Why Religion is More Dangerous Than Handguns

It seems to me that the decision, both as an individual and as a society, to
either punish or rehabilitate criminals hinges on the degree to which the
former believes in in free will vs. determinism. In short, if you believe in
free will, you believe that one can have all the disadvantages in the world
heaped upon him or her, but that when it comes time to make a moral
decision, this person will be expected–due to an innate and distinct free
will–to make the right decision.

You can draw a line directly from this belief to that of belief in
punishment. And for good reason: if inputs into a decision, such as being
severely beaten as a child, being raised by foster homes, having no
education, etc. have no ultimate effect, i.e. if the individual still has
complete control over their actions due to free will, then it makes sense to
punish people who do bad things.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say Chris is a bad guy. He runs with the wrong
crowd, gets in fights, carries a knife in case he has to stab someone, etc.
He’s hanging out with his buddies at his favorite pool hall one night, and
he’s with a girl he’s trying to get with. All his buddies are thugs,
basically, and honor and respect are the primary currency within the group.

Well, one guy in another group playing pool nearby decides to insult the
girl he’s trying to impress. His whole crew sees it, and they start hooting
and hollering to apply pressure. Basically, he needs to react aggressively
or he will lose both the respect of his group and of the girl he’s trying to
get with. While he’s trying to decide what to do, the other guy pushes him
straight in the chest and spits in his face. As he glances from side to side
he sees one look on everyone’s face: “Are you going to take that?”

He is overwhelmed by the urge to attack him, and before he knows it he is
drawing back his pool cue (still in his hand from his last shot) to strike.

Stop time.

What are the inputs here? Let’s say he’s genetically prone to violence. He
had no loving parents when he was a child. He was beaten constantly by his
father before he was abandoned by him. He has a 6th grade education. And
he’s into drugs and alcohol. Add that to the dynamic of needing to maintain
status within his only peer group–all of which are staring at him and
waiting for him to act.

These are all truths. They are realities that make up the variables leading
to a decision of whether or not he will hit this other man with a pool cue,
and ultimately go to jail.

The question I have for the free will group is, “what is the strength of his
free will in this situation, and how much does it matter?” Does he have the
same free will as a Harvard grad in the same scenario? In other words, if a
Harvard grad is in the same situation, and he immediately grabs his girl and
leaves while calling the cops, was he actually more moral or did he just not
have the same pressures to commit the negative action?

Remember, the Harvard grad has options. His girl will still stay with him if
he doesn’t get in the fight, and his friends will tell him he did the right
thing. Plus, he knows all the implications of his actions. He has much to
lose if he gets something put on his police record. None of these things
apply to Chris. In fact, they apply in the opposite direction. Everything
leans toward him attacking being the right thing to do–given his
situation.

In other words, how much free will is needed to make a correct decision
seems highly dependent on the pressures that exist already–most of which are
products of variables outside the control of the decision-maker.

The Harvard grad didn’t make a difficult decision because he had so many
options. Chris, on the other hand, didn’t have any options. From his
genetics to his upbringing to his immediate surroundings–he basically had no
option but to attack the guy.

To look at it another way, how much free will does a human exert when
deciding not to eat? A lot. How much free will does a human exert when
deciding not to fly like a duck? None. Why? Because there is no natural
pressure to fly like a duck. Along those same lines, how tempting would it
be for a man to sleep with the hot blonde he just met if he had been
castrated? Not at all.

The point is that will is tied directly to deterministic pressure to act.
And the more of that pressure you are facing, the less, your “will” is a
factor in your decisions.

That is, unless you’re highly religious. Religion solves this science and
nature problem by saying that all people have the same option to make the
right choice, regardless of whether the cards are stacked against them or
not. That would explain why the religious enjoy seeing criminals suffer so
much–because they believe they had THE OPTION to do the right thing.

Get a weekly breakdown of what’s happening in security and tech—and why it matters.

And it really goes all the way back. Let’s take the Garden of Eden
narrative. Here you have God, controlling the entire environment. The laws
of physics, the desires of Adam and Eve, the desirability of the tree, the
presence of the snake, etc. So he creates a piece of fruit on a tree that’s
so dangerous it will kill him (and everyone in the whole world after him).

Not only does he create the fruit, but he gives Adam both the eyes to see it
with, as well as the desire to eat it. Then, next to him, he creates two
other beings–both of which try and convince him to eat it. Keep in mind that
Adam could have been created without ears, so he couldn’t hear Eve and the
snake, but that would be too easy.

So, when Adam is about to take a bite of the apple, what is the balance of
natural pressure vs. free will at that moment? I’d argue it’s much the same
as the balance of pressure on Chris when he’s about to swing the pool cue.
In both cases the deck is completely stacked. In Adam’s case, the creator of
the Universe just put a tasty fruit right next to him, along with two
companions to convince him to eat it. For Chris, he’s facing a world of
loneliness and rejection if he doesn’t swing.

Anyway, enough analogies. The idea of punishing criminals because “they had
a choice” is, as the Hacker’s quote goes, “Universally stupid.” And the
alternative narrative is simple: you do what the variables say you’ll do.
That’s why most rich people come from a world of advantage, while most poor
and criminal types come from a world of disadvantage. If you need more
evidence, look at the data on common characteristics of serial killers’
lives (hint:abuse).

And some people get this. The Scandinavian countries tend to rehabilitate
rather than punish. Why? Because they understand that negative inputs lead
to negative outcomes, and that the concept of free will is little more than
a practical necessity at this point in our development–and certainly not
something to base a criminal justice system on.

So let’s sum up with some oversimplifications:

• Religion –> a belief in supernatural Free Will

• Free Will –> the belief that criminals deserve suffering

• Secular –> Less/No Religion

• Less/No Religion –> Less/No belief in supernatural Free Will

• Less/No belief in Free Will –> more belief in determinism

• Belief in determinism –> belief that the prosperous are lucky instead
  of virtuous, and that the poor and criminal are unlucky instead of evil
  or lazy

• This leads to a desire to elevate the variables for everyone, so that
  the better inputs will lead to better outputs

…which is progressivism/liberalism/socialism.

…which is why the Scandinavian countries are less into the idea of criminals
being “bad”, and more into re-education and rehabilitation. So, once again,
the U.S. is being hamstrung by religious culture. It is the belief in free
will over determinism that leads to the entire concept of “deserving”
something, e.g. riches or suffering. And it has to end if we want to make
any real progress. ::