Comments on: Loving theoretical activity http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/09/loving-theoretical-activity/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Bret Lythgoe http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/09/loving-theoretical-activity/#comment-13993 Bret Lythgoe Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:51:39 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=8723#comment-13993 I certainly echo your comments, about the need to avoid reductionism, in our intellectual affairs. And clearly one of the most popular, right now, in the reductionism department, is the misuse of neuroscience. The latter, is, unquestionably, a legitimate, and respectable science. But some of its louder, and less nuanced proponants, have argued that it can explain all of humanity, and the belief in a soul, and/or free will, are pure superstitions. One of the most insideous aspects of this, is the corollary, to the belief that free will is nonexistent, that people cannot be held responsible for their bad behaviors. This view, if widely accepted, would be dangerous to our civilization. One essential component, of our legal system, is the presupposition that adults are responsible for their behavior, unless one can show extenuating circumstances. This approach, has allowed for those with severe mental illness, to not be considered culpable for behavior, that harmed others. But the new reductionism, argues, that anyone who does anything outlandish, must have some dysfunction occurring in some of his neural circuits. This approach, not only is problematic for relgious notions of a soul, and the possibility of an afterlife, but also, to our sense of ourselves as autonomous, free human persons, who can choose good, or evil. I certainly echo your comments, about the need to avoid reductionism, in our intellectual affairs. And clearly one of the most popular, right now, in the reductionism department, is the misuse of neuroscience. The latter, is, unquestionably, a legitimate, and respectable science. But some of its louder, and less nuanced proponants, have argued that it can explain all of humanity, and the belief in a soul, and/or free will, are pure superstitions.

One of the most insideous aspects of this, is the corollary, to the belief that free will is nonexistent, that people cannot be held responsible for their bad behaviors. This view, if widely accepted, would be dangerous to our civilization.

One essential component, of our legal system, is the presupposition that adults are responsible for their behavior, unless one can show extenuating circumstances.

This approach, has allowed for those with severe mental illness, to not be considered culpable for behavior, that harmed others. But the new reductionism, argues, that anyone who does anything outlandish, must have some dysfunction occurring in some of his neural circuits.

This approach, not only is problematic for relgious notions of a soul, and the possibility of an afterlife, but also, to our sense of ourselves as autonomous, free human persons, who can choose good, or evil.

]]>