Follow up on the Survey

For those who haven't seen it, there is a discussion over at Leiter on the survey, with special reference to the (alleged) connection between libertarianism and theism. This is a topic worth its own thread, I think.

My observation, for what it's worth, slightly orthogonal to the theism causes/correlates with libertarianism. Free will is a mainly US debate. There are few people in Australia and the UK, or on the continent, who have it as a major research interest. The US is also an outlier on reliigous world among developed countries. I suspect there is a connection. Two hypotheses: Christians, in particular, often think that libertarian free will is needed to justify divine reward and punishment (heaven and hell are pretty heavy duty sanctions). That keeps the debate going in the US, making it a focus in undergraduate courses and interesting both theists and atheists. Second hypothesis: if religion is personally gripping for a person, so is the problem of evil. This problem motivates interest in free will as a solution (and we get the extra US interest in the topic).

Comments

[Manuel Vargas]

Amen, Brother Levy. Amen.

[Justin Capes]

Neil,

I wonder how big an influence the heaven and hell thing has. Going to heaven, on the traditional Christian view, is not so much a reward as it is a gift. Of course, there is sometimes talk of extra reward in heaven for those who merit it. Also, I suspect (though I could be wrong about this) that many Christian philosophers in the U.S. if they believe in anything like the traditional doctrine of hell, see hell not as divine retribution but rather as the natural result of being out of fellowship with God. But, again, perhaps I'm wrong about this. I'd be interested to see what others think about this.

[Kip]

I'm not the biggest fan of either religion or libertarianism. So, without being too critical, I'll mention another possibility:

Libertarianism requires something "metaphysically extravagant." Religion itself is metaphysically extravagant. That is, God/religion provides a mechanism by which libertarianism seems plausible.

If God exists, then it's plausible that he endowed us with souls and special powers. All of this fits within a view of human exceptionalism, that human beings are qualitatively different than the rest of the animal kingdom.

But, if God doesn't exist, and we just evolved through Darwinian evolution, then there's no reason to think we have a special capacity for free will. This is especially true for the more magical agent-causal kind of libertarianism. But it's also true for event-causal libertarianism. I don't know of any reason why Kanean free will would evolve according to Darwinian principles of natural/sexual selection.

[Guy Fulton]

The respondants who belived the least in libertarianism were the Aesthetics with 1 / 38 (2.6%) in favor of the idea. Interestingly the Aesthetics had a slightly lower amount of atheists (68.4%) than average.

Cognitive Scientists also responded with a low opinion of libertarianism (3.5%), with very high (90%) atheism.

[Kip]

Along the comments about "heaven and hell," it's worth remembering that Galen Strawson said that the ultimate moral responsibility talked about in the Basic Argument is the "heaven and hell" variety.

That reinforces my claim/suspicion that anti-realists and libertarians are trying to capture the same thing (something different than compatibilists are). But G. Strawson's kind is logically impossible. Libertarians (especially event-causal libertarians) will say that their kind is not. So they can't be exactly the same.

Personally, I think that libertarians want the logically impossible kind that Strawson talks about--the ability to create yourself out of nothing--but don't fully appreciate that no amount of indeterminism will help them get there.

[Joshua Shepherd]

Guy,

If you include all respondents with Aesthetics, you get 119, and with this number you get slightly lower theists/lean theist at 12.5%, and slightly lower lib/lean lib at 12.5%.

Justin,

Suppose heaven is a gift, and hell the natural result of being out of fellowship with God, and add determinism. This sounds, to me, heinous. So I would think one feels pressure towards both incompatibilism (to get around the prospect of anyone deserving hell, while some go to heaven for no obvious reason) and libertarianism (to avoid God assigning hell to those who, through no free action of their own, qualify for entrance) if one thinks of heaven and hell as actual destinations.

But perhaps libertarians who are heaven/hell realists could chime in here. Are there any? If there are few, then it might be the propensity to posit a further fact, and a corresponding friendliness to substance causal accounts of action, which exlains the theist/libertarian correlation.

[Joshua Shepherd]

Sorry, further fact about personal identity, and explains has a p.

[Neil]

Justin, it doesn't matter (much) what sophisticated theists believe when the explandndum is why free will is a mainly US debate. There might be courses at undergraduate level which answer to student interest, even though the courses might aim to show that the interest is driven by naive views. But along the way the students might be introduced to - say - the consequence argument. And a good proportion of them might be bitten by the bug.

There is another, more proasic, explanation of why FW is a US debate: US philosophy is so much bigger than philosophy elsewhere that it can cater to the freaks people with eccentric tastes.

