Scientific “Truth” - part II - Freedom & Love
In my last post on this subject I concentrated on the philosophy of Hume and Popper and linked it with Kuhn’s thesis on the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. My intention was to try and demonstrate why it is philosophically not viable to consider the scientific world view the standard by which we measure all truth. Such a stance is philosophically naive and does not stand critical scrutiny. The scientific methodology is simply a perspective on reality.
It is dangerous to accept any one view of our world as the view, whether it be scientific, philosophical, theological, or anything else, because ultimately, all these perspectives are nothing more than human conceptualizations - models of reality and not reality as it is in itself. And it is important to realize that a human concept - whether we label it a law, theory, philosophy or a theology - will always fall short of the reality it is conceptualizing. If you choose to live your life persuaded by one single explanation you will live less of a life.
For me, this is how I view those who choose to adopt single-mindedly the scientific outlook – that is to say those who insist that ultimately everything in life can be fathomed in a deterministic fashion. My opinion of such an outlook is that it lacks; to live a life under such a philosophical outlook would be to live only half a life.
The scientific world view has its own presuppositions and is subject to the same human fallibilities as all other domains of human enquiry and I hope I have made something of this clear. What we “presuppose” can never be proven. The scientific methodology presupposes a deterministic world view. It does not demonstrate a deterministic reality, it assumes it. Or to express this using different language which might make the point still more plane: the scientific world view puts ultimate faith in the fact that everything in our reality can be expressed in causal, deterministic terms.
I cannot and will not accept this faith position. I believe that the issue of our freedom goes right to the centre of what it means for us to be human. As I attempted to express in a previous post, the only principle upon which I am willing to pin my life and hope, is that of love - and love cannot exist within a deterministic reality. Love by its very definition, must be free. I cannot love someone – or God – unless I am free not to. Love cannot be the end product of a chain of causation. We are either lovers and free, or we are something less. Especially from a Christian perspective, I absolutely believe that we, as human beings, must be free in order to be all that God hoped we would. And further, I see no scientific reason why I cannot hold this position and it is at this juncture that I believe the philosophy of Immanuel Kant has a lot to offer the conversation.
What Kant brings to the table is a fundamental realization that reality might be very different to how we experience it. Essentially, he realized that within our psychological makeup there are, if you like, hard wired assumptions through which we interpret our world. Kant refers to these as a priori assumptions – that is, stuff which we assume to be true before anything else. He suggests there are things which our very psychology takes as a non-negotiable absolute upon which we base the whole of our understanding of our world.
Kant suggests that two such assumptions are the existence of both time and space. We assume that objects in our reality are separate and distinct from ourselves and are extended in three dimensional space, and that we and they exist in a temporal framework. Space and time, though, are not properties of things in themselves that can be derived from sensual data, but instead assumptions which are necessary before we can begin to comprehend such things. In other words we approach reality with a hard wired grid within our psychology which determines how it will be presented to us. It may at first seem weird to consider but actually our reality might be very different to our conception of it. If we approach the world with a predefined grid of how it will be presented to us, we have no way of knowing how it might look outside that grid. There is a Kantian divide between reality as it is in itself and reality as we experience it.
Circling back to our previous conversation concerning the scientific enterprise, it must be realized that, from a Kantian perspective, the scientific method is not exploring reality as it is in itself but reality as it is conceived within our psychology. Hume realized that, despite the lack empirical evidence to substantiate causal relationships, it is impossible to maintain a position of deterministic doubt, something in our makeup insists on the truth of such assumptions. Kant, if you like, takes this position one step further and suggests that such assumptions are, in effect, woven into our psychology. We live in a world which is determinate because our interpretive apparatus make it so. We cannot know empirically a reality other than that because the grid through which we interpret our world cannot comprehend anything different.
Yet, this is not the end of the story because, according to Kant, human beings do possess free will. This is an important realization for Kant because it demonstrates that reality in itself, as it really is, must be different to how we comprehend it. Since everything we comprehend sensually is determinative in essence but that we know ourselves to be free, for Kant, it suggests that we do indeed exist within an actual reality that is indeterminate and very different to that that we comprehend through our senses.
Kant’s reasoning is not foolproof and I have nowhere near done justice to it in this post but even if we choose to contest certain aspects, I remain convinced of the conclusion that the reality I comprehend is indeed something different from reality as it really is. Not only that, but importantly, if I follow his line of reasoning, I can have my cake and eat it, and live freely within an ordered and determinative world. Kant’s assumption concerning human freedom can be questioned; it could be argued that human beings only believe they have freedom because we inhabit such a complex system that we are unaware of determinative influences. And, I agree, this is a perfectly viable philosophical explanation, but I would have to point out that whilst it is viable, it is not provable. Kant’s explanation of our perception of reality, coupled with Hume’s doubt concerning causal relationships, should leave us with enough doubt to realize that such a position is equally presumptive. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the matter of human freedom is a faith position. Hume and Kant supply the rational resources necessary for us to believe in our freedom even if they do not demonstrate it conclusively; and similarly, at the same time, they supply more than enough doubt such that we must also conclude, to believe the opposite, is also a faith position.
