Nietzsche Essay #6: Beyond Good and Evil & Free Will

 * I'm taking a class on Friedrich Nietzsche and we do a 2-page essay on our weekly readings.  This is one of my essays. (Skips from 4 to 6 since there was no essay for week 5)

·      Describe Nietzsche’s view of the self in sections 19-23 [Beyond Good and Evil] and its relation to free will.

 

Nietzsche is committed to examining the human person from a “physio-psychological” view that takes seriously the naturalistic, non-teleological origins of humanity.  He speaks of an “evolutionary theory of the will to power.”  By this he refers to ingrained drives from our evolutionary past that move us to seek life and the release of power in the expanding pursuit of life.  For Nietzsche, it is important to recognize that the human psyche is a bundle of drives that are always multiple in number.  Nietzsche refers to the “many souls” of the human person. This is key, since he seemingly denies a substantial, cohering self.  Thus, Nietzsche refers to this unified self as the “synthetic concept of ‘I’.”

From this conception of the human person Nietzsche understands the notion of the “freedom of the will” to be a “complicated” affair rather than something that everyone (including philosophers) thinks as self-evident.  Nietzsche notes three aspects of “every act of willing.”[1]  First, there are a “multiplicity of feelings.”  These include various feelings of moving toward or away from something.  Second, “thinking” is involved in the act of willing.  This thinking is experienced as a “commanding thought.”  Nietzsche is quick to point out that there is no willing apart from thought.  The third element of the act of willing is “emotion.”  As Nietzsche states, “What is called ‘freedom of the will’ is essentially the emotions of superiority felt towards the one who must obey.”  Here Nietzsche makes a fascinating move.  He speaks not only of the self as commanding but also obeying.  The person is commanding “a Something in himself” but is also simultaneously one who “both command[s] and obey[s].” This multiplication of the self as one who both commands and receives the act of commanding is a direct result and implication of Nietzsche’s denial of a substantial, stable self as mentioned above. 

From this set of beliefs it is clear that Nietzsche denies any notion of “libertarian freedom.”  He thinks such a conception is an example of the internal contradiction causa sui—cause of itself. Nietzsche spares no rhetorical device to castigate such a notion of the will, calling it “a kind of logical freak or outrage,” “nonsense,” and an example of “cloddish simplicity.” With this denial of “free will” in its libertarian sense, one would think that Nietzsche is some sort of physical determinist but he makes an interesting philosophical move.[2]  He asks the reader to take another step and “likewise eliminate from his head the opposite of the non-concept ‘free will’: I mean the unfree will amounts to a misuse of cause and effect.”  In order to accomplish this Nietzsche has to relativize the concepts of “cause” and “effect” to the order of mere “conventional fictions” which do not explain but merely describe what we observe.  Since humans have merely invented the notion of “cause” (along with law, freedom, reason, and purpose) both the concepts of “free will” and “unfree will” are “mythology”—“it is only a matter of strong and weak wills.

Nietzsche adds one more psychological claim as to why people are prone to either affirm free will or deny it.  For those who want to affirm free will, it manifests a desire to maintain their personal responsibility.  For those who which to deny free will in a physically deterministic sense, this is a result of wanting “to be responsible for nothing, guilty of nothing.”

---

     [1]In The Gay Science(1882) section 127 Nietzsche also articulates a three-fold understanding of how the will comes into being.

     [2]Nietzsche seems to lean toward a physical determinism in his earlier work Human, All Too Human(1878) where he writes: “When we see a waterfall, we think we see freedom of will and choice in the innumerable turnings, windings, breakings of the waves; but everything is necessary; each movement can be calculated mathematically.  Thus it is with human actions; if one were omniscient, one would be able to calculate each individual action in advance, each step in the progress of knowledge, each error, each act of malice.”  Section 107 as found in The Nietzsche Reader(Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), 177.

Genesis: Days, Adam, and Evolution--Some Resources

The following are some resources on Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, etc.

A Taxonomy of Teleology: Phillip Johnson, the Intelligent Design Community and Young-Earth Creationism by Marcus Ross and Paul Nelson.  

* This essay appeared in Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 2006) edited by William Dembski.

The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, Cal.: Crux Press, 2001)--edited by David G. Hagopian.

* 24-Hour View: J. Ligon Duncan & David W. Hall

* Day-Age View: Hugh Ross & Gleason L. Archer

* Framework View: Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline 

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither (Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters) edited by Charles Halton (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2015)--contributors: James K. Hoffemeier, Gordon J. Wenham, and Kenton L. Sparks.

