The Atheist’s Dilemma: Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will
By Daniel Miessler on July 28th, 2007: Tagged as Ethics | Morality | Philosophy | Religion | Science
I have a number of friends that are religious fundamentalists. We enjoy debating the important issues of our respective belief systems: skepticism for me, and Christianity or Judaism for them. The latest of these has been free will. I’ve touched on the topic a number of times before, but would like to revisit it again.Upon being presented the moral mechanics of Christianity’s Fall of Man I again put forth my argument regarding free will in that situation:
Imagine the moment we chose to eat the apple. God wasn’t surprised because he designed our ENTIRE ability to choose. Think about that. Our very mechanism for “free will” was designed by God in every detail, with him knowing the outcome in advance. Free will isn’t something outside of God. It’s not a mystery to him. He made it. He knows precisely how it works, and he knew exactly what we’d choose.My fundamentalist friend’s reply was focused on the logical conclusions that I must reach were I to embrace a lack of free will in a practical sense. While I find the approach to be almost unrelated, it still has merit that’s worth exploring. He says:In other words, God created us atom by atom and thrust us into a difficult situation in which he already knew that we’d choose incorrectly. He knew this because he flawlessly designed our choice system, provided all the inputs, AND knew the outcome.
Explain to me again how it’s man’s fault that we suffer?
The guy that takes a sledge hammer to your BMW… don’t call the cops…it’s not his fault, no free will. The folks that are destroying the world (global warming, cultivation of the rain forest, water pollution) don’t hate on them…it isn’t their fault.This may seem to some like an absurd argument to some, but upon closer inspection there is something to it. It doesn’t speak to whether or not we have free will, but rather to the consequences of believing that we don’t. Quite simply, it says that if one is to embrace the idea of no-free-will to its logical conclusion then we must accept a whole package of uncomfortable truths along with it.
A World Without Free Will
Just for the sake of tidiness allow me to restate the no-free-will proposition that I’m offering. The basic idea is that however we got here, we are little more than highly complex machines. We process input through a finite and knowable system and arrive at a decision. That decision looks random to us because we neither have full knowledge of the decision system itself (our biology), nor the seemingly incalculable number of variables that influence it (every single event that’s ever influenced us).The unpleasant conclusion that we must reach when accepting the proposition above is that we have nothing to do with our fate. Happy people are lucky. Suffering people are unlucky. Murder cannot be held accountable for their actions, and no credit can be given to heroes for their bravery.
Just thinking about it almost throws me into a panic. Cognitive dissonance nearly overwhelms me. The idea instantly nullifies everything our civilization is built upon — most notably the very notion of personal responsibility. The criminal justice system becomes akin to a perverse child care system where babies are tortured for crying or asking for food.Defining the Variables
Perhaps free will is the necessary delusion after all. But if it’s necessary to ignore free will in order to function in this world, let’s at least define the truth before proceeding to turn our backs to it for practical reasons. Below I’ll attempt to present a universal theory of human action according to a world in which we lack free will. Here are the variables:- Where We Start Were you born in Etheopia or the Hamptons? Did you go to a private school or have you never seen a book? Were you starved of nutrition during while in the womb, or did you have the world’s best formulas while listening to Baby Motzart? Nothing determines where one will end up more than where one started.
- Our Genetic Giftedness Intelligence, beauty, athleticism, artistic talent, motivation — all these help a person regardless of where they came from or what they are exposed to. This is why some people rise from the ghetto and others falter despite a legion of opportunities.I place intelligence at the top of this list because I think it offers the largest adaptive advantage. If you have one or more of these things you tend to do well. If you don’t, you tend not to. This is true regardless of where you started or what you experience in life.
- What Happens to Us Life is random. It doesn’t matter if you went to Harvard and eat dinner with Bill Gates every Sunday; if you get a rare disease and die at age 30 you can’t do much about that. Some people get in the wrong relationship and end up on heroin. Others randomly bump into someone on the street and get handed a career they never could have achieved in school.Who we meet and what happens to us defines who we are. Forrest Gump was lucky to have been in the right places at the right time; a child who saw his family murdered in front of him was not. Both situations deeply effect the outcome of their lives, and neither person had any input into the situation.
What people fail to realize is that our ability to capitalize on what were given is in fact something we were given.
Read that again. There aren’t two different things — 1) genetic abilities and 2) motivation to make use of genetic abilities. No. In fact those are arguably one in the same. The only thing that determines one’s ability to make use of their own gifts and talents is #1 Where they came from, #2 How much motivation they have inherently, and #3 how they were raised and the experiences they had in life.In other words, we’re just responding to stimuli. The doctor who makes great financial decisions and looks down on those who doesn’t is a pompous ass. He had at least two out of the three variables go strongly in his direction. He’s basically a lucky bastard.
