Did My Neurons Make Me Do It – Prof Nancey Murphy
In August 2011, Prof Nancey Murphy undertook a speaking tour of eastern Australia on the subject of her book Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will. I was fortunate enough to attend her lecture in Brisbane, Queensland, delivered on Wednesday 27th August, 2011.
Nancey Murphy [B.A., PhD, Th.D.] is Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA. She has co-edited eleven volumes and authored ten books, including Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? and Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will.
Her research interests focus on the role of modern and postmodern philosophy in shaping Christian theology, on relations between theology and science, and on relations among philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and Christian anthropology.
Abstract: “Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?” Ten years ago I gave two lectures in Adelaide on “Why Christians Should Be Physicalists” and “How Physicalists Can Avoid Being Reductionists.” This lecture will be a follow-on to that program. I’ll briefly overview the justifications for a physicalist (as opposed to dualist) theory of human nature, but then focus on the work I’ve done in the meantime, showing why neurobiological reductionism fails. That is, due to our complex neural systems, informed by culture, we are able to transcend deterministic brain processes, allowing for genuine rationality, responsibility, and spirituality. I shall focus in my argument on the resources of the new science of complex adaptive systems theory.
Listen to her Brisbane lecture here.
Please take note of my extremely intelligent question to Prof Murphy which starts at 1:05:50 !!
Steve
on September 3rd, 2011
I’m sure a CHRISTIAN philosopher is going to have an unbiased opinion on free will.
rogermorris
on September 3rd, 2011
Steve, are you suggesting that a non-Christian philosopher would be any less biased in their opinions? That is ingenuous. No person – theist, atheist, skeptic or whatever – can ever claim to have an opinion that is untainted by bias, prejudice, presupposition and personal preference. No one.
Davis
on September 4th, 2011
Very interesting. I liked her arguments against reductionism and found her reasoning for “top down” physicalism really fascinating, but flawed.
She stated that neurobiology can now determine all functions attributed to the mind or soul. But wasn’t this whole talk about how reason and human agency can not be explained by cause and effect? While interesting, I don’t think she solved transitioning from a deterministic account to human agency.
She said that the Bible is silent regarding dualism and relies on language changes from biblical times for support. I don’t think that is going to be the scholarly answer.
The question as to if God is immaterial (and we are made in His image) then wouldn’t He interact with us in some immaterial way? I don’t think she adequately answered that as well as the problem of identity and divine agency.
Steve
on September 4th, 2011
Roger, of course I’m suggesting that a Christian philosopher is more biased in favor of free will than a non-Christian one. Without free will, how can there be damnable sin, unless God is even more of a hellish monster? And without damnable sin, why Jesus?
rogermorris
on September 4th, 2011
Steve, and of course many atheist philosophers would dearly love to abolish free will so as to abolish personal liability for apparent free will choices.
socratus
on September 19th, 2011
Theology and Physics
=.
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God
/ John 1:1 /
#
In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was written by formula: T = 0K
T = 0K is an Absolute Reference frame
Scientists call this Absolute Reference frame ‘ Vacuum’
But if in the beginning was the Absolute Infinite T = 0K,
can the T=0K take the functions of God?
Can T = 0K be an Absolute God?
To answer to this question we need to ask:
Which kind of particles can exist in this
Absolute Reference frame: T=0K?
#
And then ” God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light”
/ Genesis 1:3 /
#
My conclusion:
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ‘ Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta ‘
=.
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===.
Bill Powers
on November 2nd, 2011
It is not at all clear to me that “free will” is required for salvation. We tend to think that in order for punishment to be “deserved,” we must have “free will.” We need to ask, if this is true, what kind of “free will” is required. Will compatibilist free will do as well as incompatibilist? One need not hold to a hard determinism and still hold that we are not as free as we might wish or imagine. Does any amount of determinism or constraint entail that we cannot merit punishment? If we don’t merit punishment, does that entail that there ought be no punishment? To answer that it would seem necessary to wonder what the purpose of the punishment was. To my mind what these reflections indicate more than anything is our desperate need for a Savior, for of ourselves we are wholly inadequate. If this makes any sense, it is to say that no amount of free will can save us from ourselves. Free will is therefore, not only not necessary for salvation, it is strictly forbidden. What damns us or saves us is not free will. It is not what we have freely done or not freely done. We are, it seems, by nature, free or not, damned. All the heavens speak the same. It is only by some miraculous intervention that the vise of time and matter will not have its way.