* Note: See Jason DeRouchie's review of this book HERE.

Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation edited by J. Daryl Charles (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2013).  Five views with the main contributors: Richard Averbeck, Todd Beall, C. John Collins, Tremper Longman III, and John Walton.

Three Views on Creation and Evolution edited by J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999).

* Young Earth Creationism: Paul Nelson & John Mark Reynolds

* Progressive Ceationism: Robert C. Newman

* Theistic Evolution: Howard J. Van Till

Four Views on the Historical Adam edited by Ardel B. Caneday and Matthew Barrett (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2013).

* No Historical Adam: Evolutionary Creation View--Denis O. Lamoureux

* A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View--John H. Walton

* A Historical Adam: Old-Earth Creation View--C. John Collins

* A Historical Adam: Young-Earth Creation View--William D. Barrick

Update (July 3, 2021): Vern Poythress has a helpful article outlining various evangelical views on Genesis 1 and 2--Evangelical Interpretations of Genesis 1-2.

Arizona Science Standards and the Different Definitions of Evolution

I have been engaged in a debate about the recently proposed revisions to the Arizona science standards.  The article "Evolution" Nixed in Portions of AZ School Science Standards Draft raised alarms about the removal of the word "evolution" in some places.  Here is one example...

The original statement reads: "Obtain, evaluate, and communicate evidence that describes how inherited traits in a population can lead to evolution."

The revised statement reads: "Obtain, evaluate, and communicate evidence that describes how inherited traits in a population can lead to biological diversity."

In light of this I wrote a comment and then subsequent discussion followed.  Below is my initial comment with responses and counter-responses.

Richard Klaus · 

Phoenix Seminary

The word "evolution" is open to a number of differing definitions and thus the possibility of equivocation is ever-present with the use of the word. In the screen shot above the word "evolution" was replaced by "biological diversity." In light of the context this replacement is actually more precise and open to empirical verification. There is still mention of "coevolution" and "natural selection." Beware of being overly enarmored with a word open to multiple definitions. Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas in an article entitled "The Meanings of Evolution" distinguish six different ways "evolution" is commonly used:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organims have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. "Blind watcmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

So "evolution" is not one thing. The above uses of the word and concept are not all the same and they do not all have the same epistemic status. The empirical data used for one the above may not be sufficient for other definitions. Furthermore, the last one--the "blind watchmaker" thesis--is laden with certain philosophical and even theological presuppositions.

No one is "nixing" evolution in the standards. There is, however, a quest for greater precision as to the concepts under discussion.

Like · Reply · 1 · 2d

Larry MacPhee · 

Flagstaff, Arizona

Perhaps seminarians should stick to things of a more religious or faith-based nature? There's plenty of contradictory subject matter in this field, like maybe reconciling the two conflicting origin stories in Genesis I and II, or explaining how Noah packed all those species on that ark, or why it's a sin to wear clothing of two kinds of thread.

Like · Reply · 2d

Robert Karaffa · 

Atlanta, Georgia

Stephen Meyer? You mean the Stephen Meyer of The Discovery Institute, that bastion of idiotic support of Intelligent Design that lost the Dover case in 2005? *THAT* Stephen Meyer? Srsly? LOL!

Like · Reply · 1 · 2d

Richard Klaus · 

Phoenix Seminary

Larry MacPhee I made two claims. First, the word "evolution" is open to equivocation. Second, the varying conceptions of evolution are not all of the same epistemic status. If you have a counter-argument it would be good to hear it. I'm engaging in a discussion of the philosophy of science. If you want a theological debate about the exegesis of specific Bible passages perhaps this isn't the forum for you.

Like · Reply · 2 · 2d

Richard Klaus · 

Phoenix Seminary

Robert Karaffa I made two claims. First, the word "evolution" is open to equivocation. Second, the varying conceptions of evolution are not all of the same epistemic status. If you have a counter-argument it would be good to hear it. Snarkiness and incredulity are not valid forms of logical argumentation.

Like · Reply · 2d

Kostyantyn Myroshnychenko · 

ULHT - Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias

Stephen Meyer is a creationist and his credibility on this subject matter is zero. You don't get your drunk neighbour Dave to perform brain surgery, so don't let creationists dictate your science.

Like · Reply · 1 · 2d

Tim Wilde

Richard Klaus; I think you're trying too hard here. All 6 of your proposed "speparate" definitions all say the same thing except they dont. Using definition one as a "change in nature" would be a silly and dumbed down explaination that I think only those who were failing their science class would walk away with. I.e. a Canyon doesnt "evolve" from a mountain. Yet a canyon is most certainly a "change in nature" over time. In context, we can use definition one to see, track, and understand an organisms change over time using evolutionary biology to track what changes were made, about when we see those changes in the records, etc.