[R. Clarke]

Sending a human being to hell for eternity strikes me as morally suspect no matter what I imagine free will to be. Mercy, anyone?

[Tamler Sommers]

I agree unless it's Jorge Posada.

[Justin Capes]

Kip,

I'm a libertarian. I neither want nor believe in the impossible create-yourself-stuff--because it's impossible. I know lots of other really smart and thoughtful libertarians (and so do you). I'm pretty sure they neither want nor believe in that stuff either.

Josh,

Yep, that sounds about right. I stand corrected.

[Joshua Shepherd]

Prof. Sommers,

You should probably draw a distinction between hell and sport hell, just as Bill Simmons draws a distinction between hate and sport hate. For example, I think Tim Tebow, Coach K (yes), and any Tennessee football player deserve sport hell, because I sport hate them. But I don't want anything bad to happen to them outside of sports (okay, I do, but I try to suppress this desire).

However, it is possible to ask: is Posada sport responsible for being and doing those things that make you hate him? If so, we might be on our way to a theory of sport responsibility.

Apologies to everyone for the frivolous post. Couldn't resist.

[Kip]

Justin,

I know lots of smart and thoughtful libertarians. But I do think they're wrong on this one particular issue, just as each camp in the debate thinks the other side is wrong somehow.

The question of whether, at bottom, libertarians want something impossible is too complicated to hash out in this thread, though.

[Tamler]

Joshua, that's a great idea--a theory of sports responsibility. I had section in my dissertation how I couldn't accept my FW and MR denial when it came to sports. Absolving Hitler of moral responsibility was easier than absolving Alex Rodriguez. FW and MR skepticism drained all the fun out of being a sports fan. One of Galen Strawson's questions during my defense was: "In the sports and responsibility section, it almost sounds like you're serious." I said I was serious. He moved on to the next question.

Your theory of sports responsibility would take care of this problem. I'd be in your debt if you could develop it.

And I'm with you on coach K, even though I got my degree there. The lowest circle of sports hell might not be punishment enough.

[Justin Capes]

Kip,

My point was just this. Libertarians may in fact be wrong, but if we are wrong, I doubt it has anything to do with self-creation or heaven and hell responsibility. This is because few, if any, libertarians believe that free will involves self-creation or that the sort of responsibility at issue in the free will debate is of the heaven and hell variety. Certainly these conceptions of freedom and responsibility are no part of the libertarian thesis.

As you say, what libertarians want is an issue for another thread, but for what it's worth, as a libertarian I don't particular want anything. I just believe that we have free will and are morally responsible and that these things are incompatible with determinism.

On another note, I look forward to seeing Joshua's theory of sports responsibility.

[Kip]

Justin,

I don't buy that the libertarian error has nothing to do with self-creation. For example, a fundamental feature of Kane's free will is "Self-Forming Actions."

Also, the link between libertarianism and "heaven-and-hell" MR is implicit in the link between libertarianism and religion. The survey (the topic of this thread) shows that there is a link between the two. Excluding theists who don't believe in heaven and hell (and I think most Christians *do* believe in heaven and hell), the question is:

Why would God create heaven, and hell, and free will, but not have free will be the mechanism that helps decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

[Justin Capes]

Kip,

I'll just say this, and then you can have the last word, if you want. Libertarianism, as I understand it, is just the conjunction of incompatibilism with the thesis that we at least sometimes exercise free will and are morally responsible. I can't see how the impossibility of self-creation or heaven and hell responsibility has any bearing on the truth of libertarianism as such. To be sure, libertarians may have various different conceptions of what free will and responsibility involve, but none that I know views these things in the way Strawson does. You mention Kane, but I do not think Kane's self-forming actions amount to the self-creation Strawson has in mind. If by self-forming actions we mean actions that both (a) play an important role in forming the character of the person and (b) are not wholly determined by previous states of the person, then I should think many (all?) libertarians would agree that there could be such actions. But when Strawson talks about self-creating, he seems to have in mind something much more robust and (dare I say) obviously impossible.

It may be, as Neil and Joshua have suggested, that heaven and hell considerations play a role in explaining why so many theists are libertarians. But even so, that has nothing to do with what libertarians want or believe qua libertarians. I take it that many libertarians, and even many theistic libertarians, are attracted to the view quite independently of considerations of heaven and hell.

[b warmke]

"Also, the link between libertarianism and "heaven-and-hell" MR is implicit in the link between libertarianism and religion. The survey (the topic of this thread) shows that there is a link between the two."

Correlation? Perhaps. Causation? Eh.

