|
|
Archived movie reviews and book reviews by Fred Currie
Check my blog for current articles and reviews MAKING SENSE OF YOUR FREEDOM A Book Review Are we free? Most of us feel free. Our culture operates as if we are free and responsible for our freely chosen actions. Yet, the popular wisdom in philosophical circles today is that we are not free. Any feelings of freedom are illusions. In reality, all of us are determined to be what we are by causes beyond our control. What are these causes? How did we loose control of our own destiny? Did we ever have any control of our destiny? Is fate a play we all are acting in with a script not of our own choosing? Is the script is dictated by god, genetics, psychology, or some other unknown factor outside our control? Is there room for an individual acting as a free agent in there somewhere? James Felt has written a remarkable book, that concisely puts forth the view that we are free to make choices independent of the multitude of influences that clutter our decision making process. Determinism in its various forms is exposed as baseless dogma. Dogma built on the shifting sands of faulty presuppositions and unsound logic. The book is written in language accessable to the general reader. Many footnotes and a suggested reading list guide you, if, you desire to dig deeper into the points he discusses. He avoids any theological arguments and sticks to philosophy and metaphysics. Yet, the book progresses beyond the abstract and brings the freedom issue to where we live: the Libertarian free philosophy should clarify our response to the problem of evil. And our rational understanding of our personal freedom should cause us to realize that we are responsible for determining our own character. The concept of agency puts responsibility on our shoulders. We are fully culpable. This sobering fact should drive any thinking person straight to the Cross of Christ, where the blood of our risen saviour redeems us and truly sets us free. James Felt starts off with a the common feeling we all have of being free in our decision making process. When I say, "I did it," I know that I could have chosen otherwise. No one feels that they act out of necessity all of the time, if ever. Outside influences do not cause my internal decisions. I am free to ignore those influences. Our choices are our own creations, influenced by, but not an effect of external causes such as: psychology, or physical factors. This concept flies in the face of the common notion of cause and effect. Some from the determinist camp would argue that James Felt's position is irrational. James Felt's self created decisions seem to arise out of nowhere, for no reason at all. This objection is based on a flawed understanding of causality. This point should send shock waves throughout the scientific community. Many brilliant men have made a philosophical error. Causality is not a 2 step process. Between cause and effect there is a causal process. It is this process that takes time. Time for the internal freedom of an agent to make a decision about how to act. Hence, our freedom is not in the doing like John Locke argued. Our freedom is in the deciding what to do. Yet, determinists say that internal freedom makes no sense. Indeed, four types of determinism make freedom seem impossible: physical determinism, psychological determinism, logical determinism and rational determinism. James Felt goes over each position carefully but before giving a refutation he moves on to compatibilism. Since many determinists believe that determinism is compatible with freedom. James Felt shows how compatibilism does not make rational sense. At the core of many determinist beliefs is their desire to make sense of the world, yet they have adopted an argument that is contradictory. If, every situation we find ourselves in is determined by antecedent events that necessitate our actions, then we cannot do anything but what we in fact do. There is no room for freedom. Kant's explanation is that freedom and determinism belong to different realms. On the one hand, Kant says we are determined to do what we do, but if you look at it from another viewpoint, the world of understanding, you are free and responsible. Kant's position is dualistic and absurd. Human actions and reason are integrated. Kant is playing linguistic games to try and get out of the problems Hume raised with causality. Some who hold compatibilism argue that freedom requires determinism. Your character determines the types of acts you are free to choose. You are most free when you are acting in your true character. Actions not consistent with your character come about by chance and you are not responsible for them. It seems there is way too much wiggle room in this definition. How does a person develop his character? Can you say a person's behavior is determined because it is predictable, based on character analysis? This type of compatibilist makes an the assumption that all events are either determined or just come about by pure chance. James Felt also points out that there is no logical reason to assume there is a deterministic link between motives and decisions. We come back to the faulty concept of causality. Where determinists do not see that there is a process that happens between the cause and the effect. Why does the case for determinism fail? James Felt points out that determinism cannot be a statement of fact. It is a statement of faith to claim that everything that happens, happens necessarily because of events that came before it. So we are talking about doctrinal issues. Physical determinism, psychological determinism, logical determinism and rational determinism are doctrines built on a narrow definition of causality and a faulty understanding of time. Once the concept of agency is understood, determinism is obviously incoherent. Determinism is exposed as a linguistic game of setting up definitions to create a self stultifying argument. **Since I posted this book review in January 2004. It has consistently been in
the top 10 of my most viewed pages. I wish the internet could be more conversational. Is this review helpful? What do you
think about your freedom? You may contact me at: fred@fredcurrie.com Bruce Almighty Steve Koren and Mark O'keefe have written a terrific
story about a self centered news man who is turned around by an encounter with God. Bruce is given a chance to be God over
Buffalo New York. He uses his powers to serve his own desires. He is angry with God about the world. Mainly about how the
world is not treating him the way he wants it to. There are many hilarious scenes where he exerts his supernatural powers
to delight himself and impress his girl friend. He is not allowed to violate a person's freewill or tell anyone that he
is god. Towards the end of the movie, Bruce asks god, "How do I make some one love me without violating their freewill?"
