{"id":2139,"date":"2011-06-22T08:34:14","date_gmt":"2011-06-22T15:34:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tgdarkly.com\/blog\/?p=2139"},"modified":"2011-06-22T08:34:14","modified_gmt":"2011-06-22T15:34:14","slug":"law-neurobiology-and-the-soul-part-v-the-soul-moral-agency-and-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2011\/06\/22\/law-neurobiology-and-the-soul-part-v-the-soul-moral-agency-and-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Law, Neurobiology, and the Soul, Part V: the Soul, Moral Agency, and Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Later this week I\u2019m heading to Poland for the \u201cWhat is Life:\u00a0 Theology, Science, Philosophy<\/a>\u201d conference.\u00a0 It will be a chance to connect with my dissertation adviser, meet some new people, and take in some interesting presentations (and, I hope, enjoy some good Polish food and drink!).\u00a0 I\u2019m presenting a version of my paper Towards a Critical Realist Theology of Law, Neurobiology and the Soul<\/a>.\u00a0 This paper in many ways serves as a sketch of my dissertation project, which I\u2019m sure will change and develop as I proceed.\u00a0 I\u2019ll post portions of it in this series of posts.\u00a0 Below is Part V, and here are links to Part I<\/a>, Part II<\/a>, Part III<\/a>, and Part IV<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Neurobiology, the Soul, Moral Agency, and Law<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The notion of “moral agency” is precisely what many legal theorists interested in neurobiology are challenging.\u00a0 Martha Farah notes with some understatement that “[t]he idea that behavior is determined by physical causes is hard to reconcile with the intuitive notions of free will and moral agency on which our legal systems are based.\u201d[1]<\/a> \u201cFree will\u201d \u2013 at least \u201clibertarian\u201d free will \u2013 is an illusion, they argue.\u00a0 Among their most compelling bits of evidence for this claim are studies suggesting that the brain signals the body to engage in actions before we become consciously aware of the action we will take.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 This \u201cprecognition\u201d suggests that our actions are automatic responses to stimuli and that our conscious \u201cdecisions\u201d are really merely ex post<\/em> determinations not to \u201cveto\u201d what the brain has already signaled its readiness to do.\u00a0 We have, at best, \u201cfree won\u2019t\u201d rather than \u201cfree will.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Therefore, \u201caccording to neuroscience, no one person is more or less responsible than any other for actions.\u00a0 We are all part of a deterministic system that someday, in theory, we will completely understand.\u201d[4]<\/a>\u00a0 The notion of \u201cresponsibility\u201d is only a \u201csocial construct,\u201d law is an instrumentalist tool useful for engineering of the society we are constructing, and the society we are constructing ultimately is reducible to the evolutionary history embedded in our brains.<\/p>\n

Sin:\u00a0 Parallel or Orthogonal to Neurobiology?<\/em><\/p>\n

The neurobiological account of personhood and responsibility implies some obvious dissonances with theology, but we might focus for a moment on a possible area of congruence.\u00a0 In one sense, neurobiology confirms St. Paul\u2019s cri de coeur<\/em>:\u00a0 our wills are not our own.\u00a0 Human beings are bent towards conduct that we label \u201cviolent,\u201d \u201cselfish,\u201d \u201cantisocial\u201d or \u201csinful.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Evolutionary sociobiology also trades in cooperation and altruism, or at least the appearance of \u201caltruism\u201d through “group selection.”[5]<\/a>\u00a0 The game theoretic coordination of group activity is a lynchpin of sociobiological theory.\u00a0 For sociobiology, like St. Paul, we often find that we are at war with ourselves, and like St. Augustine, we can discern self-serving motives even behind our most seemingly benevolent actions.\u00a0 In a practical sense, whether we say that positive law is an expression of selection for social traits that promote group survival, or that positive law is necessary to curb the influence of sin, we appear to be saying much of the same thing.\u00a0 The ultimate \u201cgood,\u201d whether it is a biological imperative or a Divinely appointed eschatological goal, is human flourishing.<\/p>\n

