I'm reminded of a group of studies (referenced through B.F. Skinner, I believe. I don't have direct reference) in which electrodes were implanted in test subjects' brains in such a place that when electrical currents were run through the electrode, the subject turned his/her head, involuntarily. The fascinating part was that none of the test subjects reported an involuntary action, indeed, they said they turned their heads on purpose, of their own free will. "I heard a noise" or "my neck was tired and I was stretching" or somesuch. As I said before, I don't truly believe in the self as true cause of action. Human behavior is a complex system, but it is a system.
It amazes me that there are people who actually embrace a worldview which suggests that they only have an illusion of free will and that everything that will ever happen in their life is inevitable.
Why not? My conscious awareness that the decisions I'm going to be making are determined by situational factors doesn't really affect how I feel about those decisions. I don't enjoy my life any less. Besides, we (should) already admit that certain people don't have control over themselves. The mentally ill, for instance, or drug addicts. There are obviously factors that compromise their will, and it would be both grotesque and ignorant to insist that a clinically depressed person just isn't trying hard enough to change their attitude, or that all a smack addict suffers from is a lack of personal fortitude and responsibility. Are they really free? Are they less free than we are? Or are the determining factors of their behavior just more obvious than usual? Will and determinism aren't necessarily incompatible as it is. After all, the best thing Bowie did to kick heroin was up and move to an environment that didn't enable it. Unfortunately for him, that city was Berlin, which came with its own vices.
Who says God is made of molecules? Are thoughts made of molecules? Are choices? Did you decide to call me an idiot, or did you call me an idiot because of an inexorable series of chemical reactions in your brain?
Are you making a "mental material" argument here, or are you being sardonic? I don't believe that when I think of my perfect island getaway, that island actually exists somewhere in reality. That perfect island getaway is in some way my brain state at the time of thought. It's not a full-fledged theory, it has its problems, but it's a better explanation than thought occupying some extradimensional space.
Regarding the review of
The God Delusion, it has a number of strong points regarding the backwardness of Dawkins' crusade, and I've pondered the quickness of young atheists to literally scapegoat religion as the ipso facto origin of all worldly ills myself. But somehow, the academic objections to the book and the movement it represents seem sort of beside the point. Out here in WASP country there are precious few people who appreciate the finer points of theology. All the talk of what christianity
really is is lost on all the people who will tell you that yes, Jesus did actually rise from the dead and yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old and yes, every word of Revelations will come to pass (do serious theologians not believe in Revelations?). I'd blame Dawkins for casting too broad a net, and allowing his rhetoric to cover non-protestants.
But having seen Daniel Dennett speak, he went at it less from an angry scientists' perspective and more of a philosopher's perspective, although the main focus of his lecture was the study of religion as meme. As any phi 101 student can tell you (and have you noticed how we're slowly cycling through all sorts of phi 101 topics?) any philosophy that prominently includes God is bound to be shittier than usual. Dennett certainly wasn't gung-ho about anything, and it was mighty disappointing that the Q&A after the lecture was mostly taken up by Dennett repeating his logic to clergy who angrily demanded for him to admit that God existed.