God says, "welcome to my world. If you figure it out, let me know." This is a sound philosophical position that
is supported by scriptures. A person must have freewill. If, he is to be held responsible for his actions. There has long
been a debate about whether or not we are truly free. Some hold that we are determined to be what we are, and any freedom
we think we have is an illusion. Fate is the play we all are acting in with a script not of our own choosing. It is dictated
by god, genetics, psychology, or some other unknown factor outside our control. This sort of deterministic thinking is flawed
and obviously not how the world operates. It is also not how God operates. The movie is accurate when it says God is sovereign
over everything, but not predetermining everything. This is a sticky point for many Christians who look at sections of the
Bible and take them out of context. As is often the case in Romans 9. There God is likened to the potter and his creation
the clay. The context is about God's freedom over His creation, but some Christians take it too far. They say that God
makes us what we are today and predetermines what we will be for all of our lives. The error is that the Romans 9 passage
is not taken in context with the rest of Romans, where Paul clearly explains that we are responsible for our sins. And, most
importantly, we are free to accept or reject the gift God gave us; eternal life through the cross of Christ. "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals." By Rupert Sheldrake A Book Review by Fred Currie A book about dogs written by a cat owner. Reading it I quickly felt like the Cheshire cat was lurking around every corner and chapter of the book. Only the cat's smile was visible. The body of the Cheshire cat never fully materialized, like Sheldrake's theories that never get fully fleshed out. He points at many animal behaviors with an effort to make the Cheshire cat appear. Most of his evidence is anecdotal, but he is on a mission to win the general public more than the scientific community. Sheldrake's higher purpose seems to be to convince some brave souls to do the science that is needed to prove his theories. As Sheldrake points out it is an uphill battle. The scientific priesthood is at the top of the hill hurling cynical arguments at whoever endeavors to do Sheldrake's experiments. The flat earth society is still alive and well. They rule scientific discourse with philosophies of science that have become their religious creed. The reductionist/mechanist dogma rules biology today. Any phenomena that shows that life is more than a bunch of machines living out their genetic programing in a random universe, is discounted as something projected onto the machines by the observers beliefs. All scientific hypothesis must be explained or be stated in such a way that reductionism can be applied, or else, they are not taken seriously. It is ironic that many in the scientific community think that one day all the mysteries of our universe will be explained by scientific methods. Yet scientists have taboos against certain types of phenomena. Sheldrake's point is that subjects like telepathy are not acceptable for scientific inquiry. They are defined out of existence by commonly accepted scientific principles. Should we ignore any phenomena that is beyond the fringes of the popular mechanistic world view? Sheldrake thinks it is possible to be scientific about several fringe subjects. His form of open minded inquiry seeks to get everybody into practicing science. Why should science be limited to universities and corporate think tanks? Sheldrake suggests several experiments that anyone on a shoe string budget can do.
The above seems far safer for a physicist to say than a biologist. Once we come down out of the stratosphere of mathematical models and start getting our hands dirty with the stuff of life, the playing field changes. Perhaps what Sheldrake's critics fear is that he may change the scientific paradigm for biology. On this point I don't think Sheldrake goes far enough. He is working within a Darwinian perspective. I find it ironic that Sheldrake points out that Darwin's observations of domesticated animals were an essential ingredient in his theories. Darwin was looking at animals whose evolution was guided by people with a specific intent. To conclude that nature somehow guides the evolution of a species without specific intent is ridiculous. If Darwinian evolution happens then nature has to have intent. Sheldrake's morphic fields provide the intent by saying that the fields somehow have a memory. Even if we grant that Darwin and Sheldrake are right, how do they explain how the whole thing got started? Where did the information for the first gene come from? At this point the honest person has to recognize that he is making a leap of faith. To say that nature is the cause, and nature should just be presupposed is just as big of a leap of faith as saying God is the first cause. Perhaps a bigger leap, because the theist has historical reasons for his faith. The thing that fascinates me about Sheldrake's book is that it points out how unseen forces impact our world. Sheldrake calls these forces morphic fields. As a theist, I call them the activities of a loving Creator. Here in Sheldrake's book is proof that the immaterial or spiritual has an effect on the material. Indeed without that effect we would not exist. The scientific priesthood needs to realize that God has been thrown out with the bath water. My point is that each of us has a spirit. It is given to us by our creator and that is what enables paranormal phenomena. Sheldrake's morphic field hypothesis points out that we communicate in ways that science cannot explain. We can, however, get sufficient explanation from history. I would recommend the bible as to ideal place to start. Unless your presuppositions preclude you from looking into the Bible. After all many scientists are atheists. Sheldrake himself says in his bio,1 "religion was a thing of the past, and science was the thing of the future. Religion shackled humans to superstition, priests, and dogma; but science liberated humans and enabled them to march forward to a new era of prosperity and brotherhood." I submit that the Bible can be separated from religious traditions and viewed as a collection of eyewitness reports. