Has your computer ever automatically decided to upgrade itself from Windows 98 to Windows XP? When you turned it on have you found a message that it had written on the monitor that said, “I really felt outdated running with this Windows 98. I kept waiting for you to upgrade me, but since you were slow in getting around to it, I decided to do it myself.” Of course, this is a dumb question (except for Mac users, who believe that Macs can do anything). Computers can’t do anything for themselves but can only respond to what is done to them from the outside.
In this series of posts, we have been discussing the question of how we can change from what we are to what we want and ought to be. We noted that different views of the human being lead to related views of change. This computer model is the view of the human being advanced by behaviorism. This psychological theory, most famously championed by B.F. Skinner, contends that the individual has no will, no capacity to choose to change himself, but rather that society programs him, and he has no capacity to override that programming. He is merely a biological machine responding to stimuli.
This model is compatible with a naturalistic approach to origins, which only believes in the existence of matter and energy, thus eliminating the possibility of an immaterial soul. This view reduces human beings to biological machinery.
B.F. Skinner was perceptive enough and honest enough to understand and convey the full implications of this position. In his popular book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner observes that the commonly held perspective of the human being believes that “a person is responsible for his behavior, not only in the sense that he may be justly blamed or punished when he behaves badly, but also in the sense that he is to be given credit and admired for his achievements.” He contrasts this perspective with that of behaviorism by observing: “A scientific analysis shifts the credit as well as the blame to the environment….” In other words, Skinner believed that science had proven his position that human beings are merely biological machines, and acknowledges that this view leads to the conclusion that the individual should neither be held responsible for his bad behavior nor given credit for his good behavior. He does not possess the freedom to make genuine choices and consequently lacks the dignity to act with love, responsibility, courage, fidelity, and nobility.
Therefore, the behaviorist position is that we have no capacity to change, but must depend on our environment to reprogram us if we are to become better people. Of course, society may program us for worse instead of for better. As we consider the nature of our current society, the odds favor a change for the worse.
This lack of a soul and that corresponding incapacity of the individual to be responsible for wrongdoing and credited for good deeds strips the person of value. Or to put it differently, the person of behaviorism is a non-person.
The good news is that the Bible does not view us his way. God holds us responsible for our actions and calls us to change. In Genesis 4:6-7 we read: “Then the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.’” Likewise, in multitudes of other passages we find God calling us to obey Him and holding us responsible to do so.
Though the behaviorist view has had significant impact on our society in the past, and still has some lingering influence, currently other views of the human being and the nature of change are more influential. In our next post, I plan to discuss one of those views.