3, 4, and 5, are just different wordings of the same definition which include different aspects of the agreed upon definition. Explicitly talking about organisms and groups or organisms and their evolutionary decent and evolutionary progress on those organisms. Trying to use these all as separate concepts is to try far too hard to break the definition because you, yourself, lack understanding of the concept or it's mechanisms.

6 is just pure religious assertion, describing evolutionary concepts but having the gall to discredit the concept using religious terms "unintelligent" "blind" and "lack of guidance or purpose" to slam religious views into the definition thereby tainting the definition for any religious person reading it. So no, you're not just "trying to have a discussion" you're trying to insert some talking points that make your religious arguments seem almost palatable, but makes you look ignorant on the subject you're trying to discuss.

Sorry you were born about a century and a half too late to participate in the "discussion" on the merits of evolution. The only thing that's happened in the last 150 years, is a greater understanding of the evolutionary process and stronger validation of evolutionary biology.

Like · Reply · 1d · Edited

Larry MacPhee · 

Flagstaff, Arizona

Richard Klaus I think you're defending some very misguided people, and the creationist/intelligent design sources you cite suggest that you are doing so with intent to deceive. The legislators aren't singling out the word evolution for removal because they want more distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, natural selection, speciation, etc. They are trying to overwrite scientific facts with their own personal religious beliefs. You are pretending to engage in a discussion of the philosophy of science but I'm skeptical that this is your true agenda.

Like · Reply · 1d

Richard Klaus · 

Phoenix Seminary

Larry MacPhee I made two claims. First, the word "evolution" is open to equivocation. Second, the varying conceptions of evolution are not all of the same epistemic status. If you have a counter-argument it would be good to hear it. Calling into question my motives--my alleged "intent to deceive"--is not rational or valid. If you don't want to discuss the arguments I brought forward that's fine but nothing is gained by ad hominem attacks.

Like · Reply · 38m

Richard Klaus · 

Phoenix Seminary

Tim Wilde thanks for the reply. A few items on what you wrote.

1. Your sentence: "All 6 of your proposed "speparate" definitions all say the same thing except they dont." You do realize that this sentence is self-contradictory--they "all say the same thing except they don't." Which is it? Are they saying the same thing or not?

2. Your sentence: "3, 4, and 5, are just different wordings of the same definition which include different aspects of the agreed upon definition." This is just false, as can be seen by anyone giving a fair reading to the definitions under consideration. Definition #3 concerns the issue of limited common descent whereas #5 is about universal common desecent. These are conceptually different and the evidence used to confirm #3 may not be enough to substantiate #5. Definition #4 is completely different in that it deals with the issue of the mechanism of natural selection. There may be evidence for natural selection that is very good (i.e., the Galapagos finch beaks) but this may or may not be sufficient to demonstrate either limited or universal common descent. The key issue, however, is that the definitions are conceptually distinct. And since the simplistic use of the word "evolution" can be used in an equivocal manner it is helpful to separate out the differing concepts.

3. Your sentence: "6 is just pure religious assertion, describing evolutionary concepts but having the gall to discredit the concept using religious terms "unintelligent" "blind" and "lack of guidance or purpose" to slam religious views into the definition thereby tainting the definition for any religious person reading it." No "gall" is intended nor needed. The notions of "unintelligent," "blind," and "lack of guidance or purpose" are often used by some scientists in their defenses of evolution. The concept of the "blind watchmaker thesis" is based off Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker." Consider the statements by the following well-known proponents of evolution:

"No interevening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...Not vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature." Stephen Jay Gould

"[I]t is already evident that all the objectivce phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors... Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." George Gaylord Simpson

"Perhaps most importantly, if the world and its creatures developed purely by material physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal... Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material mechanisms--but this seems to be the message of evolution." Douglas J. Futuyma

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exist; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
--William Provine (Cornell evolutionary biologist)

“Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In short it has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe, its contents and its cosmic history. But in making Darwinians into metaphysical nihilists, the solvent algorithm should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental.” --Tamler Sommers & Alex Rosenberg

For more quotations on this general theme see my blog post: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/.../quotations-on...

Trusting the Bible Over Evolutionary Science

James Anderson, associate professor of theology and philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, has written a very good article entitled Can We Trust the Bible Over Evolutionary Science?