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." 1 John1:1, NIV. Here the writer is clearly saying he wants you to regard his words as descriptions of real events that he witnessed. Reasonable men should take it at face value and not be put off by religious traditions that have used the Bible in unscrupulous ways to shackle humanity. The world view given in the Bible allows for paranormal phenomena. It reports many miraculous events to demonstrate God's purpose for this world. A Christian world view has room for Sheldrake's telepathic dogs. The mechanist philosophy of science puts the dogs outside, where they howl a warning. The winds of change are coming and science will be moved in a new direction. Here's an overview of the phenomena that Sheldrake discusses in his book. How do dogs know when their owners are coming home? After Sheldrake eliminates natural explanations such as smell, sound and time of day, he concludes that it is telepathic communication. This type of communication happens when a person is bonded with his dog or other pet. He also points out cases where telepathy seems to be the only explanation for humans knowing when their loved ones are coming home. I liked the Norwegian vardoger story. Animals are also able to prevent suicide by apparently reading their owners intentions and getting in their way. Dogs have proven effective at sensing when people have cancer and can sense when an epileptic fit is about to occur. Herds use ESP to mobilize in the face of danger. Horses can anticipate their riders commands ahead of the prompts. Some cats know when it is time to go the vet no matter how hard their owners try to conceal it. The sense of direction is unexplained by science, birds, turtles, dogs, butterflies, fish and other creatures all have the skill to find their way home. In China animals have been used to accurately predict earthquakes and many lives have been saved. Why doesn't western science tap into this early warning system? Is it reasonable for Western earthquake experts like Richter himself to say, "earthquakes cannot be predicted."? Humans have also predicted the future. There is the old story that Ulysses S. Grant's wife had a premonition about the play where Lincoln was shot. She persisted and successfully prevented him from going. Grant was on Booth's death list. During WWII dogs would lead their masters to the air raid shelters before the sirens went off. Dean Radin, University of Nevada, did research that showed people responded to emotionally jarring photos before they appeared in random slide shows. Dean Radin has since been dismissed from the University of Nevada because the University wanted to use his spot for other projects. Precognition and the nature of consciousness were not topics the University wanted to be known for. The economics of science is always a factor. What topics bring in the research dollars? Telepathy and precognition don't appear to be big sellers. To call Sheldrake's evidence anecdotal is not entirely fair. He mixes scientific experiments with his stories. His willingness to work outside the philosophical boundaries of biology is the main reason for his critics disdain. He is on the fringe and his morphic field hypothesis sells books but it remains to be seen if his work changes any scientific paradigms. I am cheering for him, because it is refreshing to see scientific methods applied to phenomena that most of us think are real, but we have no explanation for. The mysteries of life are all around us. When science explains a mystery we are enriched and enlightened. Those of us who are of the Christian faith should be excited to explore the depths of God's creation. His creation is interlinked in ways we are only beginning to understand. As more facts are revealed about God's creation, the atheists arguments fall. With every discovery it becomes more obvious that a supernatural agent is required to bring about life. If Sheldrake is right about morphic fields, how did they get there? Where did the information come from? This book only touches briefly on DNA. Where did the information in DNA come from? DNA is like the software and living organisms are the hardware. Who did the programing? Is it possible to get a programming language from random processes over a long period of time? 2 Entropy works against such a notion. As a Christian theist I point to a historical record, the Bible, which explains the who, what, where, when, why and to some extent the how questions of our cosmogony.3 I submit that if a supernatural being was to speak to us, he would do so just as God has in the Bible. In conclusion: I found Sheldrake's book fascinating. Now, more than ever, I want a dog. They are wonderful companions and we are still figuring out all the incredible things dogs are capable of. This book ventures into the paranormal, but it feels safe because we have our dogs with us. I think that those of us who hold the Christian world view should be open minded about this kind of inquiry as long as it stays in the phenomenological and steers clear of the theological. In this book Sheldrake sticks with the animals and does not mention God. I think the most remarkable thing about this book is that it points out that living organisms are effected by metaphysical forces. It does so with more than anecdotal stories, there is real science here. My strict empiricist friends will have to do a dance to get around this one. Whether or not they come to the Christian dance floor is an open issue. I think this a great subject to get people talking about world views and spirituality. Can scientific discoveries prove the existence of God? Should we use the results of science to bolster our faith? I am inclined to agree with John Polkinghorne he says: "'not to submit to slavery to the spirit of the age,' but rather to find 'consonance' between what he experiences as a scientist and as a Christian."4 Notes: 2. See the book: "Unshakable Foundations," by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, pages 124-133. 3. Cosmogony = a theory or story of the origin and development of the universe. Webster. 4. See the book: "Seduced by Science," by Steven Goldberg, New York University Press 1999, page 140. John Polkinghorne is a theoretical physicist and Anglican priest who serves as president of Queen's College, Cambridge. See his book: "The Faith of a Physicist." page 76. |
|
|