I'd like Josh to develop a theory of sports ill-will. That way, I can hope that my opponent's fantasy football players get injured without feeling morally blameworthy for it.

[Kip]

Justin,

Your comments help clarify that we (probably) don't disagree.

Of course, libertarians do not endorse G. Strawson's notion of free will. Of course, there are differences between their kind of free will and Strawson's kind. I don't think that libertarians have made that gross of a mistake.

We certainly agree about that.

Here is where we probably disagree: I simply also believe, in addition to the above, that the appeal of the libertarian free will is based on its similarity to Strawson's magical kind of free will. I regard Strawson's kind as the simplest and purest form of the self-creating free wills that both libertarians and Strawson are after. But because that kind of free will is impossible, libertarians have to settle for something less.

[sam]

The views expressed here about libertarianism are more interesting than the survey results. There seems to be a common assumption (why?) that the libertarian ideal is unattainable/unrealistic, and then an attempt to relate this to religious inclinations of those individuals.

This would seem to imply a common assumption that the present political system(s) are "correct" (I suppose the assumption is because they "are"). I can imagine a similar discussion in a past age within the context of a theocracy discussing the bizarre nature of those individuals that imagine the every day man voting on what should be legal.

I propose a more significant question: How can anyone claiming to be an atheist not also be an anarchist, and vice versa? (After all where is the proof of government --in whatever form-- being the best thing or necessary? Or rather, the existence of a church is not a proof of God.)

[Joshua Shepherd]

Chalmers posted this at Leiter's blog:

"Among target faculty, there are 65 who favor both libertarianism and theism, making up 50.8% of the 128 who favor libertarianism and 47.8% of the 136 who favor theism. There are 51 who favor both libertarianism and atheism, making up 39.8% of the 128 who favor libertarianism and 7.6% of the 678 who favor atheism. There are also 46 who favor compatibilism and theism and 11 who favor no-free-will and theism, making up 33.8% and 8.1% of the 136 theists respectively."

This is in line with Justin and Mr. Warmke's comments indicating that though there may be a correlation, there's nothing like a direct link between theism and libertarianism, at least for the target faculty.

On another note, given the sheer irrationality of so much sports discourse (see almost every Jason Whitlock column), I'd think non-cognitivism about sports claims would be the most plausible view. As for sports emotions, like ill will towards fantasy players, you've got a career of work there. I'd start by suggesting that sports hate, when done well, is not a sports vice, but a sports virtue.

And as for sports responsibility, I think one might begin with what we could call 'The Bowden Problem,' or why we seem to embrace incompatible theories of responsibility for those affiliated with our teams, vs. those affiliated with hated teams.

[Alan]

There must be some strong correlation at work for some of the subpopulations of conjoined beliefs (FWinc & theism; consequentialism and atheism; etc.) simply because many philosophers--and rightly I think--attempt to have beliefs that fit within their overall worldviews. I have not pored over the results, but I would be shocked if this were not significantly the case even for fairly large conjunctions of beliefs for a significant number of philosophers. But I do wonder whether "Whitman Sampler" philosophers outnumber the worldviewers.

In any case we owe Chalmers and Bourget deepest thanks for undertaking a long-overdue project.

And an aside: my degree is from UTK and yes, the football program--like most at big schools--really makes me cringe in all sorts of ways. But the remarks about sports are on the money. When I teach emotivism I always use sports fanaticism as an analogy: there's a lot of disagreement in subjective attitude there, but not a hell of a lot of what can even remotely be called objective reason. Yes, I know that stats matter, but I am also reminded that Coke and Pepsi use taste-test stats to shore up their own side of the "debate".

[Andrei Buckareff]

Regarding Sam's comment, I think you are confusing political libertarianism with libertarianism in the free will debate. For the record, a person can be a socialist AND a libertarian about free will. And one can be a compatibilist or a hard incompatibilist AND a political libertarian. One's political views and views about the metaphysics of free agency need not covary. This blog is devoted to issues about the metaphysics of free agency and closely related issues. (Which is not to say that agency has nothing to do with political philosophy. For instance, there is some interesting literature on luck and injustice and collective agency and deliberative democracy). I hope that helps, Sam.

[Mike Robertson]

Sartre was an atheist and a libertarian.
St. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were Christians and were not libertarians.

Around the world and for millennia, many religious people have believed in some form of fate, kismet, karma, Providence or other transcendent force that limits freedom without limiting liability to divine or cosmic punishment.

Maybe the researchers ought to look in the other direction. Maybe there is a correlation between scientism and determinism (hard or soft).