The topic of
free will is something I bring up frequently in this blog because I see it as
an important topic for discussion. I
also think the rejection of free will is: 1) tragic/dangerous and 2) foolish. I’ve heard many scientists state things such
as “it is only an illusion that we have free will” and “free will is a
delusion”. Worse yet, I think a few of
those scientists actually believe what they are saying. There is also a sentiment among a few scientists
that the experimental evidence already published is sufficient to confirm the
“no free will” hypothesis. Over time,
that kind of thinking slowly bleeds into the popular press and the common
psyche, so that the average person begins to have a vague notion that science
has proven that there is no free will.
This is where we are at today, and I worry that this fallacy will
continue to spread. If you have any
belief in the supernatural in any way, you should expend much more brainpower
on this issue than on other so-called issues of science vs. religion. To me, the fight against “effective
determinism” will be one of the most important battlegrounds of the 21st
century.
I would like
to discuss here why I consider “effective determinism” to be foolish, but first
a brief word (for now) on why I think it is tragic/dangerous. The ultimate consequence of effective
determinism is the loss of responsibility.
Ultimately, each individual is no longer responsible for his or her own
actions. I believe such thinking spells
the end of humanity and the descent to chaos.
I know that there are a number of effective determinists who try to say
that human responsibility is compatible with determinism. I don’t buy it. But that is a topic for the future. Suffice it to say that I consider this issue
more important to the ultimate future of mankind than nuclear war.
Before I go
further, I probably should explain why I refer to the opposing view as
“effective determinism”. I recognize
that there are varying degrees of belief in this issue, such as “hard
determinism” and “soft determinism” and so on.
There are also those who have a vague notion of determinism, but
probably haven’t thought through it very clearly. So, I’m making a sweeping generalization that
everyone who rejects the idea that there is anything beyond the material world
is an “effective determinist”. I’m not
sure that’s always fair, but we need a starting point, so that’s where I’m
starting. I may need to come back and
clean that generalization up a bit, but you’ll have to humor me for now.
Why do I call
effective determinism “foolishness”? For me it is
simple: there is nothing else that I
sense and experience more completely than my own free will. It is fully rational. To deny free will is to deny what every fiber
of my being tells me is true at every moment of the day. Why would you deny the obvious? The only reason to deny such a strong sense
and experience and rationality would be because of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. But that evidence would have
to be based on my senses and experience and rationality…all of which I would be
denying by denying free will.
I don’t
exclude the possibility of effective determinism as a logical impossibility,
though. I just think that if such a
concept as free will is going to be rejected, it must be rejected on the basis
of overwhelming evidence. As I have discussed in my previous entries on
free will, I think there is zero
evidence in contemporary science for effective determinism. I will continue to review and evaluate
scientific studies related to this issue and I hope to offer more critiques of
the papers that are out there in the future.
But even those of you who are hard determinists have to at least admit
that the evidence is weak at best. That
field of scientific inquiry into determinism and free will is, admittedly, in its
infancy and I expect there will be much better experimental designs, using much
better tools of analysis in the future.
But, as I discussed elsewhere, I’m skeptical that it will ever be
possible to design an experiment that produces the type of overwhelming
evidence that this situation requires.
Actually, of course, my prediction would be that if an experiment could
be set up that truly tests free will, it will be shown to exist.
We are in a
situation that often happens in this general field of the material vs. the
spiritual realms. If you start, as I
have, with the assumption that there is, or could be, something beyond the
material, then you probably conclude there is free will[1]. If you start with the assumption that there
is only the material world, as science always does and many scientists
frequently do, then you will probably settle on some sort of effective
determinism. The initial conditions determine the outcome, leaving us with a
complete impasse. You can’t argue the
“givens.” But…I have the overwhelming
evidence on “my” side. If you are an
effective determinist, it is because of the assumptions you are starting with
(materialism), not because of the
overwhelming evidence. My belief in free
will is a result of my non-materialist assumptions as well…I am in same boat as
the effective determinists in that regard…but I have the overwhelming evidence
of free will. And I don’t have to do
anything special to get that evidence – I just have to wake up and be
human. Even the staunch effective
determinisms find the evidence for free will hitting them in the face at every
moment of every day.
I don’t think
that most effective determinists really believe what they say they believe
anyway. I think it is just too hard for
them to deny their own overwhelming personal experience, despite their strong
materialist beliefs. For example,
effective determinists still use words like “chose” or “decide” when talking
about what humans do. They still act as
if most humans are responsible for their own actions. They certainly act as if they are responsible for their own actions (and they are!). They can’t escape their own sense of free
will, and it keeps seeping out in their conversation. Let me give you a perfect example. Michael Gazzaniga is one of the authors who
writes about this topic from a scientific point of view, and is clearly on the
side of “no free will”, someone I would classify as an effective determinist
(although I don’t think he would accept that term[2]). His book “Who’s in Charge” is a reasonable
read if you are interested in this topic.
But look at what he says in the first line of his acknowledgement at the
end: “My debt to colleagues…” Also “…Over the years I have been inspired by
many…” What does it mean to be indebted
to other humans if they don’t have free will?
Would you ever say “I’m indebted to a few cows[3]…?” After all, since I eat hamburgers, they are
responsible for what I “am” today! Or
could you be inspired by a cow? At least
inspired by a cow in the sense that you would want to run up and thank that
cow? Those words all lose a lot of their
meaning when you throw out free will. I
challenge any effective determinist to carry on a meaningful human conversation
without using terms that should be expressly forbidden from human language if
there is no free will.
I know that
human beings can be deluded or tricked by their own senses. Optical illusions are a common example of
this. But I can take a ruler and measure
the two lines and convince myself that they are the same length because my
experience also tells me that a wooden ruler doesn’t shrink or expand between
the time it takes to measure one line and then the next. However, just
because I know that there are optical illusions doesn’t mean that I stop
believing everything I see. In fact,
I can’t know about optical illusions without at least believing that what I see
is generally reliable. When I understand
the principles of optical illusions, I simply incorporate that into my
understanding of what I see – but I don’t throw out vision entirely. So, yes, maybe there are times where we have
the illusion of free will when we don’t.
We are certainly subject to subliminal messages and addictions and
phobias and so on that affect the decisions we make. But these should only serve to modify our
understanding of free will and responsibility, not make us throw it out.
For me,
calling the view of effective determinism “foolish” feels a bit harsh. I tried to think of another term. But ultimately, it just seems foolish for me
to deny the one thing I know is true by my own personal experience, without any
solid evidence to the contrary. I just
can’t do it.
Well, like I have said before: there is more to come. It is not an easy topic, but it is well-worth
the effort spent in thinking it through.
[1]
There is a major issue here that I’m ignoring for the moment, which is the
whole discussion of human will and God’s will that is a central theme in
Christianity over the last 2000, e.g. Calvinism, Arminianism, etc. But I see that issue as almost completely separate from what I am
talking about here. I’ll have to circle
back to that at some point. The
difference between natural and supernatural determinism is a vast
chasm!
[2] In
fact, to be fair, Gazzaniga is trying to argue that you can have moral
responsibility without free will. It’s a
noble attempt that will fail. It’s like
trying to argue that nuclear fission will only be used for generating power and
not for creating warheads. It would have
been great if that could have been true, but it was not.
[3]
Yes, I use cows here instead of dogs because people often treat dogs as if they
were human, but hardly ever treat cows that way, and my arguments would get
lost in that rabbit trail.
No comments:
Post a Comment