William James was an American philosopher and psychologist, commonly referred to as " The Father of American Psychology".
He created a contrast of two differing mentalities: the tough-minded and the tender-minded.
The tough minded are those who stick to the facts: atheists, philosophical materialists, skeptics, etc.
The tender minded are those who cling to idealisms: the religious, philosophical idealists, mystics, etc.
I tend to agree with James that atheists are more tough-minded; they don’t cling to fantastical nonsense, due to existential anxieties. That’s not to say that modern day atheists don’t have their own mythologies and dogmas ( James agrees with me on this point, as well ), but in general, they are more tough-minded.
However, there is a significant area, where the atheists appear to be more tender-minded and the religious more tough-minded: free-will.
Free-will = independence
Determinism = dependence
Independence is a characteristic of the strong, of those who have tough-minds; dependence is for those incapable of enduring the weight of responsibility, of independence.
So, it could be construed that atheistic-determinists have a psychology of weakness, a fear of autonomy and that free-will mystics have a psychology of strength, an affirmative attitude towards independence and all the responsibilities associated with it.
That is an excellent insight Erik. Nietzsche wrote something about this but I can’t remember what book it was in.
But there is a problem with this. One might become an atheist/determinist because they are convinced of the truth of the theories, not because of any kind of weakness or fear. Sure, it may be the case that an atheist/determinist feels better because he believes these theories are true, but that isn’t the cause of why he believes these theories are true. So, having a psychology of weakness and a fear of autonomy isn’t the reason this particular person is an atheist/determinist, but it could be a consequence (or totally irrelevant).
In fact, I would even argue that the experience of fear and the feeling of weakness would never lead a person to believe there is no God or freewill. Think about it. How would, say, a low self esteem and lack of confidence ever lead one to reason there is no God or freewill? How does that follow? Right… depressives often lose their faith in God, but what would lead them to conclude there is no freewill? We’re talking about someone here who has no knowledge of the philosophy of determinism, of course.
The feeling of control… the syncopation of the decision and the action… a neat little feature of the brain. In fractions of a millisecond an action potential has already happened before the decision crosses your mind. We’re talking so fast you can’t notice it. To you, it seems as if the thought ‘get up’ precedes and causes the getting up, but it doesn’t Erik.
Now check this out. Assume a Spinozean parallelism of two modalities operating according to their own causal orders. We would have mind, the activity of which is the result of the causal relationship between ideas… and we would have the body, the activity of which is the result of the causal relationship of physically extended things in space and time.
Since every physical event is determined, the order of ideas that correspond with the thinking and the choosing to act are really following their own determined orders… and just happen to be in syncopation with the activity. In other words, one stuff is producing two causally closed ordered systems which run in parallel to each other. Wherever they intersect, awareness happens; when the causal order of ideas corresponds with the causal order of events, there is thinking.
Nietzsche claimed that the reason the religious believe in free-will is because it augments the power of guilt/sin, thus a more effective way to control the faithful sheep.
I’m not trying to make the case that all, nor that even most atheist/determinists have a weak psychology; but rather that it’s logically consistent that it’s possible for the reasons I stated.
Well a theocratic ruler would not believe in freewill because of the results a belief in freewill brought… since a result of believing something cannot be the reason for believing something.
Aha. (stick with me, Erik, I’ll learn you son)
Making people believe they have freewill makes them more manageable, yes, but such a noble liar (plato) does not himself believe in freewill because it makes his people more manageable. If he believes in freewill it is because there are statements, assertions and arguments about there being freewill that he believes are true.