Humans as Animals Lacking Free-will

One of the most frequently discussed hypotheses in Straw Dogs is the idea that humans are lacking a radical separation from the animals. Gray’s main purpose behind reminding us of this seems to be rooted in one of the conclusions that allegedly follows from it: Namely, that free-will cannot exist if we believe the former to be true. Gray postulates that, in the world of Darwin, humans and animals alike are “products of chance and necessity,” and goes on to maintain that “we cannot choose to be what we are born. In that case, we cannot be responsible for what we do”^[1]  John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print. (65).. Therefore, one is not the author of his own actions; he has no free-will and thus can only react to external stimuli^[2]  Ibid.. This observation changes the entire outlook on life for Gray. Purpose becomes an invalid premise replaced by a single aim–to simply see ^[3]  Ibid. (199)..

“In the world shown us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress. To anyone reared on humanist hopes this is intolerable. As a result, Darwin’s teaching has been stood on its head, and Christianity’s Cardinal error – that humans are different from all other animals – has been given a new lease on life^[1]  John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print..”

John Gray

In this series of posts, I will attempt a critique of John Gray’s Straw Dogs. Specifically, I will be postulating that two of his arguments against humanism, though intriguing, are unfounded; and that this in turn renders his assessment of Christianity as a “failure” equally unfounded. The reasons for this connection will become clearer as one reads the text and begins to see that Gray’s arguments against humanism are one and the same with his supposedly solid arguments against Christianity. Ergo, as we dismantle the former, we likewise dismantle the latter.