Is Free Will Real Or Is It An Illusion?

A materialistic worldview rejects God and posits that matter is all that exists. This is an increasingly common and influential worldview in our culture, particularly in academia. On this view the universe is basically a large machine which is simply working according to the laws of physics. Materialism is a deterministic view of reality.

One of the implications of a materialistic worldview for you and me is we do not have free will. The scientists and philosophers who hold this view and write about the subject understand this implication and suggest that what we believe to be free will is actually an illusion. We “think” we are exercising real choices in the course of our lives but guess what? We are not.

It is interesting, however, that some of the scientists and philosophers who hold this view will admit free will is an illusion we need to maintain.

For example, Marvin Minsky of MIT states, “No matter that the physical world provides no room for freedom of will; that concept is essential to our models of the mental realm.” He goes on to say, “We’re virtually forced to maintain that belief [free will], even though we know it’s false.”

There are a number of problems with the view that we do not have free will. It runs counter to common sense, for instance. Also, it does not adequately explain our human experience. Notice that Minsky, who holds a materialistic worldview, openly admits we, nevertheless, need to maintain the belief in free will even though we know it is false. Isn’t that a strange position for a scientist to hold?

There are other problems with the denial of free will, for example, if we do not have free will then we have no true basis for the concept of moral accountability. After all, we are just machines working according to the purely materialistic, pre-determined laws of the natural world. We shouldn’t hold a machine accountable for doing what it has been programmed to do, should we?

Christian theologian and philosopher Nancy Pearcey writes, “It is ironic that people who reject Christianity—who think that without God they can finally be free—end up with philosophies [like materialism] that deny human freedom.”

*NOTE: These thoughts were prompted after I read Part Two of Nancy Pearcey’s excellent book, “Finding Truth.” Nancy is a brilliant and insightful author who writes about substantive issues in an accessible way that even regular guys like me can understand.

Is Everyone Religious?

There’s a sense in which everyone is religious.  In other words, everyone has some ultimate principle or some starting point which they accept, on faith.  “Humans are inherently religious beings, created to be in relationship with God—and if they reject God, they don’t stop being religious; they simply find some other ultimate principle upon which to base their lives.” – Nancy Pearcey

Ideas Matter

Ideas are not inconsequential; ideas matter!  “Both Communism and National Socialism (Nazism) had their birth in abstract philosophical systems, discussed by university professors in classrooms and faculty lounges. Both were eventually imposed politically through a coercive state orthodoxy. And both were used by totalitarian regimes to justify the mass murder of their own citizens.” ~Nancy Pearcey

P.S.  I posted this because I know that some people believe the ideas that are debated and written about by “egghead” intellectuals in “ivory tower” universities are a waste of time and they have no impact on real life.  The truth, however, is that—as the examples above indicate—these ideas are ultimately embraced by real people and translated into real systems that GREATLY impact people’s lives.

Why Is "Secularism" A Problem? Read "Saving Leonardo" and Learn

“Saving Leonardo” has just become one of the most underlined and highlighted books I own!

Okay, I only own 5 books, but still…

My experience with Nancy Pearcey’s writing is primarily based on her previous book, “Total Truth”—which is outstanding.  I find her, once again, to be insightful, intellectually challenging, very interesting, and a brilliant analyst of culture—both historical culture and contemporary culture.

In “Saving Leonardo”, Pearcey describes, in compelling ways, why the increasing “secularism” in our world is a serious problem.  She makes the point that secularism is even a problem for those who do not consider themselves to be religious.  She writes, “Because the word ‘secular’ is the opposite of ‘religious’, many people assume that secularism is a problem for religious groups only.  Not so.  When politics loses its moral dimension, we all lose.  When political discourse is debased, the entire society suffers.  The reason Christians should be concerned is not to protect their own subculture, but to protect the democratic process for all people.”

Pearcey expands in helpful ways on the concept of the “fact/value split” about which she wrote in “Total Truth”.  She identifies the fact/value split as the “core of modern secularism”.  Read the book for her able defense of that contention. 

In Part 2 of “Saving Leonardo”, she addresses two paths to secularism—“originating in the clash between the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement”—in which she traces the “historical rise of secularism”. 

To demonstrate the effects of secularism on Western culture, Pearcey provides many examples of specific works of art ranging from literature, to painting, to music, to sculpture, to film, and more, explaining how they have contributed to secularism or how they display, knowingly or un-knowingly, the results of secularism’s steadily increasing influence. 

I found her thoughts on “Artists as Thinkers” to be interesting.  She writes, “The truth is that artists interact deeply with the thought of their day, translating worldviews into stories and images.”  Pearcey correctly identifies “art”—in its many manifestations—as a field of significant influence.  And perhaps it is more influential than many Christians realize or acknowledge.

Since I have not studied art in any serious, comprehensive way, there were a number of things I learned in Part 2 of the book.  Actually, now that I think of it, it would be more accurate to say that EVERYTHING in Part 2 of the book involved new learning for me…except the page numbering.  I was pretty familiar with that concept from the other 5 books I own.

I highly recommend “Saving Leonardo”.  Nancy Pearcey is brilliant.

Thank God For The Failure?

Loss and disappointment are hard. Shattered dreams can drive us to deep despair. But consider this quote: “God often has to cause our own plans to founder before we can see that he has much bigger plans than anything we hoped or dreamed.”--Nancy Pearcey Sometimes a failure is the price we pay for growing up into something larger and grander. Is it possible that you might one day say, “Thank God for that failure!”?