As a Christian, I have come to see the issue of human freedom fundamental to my theological understanding of my relationship with God. I am called to be part of a reciprocal loving relationship with my creator. God has made space for me to exist independently and freely of him (her), and by so doing, has made it possible for me to love him (her). Christ has won my heart and I love him not because I am compelled to, but because I do. My love for him is not derived from any form of compulsion but is the free expression of a free heart. God risked the possibility I would not love him (her) in order to make it possible for me to love him (her). It is such love that has won my love.
8 Responses to “Scientific “Truth” - part II - Freedom & Love”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
isc
Said this on July 4th, 2007 at 8:03pm:I think that real love for another requires us to limit our own freedom - whatever that might really be. Inevitably, the unfettered exercise of my will (free or not!) will at some points hurt others in general and a beloved in particular.
The real expression of love for another is therefore both joyful self-expression and selective self-limitation or self-fettering - in order to protect the beloved from those aspects of ourselves and our behaviour that would (maybe unintentionally) do them harm or just plain make them unhappy.
Whether we have purely free choice in this world is one question that I don’t think anyone can really answer. I tend to think that anyone who tends to pure determinism or pure “free will” is taking up an unnecessarily extreme position that experience of life doesn’t substantiate. We’re limited in all kinds of ways - less so if we’re highly educated, rich and healthy, but the limitations are still there even then.
I think that the real issue is what I do with the choices I have (whether they’re real or not - I don’t much care).
In the context of loving relationships - whether that be between friends, lovers, God and humans or the creation, or the between the persons of God within the Godhead - loving the other requires restraint of my freedom for the good and happiness of the other. Not to choose that self-limitation and to act entirely freely will in practice become harmful to the other (at least at times) and really just a form of childish narcissism…
rj
Said this on July 6th, 2007 at 11:19am:To love in the first place is a choice. I can choose to love or not to love… I can choose to be in relationship or out of relationship. Once in yes I need to continue to make choices that demonstrate my love even if that is a choice that appears to go against my self interest… I’m free to do so… or not to … choosing not to throws into question whether I have chosen to love the other or am actually only choosing to love myself… choosing to love means making choices in favour of the one I love… that’s love but it is a choice. So even in loving another and choosing to alter my behaviour I’m actually exercising my freedom!
I now need to find a John Milton quote on this subject from paradise lost which my father frequently quotes its between Adam and Eve…
rj
Said this on July 6th, 2007 at 4:08pm:Go; for thy stay, not free, absents thee more;
John Milton Paradise lost Chapter 9. (Adam to Eve!)
Ray
Said this on July 6th, 2007 at 5:27pm:“For me, this is how I view those who choose to adopt single-mindedly the scientific outlook – that is to say those who insist that ultimately everything in life can be fathomed in a deterministic fashion. My opinion of such an outlook is that it lacks; to live a life under such a philosophical outlook would be to live only half a life.”
Should an individual hold a scientific view of the world, which you suggest is “half a life” I assume you would consider fixing this deficiency by either adding to the existing view or supplanting entirely with a faith position.
I would suggest that contrary to half a life, a single world view may lead one to live a perfectly fulfilling happy life, whether such a world view is scientific or a faith position.
Indeed it is often when we hold more than one view, in a constant internal struggle between competing views, that life may become an unhappy one. Unless these views are coalesced into a model that for the individual becomes one (that is, a single world view), I suggest here is a person that would lead less of a life, forever in battle, striving for reassurance until the pendulum stops.
As one who wrestles with his “lack of faith”, consistently falling back to a deterministic/scientific world view such comments leave little appeal. An individual will over the course of his life create, develop and foster several views, forever changing but always a single view, an amalgam, an holistic view is by nature subjective something contrary to choosing a view,
The act of “choosing” one’s outlook, it is often shaped by variables outside the control of the individual. This ability to choose view is analogous I suggest with choosing to believe in god, one does not just decide.
I find it intriguing just what kind of full life is achieved, when more than a single view is believed or a faith position adopted. Obviously without a faith position no religious fulfilment will occur, but is that the hole you believe is missing?
Also if I were to adopt a faith position which to my dismay held the view that god hates his creation and wants everyone to suffer, would that lead me to live a better more happy life – I would guess not. Therefore it seems not only does one need a faith position, but faith in a religion that rewards in some way the believer.