He gives a nice introduction the the epistemological issues involved.  Well-worth reading!  Here's the introduction to Anderson's piece to whet the appetite...

It’s no secret that one of the main reasons unbelievers give for not believing the Bible is that modern science—specifically, evolutionary science—has shown that the Bible’s account of human origins is mistaken. Indeed, evolutionary science is not merely an obstacle to unbelievers; it can also be a stumbling block for professing Christians. There are many believers desperately trying to reconcile a high view of Scripture with mainstream scientific claims about our evolutionary origins, and those who cannot do so invariably end up downgrading their doctrine of Scripture. In some cases this is just the first step in a near-complete abandonment of Christian orthodoxy. For both believers and unbelievers, the claims of evolutionary science pose a serious challenge to the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Can we trust the Bible over evolutionary science? I doubt I need to issue a “spoiler alert” before revealing that my answer to the question will be an emphatic “Yes!” Even so, much needs to be discussed before delivering that affirmative conclusion. Why can we trust the Bible over evolutionary science? On what grounds can we answer the question with a confident “Yes”? That will be the primary focus of this article. Along the way, however, I also want to say some important things about how we ought to approach this question—and similar questions about the trustworthiness of the Bible—so that readers may be better equipped to deal with this and other challenges to Scripture.

Mapping the Origins Debate: A Summary of Gerald Rau's Taxonomy

Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything

by Gerald Rau (Downers Grove, Ill.: 2012)[1]

1.     Naturalistic evolution (NE):

“When most people use the term evolution, what they are referring to is naturalistic evolution (NE), based on philosophical naturalism, the conviction that everything can be explained by natural causes.  Naturalism is closely related to materialism, the idea that there is no reality apart from the material world, so naturalistic evolution could also be called materialistic evolution, but naturalistic is preferred since evolution is an explanation of a process rather than the underlying substance.” (42)

·      Philosophical axiom.  There is no supernatural, or nothing can be known about the supernatural.

·      Inferences.  Evidence from the natural world, empirical evidence, is the only basis for knowledge, so science is the only way of knowing and only explanations based on natural processes are allowed.

·      Logical conclusions.  Since the only things we can know are natural, anything else is mere speculation or pure falsehood. (43)

Proponents: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Edward O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Eugenie Scott

“Many of the writers of science textbooks also hold a naturalistic position, whether this directly stated or not.” (43)

2.     Nonteleological evolution (NTE):

“Nonteleological evolution (NTE) posits that there is no intervention of the supernatural after the foundation of the universe.  This is basically a deistic perspective, although many proponents would not willingly accept that moniker.  Many authors who support NTE espouse a liberal Christian theology, such as process theology… The term nonteleological is chosen to convey that although the universe was created with the ability to evolve, there was no specific end or direction (telos) in mind at the beginning.

“Nonteleological evolution is almost identical to naturalistic evolution in interpretation of the scientific evidence, with the exception of the origin of the universe, because it seeks to identify a natural cause for all natural phenomena subsequent to that point.” (44)

·      Philosophical axiom.  There is a supernatural, but whatever the nature of that force, it has no plan for the universe and therefore does not intervene in it.

·      Inferences.  Only natural forces have influenced the universe since its beginning.

·      Logical conclusion.  Since the supernatural does not direct the natural, naturalistic explanations are sufficient to explain any natural phenomenon. (44)

Proponents: Christian de Duve, Ian Barbour, John Haught.

3.     Planned evolution (PE):

“The difference between planned evolution (PE) and the two models just described is again more theological than scientific.  It is nevertheless important to list it as a separate model since the question of teleology, which separates them, plays a prominent role the debate and has important ramifications.  According to this view God had a definite plan in mind, which was set in motion at the moment of creation.” (45)

“According to PE, God has the capacity to intervene in nature but does not need to do so because of the perfection of the original creation, what Howard Van Till (1999) calls ‘the fully gifted creation,’ which is able to bring forth life in various forms over time in response to the changing conditions, ultimately leading to humankind.” (45)

“Scientifically, this results in a position almost identical to naturalistic evolution (NE) and nonteleological evolution (NTE), since God does not regularly intervene in the development of life or species, and therefore natural processes are thought to be sufficient to explain the evidence.  The difference lies in the fact that PE asserts the mechanisms for change were built into creation and established for the specific purpose of bringing about God’s plan of creating sentient being who could worship him.

