Thanks.

A recent argument has seen criticism of medical professionals social skills, that they are too remote and intellectualised to employ compassion or empathy. Medicine is no longer a vocation, more a status symbol and socio-economic elevator. In short, cherry picking by the privileged middle classes. This is supported by the Poulton et al. longitudinal study of deprivation.

While ‘incubus’ states that the “psychopath” uses free choice to become an “excellent businessman or a terrible criminal”, I would argue that learnt (or not) social skills and propinquity are the major determinants of lifestyle ‘choices’, even for the “psychopath”.

I would argue that the concept of ‘free will’ is determined by a combination of opportunity and awareness, and always limited by environment. I would also assert that the concept of ‘free will’ is a backlash against the authoritarian paternalistic regimes of the World Wars, and an individualistic ideal rather than a reality. Let the privileged middle classes exercise their ‘free will’, the rest of us do what we can to survive within the limitations of our life experience and opportunities.

Laziness (a much admired male quality) is often overridden by cultural expectations – working to afford social rewards. Cultural constructs determine what qualifies as ‘attractiveness’ with genetics held responsible for the accepted ‘norm of the day’. Tomorrow, even I may be in fashion!

Small towns can be the most oppressive of environments given to limitations of every kind (incl. inbreeding) … I wonder perhaps if your writers yearn more for a sense of ‘community’?
“The antidote for ignorance is experience”… the missing factor is opportunity.

Quite agree. One can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. My own view is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But, like the ad on the buses says, ‘There is probably no God.’ So we agree on the logic at least.

I can’t really comment on the rest of what you say since that is based on faith in God, which I do not possess.

Well, as I responded to someone else, we can only make broad picture generalisations about how someone will turn out. The determining factors in any given case are far too complex for any sure prediction. So you really can’t ‘lock John Doe up now before he has a chance to hurt people’. You could attempt to give John Doe all the positive environmental support you can, in the hope of redressing the balance in his conditioning. Determinism doesn’t mean not trying to change things. Our life experience is cumulative and the direction in which it goes is clearly determined in part by ongoing external environmental influences. It’s not as if your future were written in stone from the beginning.

If Joe Bloggs is destined to be a criminal, why not lock him up now, before he has a chance to hurt people. Why not ensure that John Doe has access to all the best education, and resources, after all it has been determined that he will be a great leader one day. It’s a slippery path toward something nasty, like eugenics, or that which is portrayed in ‘Gattaca’, from there.

I think that’s one reason why this subject brings with it so much feeling.

Also, for some of us mere mortals, taking away the chance we have to be anyone, do anything, no matter how slim, is a little more than we can cope with.

Well I wasn’t trying to provide an argument, I was merely stating my position. I was really chatting about the idea of small communities. But since you brought it up…

There is no irrefutable evidence for God, likewise there is no irrefutable evidence for a lack of God. I personally believe that God exists and that I have a relationship with Him, but that’s very personal and not something I can prove to others.

For me, hard determinism goes against God’s perfect goodness. It would mean that some souls are destined to damnation and I refuse to believe that a good God would allow that. I think that all souls can attain salvation, should they choose it.

It’s vital for souls to choose freely and that God’s goodness allows souls the freedom to reject Him, because freedom is a central part of human dignity. So for me, my belief in free will is theologically based, rather than philosophical.

One of my favourite books is “Silence” by Shusaku Endo. One theme in the book is how faith is affected by circumstance. One character says that he was born weak, too weak to be a martyr. The priest realises that this man, had there been no persecution, would have lived out his days as a good Christian, rather than betraying him to be tortured by the authorities.

How many of us good Christians would be apostates is we were persecuted? But because we live in times where we are free to believe the question is never met by us. On the other hand, how many of us are agnostics because circumstances have never pushed us to pray in despair?

Therefore I don’t discount circumstance but I don’t believe it is all. I think that each of us is given the ability to make a free choice.

On the punishment issue, I wish people could agree with you on determinism. Then we could focus on what really matters, that is, does the punishment work as a deterrent? If it does, then it is possibly justified. Are the free-will true believers so worried that they cannot justify punishment on a deterrance basis that they feel they need to invoke free-will superstition? Surely they shouldn’t be so defensive. Punishment must surely work to some extent, depending on how it is done and under what circusmtances.

Excellent idea, Ben. Thank you. Determinism will be off the conversation menu, though – it leads to raging arguments!