The law of causality basically says that shit can’t happen without some other shit happening first. Everyone knows what cause and effect are, but I just really enjoy saying “shit” to describe things. If something happens, something necessarily had to happen before in order to cause that event. We base not only science on this, but religion as well. The Unmoved Mover, or the First Cause, is the very beginning of the causal chain. If everything has a cause, the idea is that there has to be a beginning tethering the causes to an initial… something or other. In some circles, that “something” is theorized to be God.
So everybody agrees that the law of causality is probably true. However, things get a little tricky when we consider Free Will. Free Will is humanity’s innate ability to choose our actions. Since we feel in control, normally most people assume that we possess Free Will. But when the law of causality is applied to our choices, our actions must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause, and so on. Given that that causal chain would continue back to infinite along with all the others (or to the First Cause, whatever) then it seems highly unlikely that there was an autonomous “choice” at all.
This is not a new idea. People often wonder whether or not we are but slaves to our instincts and our environment, and if the law of causality is true and universal, then it would follow that humans are nothing but a mold going through its familiar phases. This raises some issues; if we are not free, then we are not responsible, and ethics just fall to the wayside. Any sort of meaning to our existence sounds a little hollow as well.
However, if there is Free Will, then the law of causality becomes called into question, and every scientific theory becomes a lot more correlative than it was before. Humanity, America especially, needs its freedom, but is it willing to do away with cause and effect just to keep it?
There are other options. There is the idea of the Causa Sui, or the self-caused cause. These are indeterminate causes that start their own, new causal chains. Quantum physics has these a bunch, where things on the atomic level are popping in and out of existence like a whack-a-mole game, seemingly without cause. However, if there are an infinite number of quantum reactions happening in the consciousness part of our brain that are the Causa Sui for our actions, then again, we are not choosing, but our actions are determined by random occurrences. This leads to the same problems of responsibility and meaning as in a deterministic universe.
Or possibly the Will itself is the Causa Sui and is perpetually creating new, causal chains. This, however, leads to the question of how?
It is possible that the human Will exists outside of the causal universe, thereby cancelling out the paradox of choice within a deterministic or random world. Those with a religious background are likely to exclaim, “Something that transcends the material realm!? Surely you can’t be serious!” but if Free Will is to be maintained, this is a consideration not to be taken lightly.
Remember, this is philosophy. There is never a satisfactory answer. Whether or not we possess Free Will all comes down to your perspective. Maybe humans are just special and that’s why we’re able to freely make choices. Maybe we live in a world of anarchy and chaos. Maybe we live meaningless, responsibility-less lives. Who knows? But always remember, whether or not Free Will exists, we must act as if it does.
Sam Harris, being the powerful philosopher that he is, argues that if we accept having no free will, we can lead better lives. When we are freed from the notion of free will, we can understand peoples actions better he claims. Check him out.
Also, good to see someone using the Philosophy tag properly. Every time I try to search Philosophy in the WordPress reader, so much crap comes up (pictures of sunsets have nothing to do with philosophy).
I’ve read a tiny bit of the New Atheist philosophers, but not a whole lot. They tend to tear down without building back up again. Like, they’ll dismiss thousands of years of belief (and as an Atheist I tend to agree with some of their points), but they won’t do anything to reform with new ideas to take their place. I think Nietzsche’s madman declaring God as dead is one of the most brilliant pieces of atheistic philosophy, because he says the death of God is akin to wiping out the horizon, and untethering the earth from the sun. Nietzsche based his entire philosophy on trying to fill the void left by the death of God.
Harris’s point that the lack of Free Will would make understanding human action easier is likely true. It’s simple to study a mold or an ant colony, but there are severe consequences to the death of Free Will that would need to be addressed.
Maybe I’m being too harsh on him and maybe he addresses that in his book. Like I said I haven’t read much of their work, and the books I have read left me a bit biased.
…by “they” I mean like, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens… I don’t know if I was clear.
Also, I am glad you enjoyed my post! I share your fear that sunsets have become the state of contemporary popular philosophy.
I have read a bit of Nietzsche, and I think he is the best atheist philosopher (probably my favorite philosopher fullstop). He understands the consequences of his position, and the debt that western society owes to Christian thought. Nietzsche’s injunction to become the ubermensch is what the New Atheists need to do, to create new value which they can hold themselves to: not simply rehash the old Christian morals.
As a Christian, I do not agree with the New Atheists; and as a Philosopher, I disagree even more. Dawkins bumbles through philosophy, yet people eat out of his hand (I really need to make a post about him one day, I so hate how he gets away with things).
Sam Harris similarly makes some pretty poor moves in his philosophy. I read his book “Free Will” and he does explain why we can live without free will. But he seems to have a self-referential problem where he thinks without free will, we can choose to live more meaningful lives (choose being the problem there).
Check out this link, I’m sure you will like it. It deals with Sam Harris pretty well: http://imgur.com/a/LxoHj
That just might be the best comic I’ve seen in my life. Thank you. The End of Faith by Sam Harris was what gave me the core of my bias against the New Atheists, and I think it hit the nail right on the head. Also it reminded me to read more Hume.
The Existentialists would have my vote for drafting the atheistic outlook, but unfortunately the New Atheists are the better TV personalities because of their outlandish and extreme dogma.
I wrote an earlier post about fundamentalist Atheists that deals with the hypocritical aspect I find in most atheistic criticisms of religion. Perhaps you might enjoy it:
https://blogforchumps.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/why-atheists-are-not-religious-but-do-their-damnedest-to-mimic-the-worst-of-religious-behaviours/
[…] for Chumps "This is bullshit" and other insightful thoughts and opinions. « Freedom from Causality Skepticism […]