“Since this model also seeks only natural causes after the moment of creation, the scientific inferences made are in many cases indistinguishable from NE and NTE.” (46)

·      Philosophical axiom.  God created the universe with a plan and created it perfectly to bring that plan to fruition without further intervention.

·      Inferences.  The natural laws and processes created by God are sufficient to account for all natural events since the moment of creation.

·      Logical conclusion.  Since God did not intervene in natural processes after creation, science can always find natural explanations for natural phenomena. (46)

Proponents: Howard Van Till, Francis Collins and the Biologos Foundation, Kenneth Miller

4.     Directed evolution (DE):

“Directed evolution (DE) and planned evolution share a similar overall interpretation of Genesis 1, although proponents of DE are more likely to view Adam and Eve as single individuals, progenitors of the entire human race.  Directed evolution asserts that God not only brought the universe into being but continues to act in it, not only in the lives of individuals in response to prayer but also in creative events, to bring about his plans.  In many cases this does not involve superseding natural law as much as direction of low probability events, hence the name of the model.”  (46-47)

“From a DE perspective, science and religion are not viewed as distinct or complementary domains of knowledge, but as interacting domains of knowledge.  This is a crucial difference.  Complementary domains have no overlap.  They deal with a separate set of questions and answer those questions based on disparate methodologies.  Interacting domains do intersect.  According to this view at least some questions are best addressed using evidence from both domains.  In the case of DE, the only evidence admitted from Scripture about origins is the existence of a deity who intervenes from time to time in miraculous ways, with science providing evidence for mechanism.  The two creationary models, described next, assert that Scripture also tells us something about the method of creation, which DE denies.” (47)

·      Philosophical axiom.  God has a predetermined purpose for the world, and the Bible shows that he intervenes in the natural world as necessary to accomplish that plan.

·      Inferences.  Miracles are recorded in the Bible to show that God intervenes occasionally in redemptive history, so it is reasonable to think the same might be true for natural history.

·      Logical conclusion.  Since we see a large number of low-probability events that seem to be directed toward a goal (teleological), these would be best explained as interventions. (48)

Proponents: “At this point I am not aware of any author who gives a complete scientific and religious justification of this model.” (48)

5.     Old-earth creation (OEC):

“Old-earth creation agrees with DE that science and religion are interacting domains of knowledge, but OEC further asserts that the Genesis account has explicit scientific value, that the order of events in Genesis 1 accurately reflects the order of what happened.” (49)

“At least four different models—PE, DE, OEC and YEC—believe that the Bible and the world are equally important revelations of God, and that the two, properly interpreted, will not conflict with each other.  Reflecting this tension between two sources of knowledge, empirical evidence and religious texts, OEC sometimes chooses to interpret the Bible in the light of scientific evidence, but other times chooses to interpret science in light of the Bible.”  (49)

·      Philosophical axiom.  God chooses to reveal himself through the Bible and creation, both of which clearly disclose his existence and identity.

·      Inferences.  We must find the most straightforward interpretations that allow us to harmonize the biblical statement that God created in six days with the empirical evidence that the universe and earth appear to be billions of years old.

·      Logical conclusion.  Since God wants his actions to be clear, the earth must indeed be billions of years old, and his work in creation will be clearly discernible as discrete creative acts over time, in the same order revealed in the Bible. (49-50)

Proponents: Hugh Ross and the staff of Reasons to Believe, Stephen Meyer, and many others at the Discovery Institute

6.     Young-earth creation (YEC):

“The Christian YEC model claims that the Bible clearly teaches that God created the world and everything in it in six literal twenty-four hour days about six thousand years ago, and that any other view involves ‘reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people’ (Ham, 2006: 88).  Other key tenets of YEC include Adam and Eve, two individuals created de novo by God, being the progenitors of all humans, one act of sin leading to the fall of humankind, no death of any sort before the fall, a worldwide flood and separation of human language groups at the tower of Babel.” (51)

·      Philosophical axiom.  The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and each word should be understood in accord with its normal, common meaning, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary within the Bible text itself.

·      Inferences.  When the Bible says God created everything in six days, it means six sequential twenty-four-hour days.  When it says he created each kind of animal, or that he created man (male and female), it means each was created separately and fully formed.

·      Logical conclusion.  Since the Bible says that God created everything in six days, and each kind of creature individually, only interpretations of scientific observations which are consistent with those revealed truths can be correct.  (52)

Proponents: Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, John Morris of Institute for Creation Research, Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds of the Discovery Institute, Kurt Wise.

---

     [1] Rau’s discussion of these models on pages 38-52 can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=HBulCYL4csMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false