The crack whore down the street, however, was born prematurely with Fetal Alchohol Syndrome and a less than average IQ. She ends committing an armed robbery and going to jail for life. Did she make a poor choice or was there simply no choice at all? What part of the equation was she in control of?
The decision to “break out” of a set of negative conditions improve oneself is NOT independent of the three variables. It’s part of them. As is the decision to rebel against the world and start carjacking and raping people.
Quite simply, if you accept the fact that we have no control over the three universal variables then we forfeit the ability to heap praise on the virtuous or scorn on the wicked. Is this the world we live in?
--
This is my theory as well although I must haste to point out that this is not an “atheist problem.” An atheist could just as well choose to assume we do have free will. The reason a religious person does not need to come up with an answer themselves since it is already written in their little book. But, scientifically, it seems more and more likely that any semblance to free will is just because we are not aware of A) the entire dataset (the universe at any given time) and B) the entire decision-making process (the brain and anything else that comes to play.)
However, this does not mean that a car thief should not be apprehended. It may well be that his wiring is such that he can be rehabilitated (some people, then, cannot–for example, it may be physiologically impossible for one alcoholic to stop drinking while it is not so for another) or, if you prefer the eye-for-an-eye approach, kept out of society to avoid having the person commit more crimes.
Comment by rue — 7/28/2007 @ 1:11 pm
Sorry, you need to lookk up a few things.
I.E., you are assuming the laws of physics are deterministic. This is not a given. Just because many systems behave strictly mechanically does not mean that all systems behave in this way.
Look up Nancy Cartwright’s “Dappled World Theory.” There is no way to derive the Navier Stokes equations governing fluid dynamics from the laws of quantum chronodynamics. The same applies for general relativity and Newtownian mechanics. In other words, the laws that govern any given system at a particular scale (atto, femto, micro, mega, giga, terra) exist independantly from each other. Their relationships are strictly nonlinear. This leaves plenty of room for consciousness to play a truly governing role in our lives. Call this a loophole, if you want, but you’d be gutting the term ‘loophole.’
Consciousness need not be proved; it exists, you experience it. Deny it if you want, but you’ll still duck when I throw a rock at your head. This is not just patterned stimulus response, there is a conscious process governing your behavior.
HOWEVER, it must be noted that, for the most part, consciousness IS illusory. You make far fewer decisions than you actually believe you do. Most people just behave the way they are inclined to behave. This is pretty much an automatic process.
The discovery of the calculus, however, research into science, the creation of poetry, brewing beer, agriculture, distributed manufacture processes, and many ‘higher order behaviors’ require organizing principles which do not occur in nature. A human to a factory is not quite the same as a termite to a termite mound: termites do not produce products with durable and generalized utility in 27 different colors with leather interior. There is tremendous evidence that at least some behavior is determined by, if nothing else, the conscious choice of ‘taste.’
You are confusing the idea that simply because god did not grant us objective standards of morality with the concept that we have no innate emotions. No, the act of killing someone is not in and of itself a ‘wrong’ act. State sanctioned execution, killing in self defense, and killing in combat are all acceptable, in my eyes. The killing of someone guilty of no crime on a whim, however, is gruesome, cruel, and cannot be taken as a rule for behavior on a larger scale.
I highly suggest you look up Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. God need not be the source or judge of moral behavior. In fact, god is just a dodge.
Anytime you use ‘god’ in an argument, try replacing the phrase ‘god’ with ‘gap in reasoning,’ and seeing if your argument holds up.
Idiot.
Comment by you are wrong — 7/28/2007 @ 1:11 pm
;)
Comment by you are wrong — 7/28/2007 @ 1:12 pm
By your argument, we have no choice but to feel repulsed by the wicked and inspired by the virtuous,? We, born into a civilization that has upheld the notion of personal liberty and freedom of expression, have no choice but to feel that the rule of just law is Good, and act accordingly. We have no choice but to find rational explanations of our universe more compelling than “because this book said so.” So what’s the problem?
You have to choose the level of perspective you’re going to use. On the level of the individual, each individual certainly feels free to choose their course of action. (For instance, if you bind someone up, or use the threat of force to compel their actions, they will almost certainly feel less free.) Thus, when the individual “decides” to do something, when they are least constrained and compelled by external factors, then that decision can be attributed solely to the individual.
But on a higher level, if you argue that the individual really has no choice because all of his actions were necessary due to the history of the universe up to that point, then by extension all the people around him have no choice but to condemn him, judge him, incarcerate him, etc. (And some of those people will have no choice but to reflect upon what they’ve done, and ask if it is Just.)
