Reading time 9 mins, 1700 wor
Temptation & Expulsion of Adam & Eve from Paradise, Panel from Sistine chapel Painted by Michelangelo Pic From: https://www.worldhistory.org
The Question of Freewill:
In two major philosophical systems, Christianity from the west and Hinduism from the east, we observe that both have a mixed stance on fatalism. In Hindu philosophy, there is the concept of ‘Karma’, which appears to be fatalistic, where your present life depends on what has been your karma of the previous life. However, there is also a way to change one’s fate, as determined by one’s Karma, by taking certain conscious steps. This indicates that humans can change their fate by their own volition.
In Christian theology, there are instances in the New Testament mentioned as fulfilments of prophesies from the ‘Scriptures’. However, right in the story of creation itself, the Bible indicates to humans having the ability to make a choice. If we have the ability to make a choice, it means the future is not determined, or the world in not fatalistic. Let us examine the creation story of the Bible.
According to the Bible, God made man in His (God’s) own image, placed him (man) in the Garden of Eden, made him the master over all living things on earth. Then, God put one condition: He forbade man from eating the fruit of the tree of wisdom. Adam & Eve chose to disobey God and ate from the forbidden tree, resulting in God punishing mankind. This act of choosing to eat of the forbidden tree is often treated as the evidence that God gave man ‘Freewill’.
Freewill is a philosophical concept, dealing with the ability of humans to make a choice independent of external factors. The question arises, if we do not have a freewill then how can we be held responsible for the wrongs we commit? The Catholic Church upholds the concept of freewill, teaching that God granted humans the freedom to choose between good and evil. This concept gives rise to the notion of sin, wherein individuals are accountable for their actions, and must seek redemption for committing a sin.
Aspects of Freewill:
The question of free will can be examined at various levels. Evidently, we don’t have the freewill to defy laws of physics. For instance, we cannot will a ball to disobey the laws of dynamics. This trivial aspect of freewill is not of interest in this discussion.
Let us look at some examples of choice exercised by humans, in daily life or in events of great impact to get a sense of the form of freewill we are discussing:
Choosing between strawberry or chocolate milkshake.
President Truman deciding to Nuke two Japanese cities.
Nelson Mandela’s decision of not pursuing retribution against the Afrikaners for apartheid.
Beethoven composing the Für Elise.
If we entertain the notion that there is no freewill, then, in all instances mentioned above, the outcome is predetermined, and the individuals involved are merely actors with no accountability for their actions. Truman, for example, would not be responsible for the massacre of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any more than Nelson Mandela for his humane approach, or Beethoven for his creative genius.
Science enters the debate:
In a 1959 interview to BBC, Bertrand Russell was asked about the difference between philosophy and science. He responded, “Roughly, science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don’t know. That’s a simple definition highlights that questions perpetually pass from philosophy to science as knowledge advances”. Recently, scientists have, started inquiring the existence of ‘freewill.’
Brian Greene, Sabine Hossenfender, and Robert Sapolsky are some of the professional scientists who have examined freewill closely and expressed their opinion in the matter. They all have concluded that we do not have a free will. Whereas modern philosophers like Daniel Dennett and John Searle refutes this stand and argues for existence of freewill.
A Deterministic World:
Let us understand the term ‘Determinism’. The belief that every event or outcome in the world follows from antecedents through a causal process, this can roughly be understood as determinism. Essentially, if we input the present state of the world into an equation, let us call this the World Equation, we should predict what would happen next. That we do not have such an equation with us currently is inconsequential to the structure of the world. After all, the laws of gravity always held, even before Newton discovered the equation for gravitational force.
If we have a freewill, it may mean that the world is not deterministic. Imagine a deterministic world if freewill is to be exercised then every individual’s will has to be an input into the World Equation. Brian Greene poses a question that according to modern theories of physics there are only four fundamental forces in nature that can influence matter. So how can the freewill of a person operate? So if I need to move a stone from position ‘A’ to position ‘B’, my freewill has to interact through one of these forces in order to make my brain commence the process that will make my hand move the stone from ’A’ to ‘B’. Physicists have not yet found any such influence of will on the brain, or say electrons in the brain.