But of course, in some ways the similarity is only superficial.\u00a0 The Christian account of sin is that it is alien, an invader introduced into creation by cosmic evil forces, human will, or both.[6]<\/a>\u00a0 The Biblical story of the temptation of Adam and Eve must be an imaginative literary portrait if the scientific account of human origins is even close to true, but nevertheless, for Christian theology to have coherence, the story must be ontologically true at some basic level.\u00a0 From the perspective of Christian theology, our essential created nature is \u201cvery good\u201d (Gen. 1:31).\u00a0 Humans are God\u2019s image-bearers, created for wholesome relationships with God, each other, and the rest of creation.\u00a0 If the inclinations and brain-mind mechanisms we have inherited from our evolutionary past are called \u201csin,\u201d<\/em> is the image of God itself sinful, and is God then the author of sin?[7]<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Christian account of how sin disrupts human \u201cflourishing\u201d also offers a different horizon than that of sociobiology.\u00a0 From the perspective of sociobiology, \u201cflourishing\u201d is simply and only the survival of genes, and the survival of genes is simply and only a material and historical drive.\u00a0 Sociobiology can speak of what \u201cworks,\u201d but it cannot speak of what is \u201cgood.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

For Christian theology, human \u201cflourishing\u201d derives ultimately from God\u2019s goodness.\u00a0 The telos<\/em> of creation is peace, the harmony of right relationships and the full flowering of all the gifts God has bestowed on the creation.\u00a0 This teleology of creation derives from\u00a0 the perichoretic relationality of the Triune God Himself.\u00a0 The creation, Christian theology asserts, is \u201ccontingent,\u201d in that it depends on God\u2019s creative, sustaining will for its existence.\u00a0 However, the creation is not arbitrary.\u00a0 It had to be<\/em> and it will be <\/em>consistent with God\u2019s own loving character because God is<\/em> love.\u00a0 The telos<\/em> of creation, including that of human beings, therefore is ultimately eternal and eschatological.\u00a0\u00a0 The material and historical nature of humanity, although corrupted, is not elided, but is transformed proleptically by the eternal and eschatological.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A Christian account of law and neurobiology in relation to the problem of sin and human flourishing, then, can incorporate<\/em> the findings of the neurosciences but can never permit human ontology to be reduced<\/em> to those findings.\u00a0 Whether a nonreductive physicalist Christian anthropology is in this sense truly \u201cnonreductive\u201d remains an open, indeed difficult, question.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a>Martha Farah, “Responsibility and Brain Function,”<\/em> available at\u00a0 http:\/\/neuroethics.upenn.edu\/index.php\/penn-neuroethics-briefing\/responsibility-a-brain-function<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Garland, Neuroscience and the Law, <\/em>supra <\/em>Note 48, at 56.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at 68.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> For an overview of\u00a0 the concept of group selection, see Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd, Darwinian Evolutionary Ethics:\u00a0 Between Patriotism and Sympathy<\/em>, in Evolution and Ethics, supra <\/em>Note 1.\u00a0 Richerson and Boyd summarize their perspective through the following propositions:<\/p>\n

(1) that group selection is the basic mechanism explaining human moral impulses; (2) that an immense gap exists between the moral faculties of humans and other animals; (3) that the moral faculties evolved in the common ancestors of all living humans; and (4) that moral progress arises when humans create social institutions that enlarge sympathy and control patriotism.”\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 62.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> For a good discussion of sin and the problem of evil, see <\/em>Nigel Goring Wright, A Theology of the Dark Side:\u00a0 Putting the Power of Evil in its Place (InterVarsity Press 2003).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> In some respects, this question mirrors the debated in Reformed theology between \u201cinfralapsarians\u201d and \u201csurpalapsarians.\u201d\u00a0 There also remains the vexing question of the \u201corigin\u201d of evil and the presence of the \u201cserpent\u201d in the Garden (Gen. 3:1).\u00a0 Some contemporary theologians are seeking to recapture the Patristic reflection on a \u201ccosmic fall\u201d that implicates the creation in evil \u201cbefore\u201d the fall of Adam.\u00a0 See, e.g., <\/em>John Behr, The Mystery of Christ:\u00a0 Life in Death (SVS Press 2006).\u00a0 The quotation marks around the notion of something \u201cbefore\u201d the fall of Adam here reflect the idea that our Western, linear ideas about time do not map neatly onto the Biblical picture of creation, evil, sin and death.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Later this week I\u2019m heading to Poland for the \u201cWhat is Life:\u00a0 Theology, Science, Philosophy\u201d conference.\u00a0 It will be a chance to connect with my dissertation adviser, meet some new people, and take in some interesting presentations (and, I hope, enjoy some good Polish food and drink!).\u00a0 I\u2019m presenting a version of my paper Towards […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[38,50,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religious-legal-theory","category-science-and-religion","category-theology"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p824rZ-yv","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}