he didn’t speak of or refer to Calvinism and Arminianism philosophy viewpoints to understand what too many Christians cannot and yet……..
How can you know anything is right when you look to one another for approval? Look to academia to show off academic skills and arguments given by people few outside of academia ever heard of; it certainly meant nothing to a carpenter who came to fix your window when it jammed.
It never ceases to amaze me how every Christian claims to know the mind of God hence Jesus and what he wants or how he expects others to perform to his standard of what good or righteousness is across the various cultures of mankind based on the interpretations of ancient men whose knowledge of meteorology was slim to none let alone aspects of the supernatural gods he created other than what he divested in them to account for man’s own lack of intuitive sense deployment.
Of course we all have “free will”, the cut and dice and niggles and all the twists of argumentativeness is so much supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness in human academia that makes no sense to anyone outside the snobbery circles of theology, the study of the unknowable.
Gee I hope nobody wants to stone me for this commentary; ah, ahem, hmmm…. I mean… rant and rave, off topic…..!
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 4:27 am
Just some questions. Please humor me, as I’m not fully versed in all of this.
– If determinism is true:
What determines determinism, that is, what, if any, external (personal/impersonal?) power/force/etc. makes all decisions and outcomes (or at least takes them out of the hands of humans)?
– If determinism is true, regarding the above question:
How would a theist answer versus how an atheist would answer?
– If free-will is true:
What determines that the will is free? Was the will, for lack of a better term, given it’s freedom by an external (personal/impersonal) source, or does the will, if free, have that freedom innately?
– If free-will is true:
If the freedom of the will is given, and so, determined by an external source (and not innate), can it be said that the will is truly free?
I know what I believe about all of the above, and I could guess at most of the answers, but I’d like to know other positions apart from a guess.
Thanks,
Aaron
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 10:00 am
Stan, thanks for that response. In light of what you said, I retract my previous statement about God’s election hinging on our future “free will” actions.I cannot counter your argument and I won’t try to for the sake of arguing.
Instead, we need to explore what the scope of God’s election means in terms of salvation. Clearly, Romans 9 is talking about who God’s people really are by using Israel as an example and illustration.
Can we say then, that if we “choose” to believe in God through Jesus Christ, that God has somehow “elected” us ? Alternatively, if there are those that reject Christ, can we also say that God has not elected them ?
I think this is where God’s Sovereignty comes into play and also where our knees should start to tremble. For much too long, religion has tried to teach us that we need to be good to get to God. In light of God’s mercy and election we need God to get good.
Notice also in Romans 9 it mention how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This should serve a stern warning to those that oppose Christ. He who has ears to hear let him hear.
This subject of “free will” is a deep and complicated. From our point of view, it appears we have complete and total free will. However when we read scripture God is crafting the future and making his purposes come to pass. How do we reconcile this ?
‘”…..God rules in the kingdom of men……”
Naz
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 11:07 am
I think one good way to reconcile this is to recognize those two perspectives: the divine perspective, that sees everything locked-in to a predestined plan and whereunder God is never misdirected or taken by surprise, and the human perspective, that imagines alternate futures (and pasts, and presents), is bad at foresight, is bad at understanding how the world works (particularly in terms of human behavior), and is frequently taken by surprise (even by ourselves!).
The human perspective, needless to say, is the one most useful for us when it comes to making decisions in service of what we’re interested. There’s an amazing dichotomy Paul makes, across two different Epistles, and involving these two perspectives.
Romans 9:19-21
“One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?’ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”‘ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?”
Here, we’re called mere pottery of the potter. “Special” here is Gr. “timen,” or honorable. “Common” here is Gr. “atimien,” or dishonorable. Honorable/dishonorable is a much better translation here, because the latter is a mere “a”-prefixed version of the former. In other words, God molds some people for honorable use, and some for dishonorable use. Pharaoh, Judas, and Joseph’s brothers were dishonorable in their actions — but those dishonorable actions were of USE to sovereign God.
Genesis 45:4-7
“Then Joseph said to his brothers, ‘Come close to me.’ When they had done so, he said, ‘I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.'”
But now look at this:
2 Timothy 2:20-22
“In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
See “special vs. common” there? That’s the timen/atimien, or honorable/dishonorable dichotomy again. And we are again compared to mere objects in God’s house. And yet here, we’re spurred to action.
This is why God’s sovereignty does NOT lead to Fatalism. Yes, some are predestined for honorable and some for dishonorable use. But from the human perspective, we don’t know if we’re the former or the latter! So, from the human perspective, it seems like we MAKE ourselves “of honorable use” (or dishonorable use) even though, from the divine perspective, our actions are foreordained by sovereign God for his purposes.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm
When Jesus belched, farted and squatted over a hole to shit, did it stink like us regular sinners, or did it have its own unique “son of god” smell?
And when Jesus farted, did he blame the dog? Or Mary Magdalene?
Serious questions for a serious religion.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm
alphazulu99,
Yes, it stunk like everyone else’s. Dumb question. Of course, it really wasn’t a question at all, but snide remarks coming from someone who doesn’t have the civility to engage in human dialogue.
Jason
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm
So, you have no problem worshiping a god that squatted over a hole and squeezed out a huge turd.
And a god who got erections.
Gee, I think I’ll stick with gods that don’t have an anus. Or boners.
And the very idea of a blood/human sacrifice being offered up to the invisible deity in the sky to atone for some wrong is the very epitome of Stone Age lunacy and superstition.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Thanks for your contribution, alphazulu99. We all appreciate it at what it’s worth. Farewell.
LikeLike
June 29, 2013 at 9:34 pm
If god has a divine plan then there is no free will.
LikeLike
July 6, 2013 at 9:12 pm
jc, how does that follow? Do we not make plans that involve the free actions of others? Yes. So why can’t God’s plans take human freedom into account?
Also, having a plan does not mean that one has scripted every single action out. God’s plans involve God’s actions, not necessarily ours.
Jason
LikeLike
July 7, 2013 at 6:37 am
Jason:
Taking a break from work?
Can’t you see how these two statements made by you are contradictory?
“Do we not make plans that involve the free actions of others? Yes. So why can’t God’s plans take human freedom into account?”
THEN:
“God’s plans involve God’s actions, not necessarily ours.”
LikeLike
July 7, 2013 at 10:04 am
We don’t make plans that involve the free actions of others; we make plans that involve the unexpected actions of others (by doing risk analyses in addition to plain cost/benefit analyses).
LikeLike
July 7, 2013 at 10:56 am
The process with which you think about things is based upon indoctrination, what you’re given by society. So your RANGE of thought is limited by the dominant values of your society. We talk about civilization as though it’s a static state BUT, There are no civilized people yet; civilization is a process that’s constantly going on. As long as you have war, police, prisons, crime, religion, you’re in the early stages of what they call, “civilization”.
LikeLike
October 16, 2013 at 7:03 am
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/amateur-theologians-you-cant-be-a-determinist-and-feel-like-you-have-free-will/ and how would you respond to this Jason ?
LikeLike