Albeit, quantum physics allows a huge role for probability and randomness, freewill cannot be explained by random behaviour of particles. Take the case of choosing between Strawberry milkshake and chocolate milkshake, if the outcome has to be random then there is certainly no freewill. It is beside the point that quantum physics is applicable to micro particles (particles like atoms electrons etc.) and all their random behaviour sum up to a deterministic behaviour in the macro world (the world of objects that we see, perceive.)
The polymath Robert Sapolsky who is a biologist, neuro scientist and an endocrinologist arrives at absence of freewill from a very different approach. Broadly, his explanation is that every human action can be traced to his/her genes, upbringing, nutrition, cultural background etc. So when a person choses strawberry milkshake over the chocolate one at a particular instance it is an outcome of the antecedents right from the immediate past like ambient temperature, thirst etc. to the persons entire history and cultural background.
Compatibilism:
The philosophers Dennett and Searle have a nuanced stand that freewill is compatible with determinism. This view is called compatibilism. It seems to stem primarily from the possibility that our scientific knowledge is incomplete. After all, the exercise of freewill is something that every human being experiences every instance of his or her life. I decide to touch my nose and then my hand behaves accordingly. Ascribing this action to various antecedents and saying that I had no choice but to touch my nose may be compatible with present scientific knowledge but not satisfying intellectually.
The scientists denying freewill behave in a manner that assumes freewill. Their attempt to discuss this subject betrays their deep faith in freewill for why else will they attempt such conversations. Do they walk into a restaurant expecting the waiter to serve without letting the waiter know whether they desire to eat fish or chicken?
Can We Be Certain?
Freewill has to be examined at various levels.
Following laws of physics, as discussed about a ball following laws of dynamics in its trajectory. There is no scope for exercise of freewill.
In making a choice between strawberry and chocolate, our history including life experiences, family custom, cultural practices can certainly have a bearing on which way our decision will be inclined in general. Therefore, in such a case there is no freewill.
Building on point 2 above, there is a natural inclination to choose, let us say, strawberry. Nevertheless, can we, at certain instance, exercise choice, go against our predisposition, and order Chocolate?
Let us limit this discussion to the third category described above.
In our daily lives, we observe that we exercise freewill. As I type, I think, I am deciding which letter my finger should strike on the keyboard. Similar will be the experience of even a Robert Sapolsky why else would he make all the effort to present his arguments regarding absence of freewill, instead of thinking that the world has already determined that some people will believe that they have freewill while others will refute it so why should he make the futile effort to convince others.
These scientists explain that the freewill we experience is an illusion perfected by the process of evolution. When humans developed consciousness, for our survival, it became necessary that we believe in freewill. Natural selection ensured that humans, who experienced the illusion of freewill, would survive better and now the entire human race experiences it.
This is a disarming argument where humans are seemingly destined to perceive freewill. It is akin to saying that we humans can only perceive three dimensions of space while, in reality, there are, nine dimensions of space, as proposed in certain forms of string theory. There is no way we can refute this argument. Once we are stripped of this faculty of observing reality we run the risk of having to accept any gobbledygook as reality. I am not comfortable with such a stand.
I would like to believe that our general behaviour and choices depend on the antecedents and this limits the scope of freewill hugely in our lives. However, there are situations where freewill is exercised. Humans can go beyond the constraints of history and inclination and make a choice. Possibly President Truman could at the end have decided only to demonstrate the destructive power of the Atomic bomb by exploding it over sea and convince the Japanese to negotiate a cease fire.
That still leaves the question, asked by Brian Greene, by what mechanism does will interact with matter, electrons in the brain, to exercise choice. It’s a pertinent question. I don’t have an answer. I am pitifully aware that my arguments are driven more from my desire for a particular model of the world rather than on any firm ground. However, until indisputable evidence against it is made available, I shall hold on to believing that we have a freewill since we experience it.
Comentários