Whether one’s life is predetermined or predictable in theory, does not make it so in reality. Ultimately though I don’t believe whether we have a deterministic world or hold a scientific view is critical to leading a fulfilled happy life. Whether we have a god that doesn’t mind intervening in our seemingly deterministic world and how this affects “free will”, or indeed whether god exists at all, now that’s a far more interesting question.
AJ
Said this on July 7th, 2007 at 10:14am:ISC, RJ…
Thanks for comments. You got me thinking a bit more about my relationship with God. That just as we have to make space – curtail/exercise freedoms – and prefer one another in human relationships, we also need to do the same for God.
Ray….
I am sorry if my comment on living a “half life” was unhelpful and on reflection, I regret the choice of language. But just to make things clear, I am certainly not advocating replacing one totalizing conception for another. Although, I am having a pop at the single minded scientific world view, I stand by my comment – though, perhaps not the language used - no matter which conceptualizing world view is adopted. It will be fodder for future blogs, but I am equally – and perhaps more so - perturbed by those who adopt dogmatic religious views.
In this short series of posts I have been trying to undermine something of the hegemony of the scientific outlook. I believe that all our concepts of reality lack; all of our understandings - theological, mythical, scientific, philosophical - ultimately are human constructs designed to provide some form of explanation, but I take your point, they also function to provide some form of reassurance and meaning - and I should tread more carefully.
But that said, I cannot help myself react against any totalizing world view and interestingly, although ostensibly I have had the scientific outlook in mind, I actually have the religious view ultimately in my sights. Whilst I am bothered by the single minded scientific perspective philosophically, I am deeply concerned by the dogmatic religious view morally, but this is stuff for future blogs. Just to say now though, part of my reason for pointing out the philosophical short comings of the scientific method is to highlight for those who do hold dogmatic views, that no line of human enquiry - even those that seem at first indisputable – is beyond questioning and that goes, too, for any faith position.
Finally, I agree with your last comment:
Whether we have a god that doesn’t mind intervening in our seemingly deterministic world and how this affects “free will”… [is] a far more interesting question.
I broached a brief thought on this in response to your previous comment but I do want to say more now as I definitely want to reflect on this question in future posts - that said though, I am going to move onto a different tack for a while, as I feel exhausted by this stuff for the time being.
Please keep posting your thoughts, I realize you and I come from sometimes radically different perspectives but I always enjoy the conversation.
Saj
Said this on July 9th, 2007 at 2:04pm:Leaving aside the question of whether or not free will exists, I do wonder whether the choice to love God is entirely free. Rather like living in a mysterious mafia empire, we could lead our entire lives never knowing who’s really pulling the strings. Or we could one day be confronted with the Don himself, and then we have a “choice” – reject him and be damned, or love him and be joined with his empire.
AJ
Said this on July 15th, 2007 at 12:42pm:Hey Saj
Your comment has me thinking and at this time I do not want to answer until I have reflected more.
I do not believe God is invisibly pulling the strings, as it were, of our reality. Our freedom is fundamental to my understanding of God and our relationship with him – and I think this should be coming out in the recent blogs I have been posting. And this is partly why I think prayer is so important because it is us asking God to intervene in our reality – not God imposing his will.
Where your comment has got me thinking though, is along the lines of the Christian understanding of future judgement – a day when God will judge our lives and we must give account. Whilst this is slightly different to the point you raised, it is encompassed by it. It would seem that if such a day were to occur, God would certainly be inflicting his (her) will.
These are opening thoughts for me, I do not normally voice stuff whilst I am still at this early stage of musing but hey, in the spirit of what I am trying to do on this site, I think it is necessary.
rj
Said this on July 17th, 2007 at 7:46pm:I’ve been “musing” on freedom…. it’s funny when you start thinking on something it appears everywhere!!!!
I was reading a book which was discussing friendship and said that friend meant “free-one”. I’ve never thought of this before, in a world where some are slaves and bound or forced to act for another, a friend is all the more amazing when they are free to choose to be in relationship and be there for another! This led me to re-think about one of my favourite (if not favourite) verses in John 15:15, “I no longer call you you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead I have called you friends….” We are free-ones with God not slaves.
Ummm and then I’ve been thinking about what is freedom?
So I’m working in Galations 5 for something at the moment and there is freedom again but its freedom from self, not freedom to please self.
I was in the message “It is absolutely clear that God has called you to a free life. Just make sure that you don’t use this freedom as an excuse to do whatever you want to do and destroy your freedom. Rather, use your freedom to serve one another in love; that’s how freedom grows.”….”the free spirit is incompatible with self interest.”
He explains if we live for self we end up with “ugly parodies of community.”
I thought this tied in with your thinking on church.
Only free people can form a loving community; it has to be a group of free-ones!