In summary, you are asking an invalid question. Value judgments can only be made if there is choice. So if you accept the reality of a giant cosmic machine that leave us no room for choice, then it is meaningless to speak of good or bad, virtue or evil, outside of it. Those concepts only make sense when viewed within the context that gives people the ability to choose their actions, even if those choices are illusory. Outside of that context, when we look at the giant, completely deterministic cosmic machine, the only valid statement would be, “It is what it is.”
Comment by Peter Wang — 7/28/2007 @ 1:34 pm
@you are wrong:
Man, you had me all psyched up like you were going to show me something. You came off with some cool references that led me to believe you knew your stuff, but you ended up with nothing.
Coming with the fact that morality doesn’t come from God when talking to an atheist seems rather silly. We all know what Kant said about morality, and it has little to do with the discussion at hand.
Then you actually attempted to prove consciousness by illustrating that I would duck if you threw a rock at my head. I think some AI folks might take issue with that. If that were the criteria than those little disk vaccuum cleaners that avoids obstacles are conscious too.
You basically said we’re conscious because you think we make conscious decisions rather than programmed ones. You tried to prove your assertion with an assertion.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. I enjoy the discussion. Idiot. ;)
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 7/28/2007 @ 1:51 pm
Excellent post, his argument may have some validity, but his argument is ultimately flawed. Your original point was, IF christianity was right, then we essentially have no free will. Your argument applied to how christian-free-will is a logical fallacy. I personally believe in free will and that people are responisble for their actions, and because I don’t believe in a god, i believe free will can exist with no logical contradictions. Your argument was perfectly right, and his point about the consiquences of not believing in free will is also right, but aren’t necessarily connected. I’m not sure if you realized it so i thought i would point that out. Your post seemed like you were admitting you were wrong… Just trying to help.
Comment by some guy — 7/28/2007 @ 2:05 pm
Ive had this idea for about 10 years. Every single person I bring it up to thinks I am a complete nutcase. ;) imo it makes perfect logical sense…
Comment by zorn — 7/28/2007 @ 5:18 pm
Thank you. I’ve thought this for a long time (and had discussions with my catholic mother about it) and it’s good to see someone else has reached the same conclusion (that we have no free will, but we have to believe we do to function).
Comment by Cecilia — 7/28/2007 @ 6:56 pm
I can accept (and personally believe) the premise that we are simply highly complex deterministic machines, etc, though I have no real evidence on which to do so, so I’m not about to start saying I’m right.
Anyway; I don’t think the fact that we are deterministic systems needs to stop us acting as we do presently, but we simply need to ask different questions of ourselves, e.g. instead of asking “Is this worthy of praise”, ask “Would my praising this work positively influence the system”, you’d probably still have to make a value judgement though, because you don’t want to praise something useless, since that would not help the system, etc.
And even though I think we’re just responding to stimuluses, we still need to provide stimulus to those around us, e.g. no matter whether a person had no choice but to rob a bank, if you stopped persecuting people, more people would rob banks. So long as we accept that the justice system has nothing to do with justice, but rather exists as a deterrent, nothing really needs to change.
So as I see it, everything can go on as it is, we just need accept that things are deterministic, and therefore not take things personally.
Oh, and regarding the fact that “we forfeit the ability to heap praise on the virtuous or scorn on the wicked”, well, not really, since praise of virtuous actions increases the likelihood of more, and scorn of wicked actions decreases the likelihood of wicked actions.
Comment by kuza55 — 7/29/2007 @ 3:05 am
Good day everyone… I am the one who wrote that reply and wanted to point out that the quoted section was the final part of the email. The entire reply is posted below. I was not ducking the morality but rather was responding to the fact the primises of the email was underlined with the free will issue. So I was pointing out that: first if God gave us free will, perfect free will would not make us make the right choice but rather perfect free will would by nature have to enable us to make the wrong choice. The second was dealing with the underlined assertion of having no free will.
I did not detect the question of God’s morality but rather so the question as questioning God’s ‘perfection’ in creating free will. Such as trying to say that perfect free will would be the same as perfect choice making… and that is not the assertion of free will.
email text: You still have the underline basis that there is no free will. Predestination can be used in two ways: 1. God planned it… it was His will and you could do nothing else 2. (Free will) God gave us choice (yes the perfect ability to choose mean giving us the ability to choice wrong) and while knowing the outcome, He did not dictate it.
Those two are debated over even within Christianity (and I would assume Judaism).
Yes He knew we would fall in the garden… but that was a choice. He did know before He started and He chose to do it anyways. Why? Because He also knew that there would be those that would believe on Jesus and would choose to love him.
But hey, if you are right: I cannot help but believe it… I dont have free will.
But if I dont have freewill those that I have/will cause to suffer… there suffering is still not my fault, I dont have free will. The guy that takes a sledge hammer to your BMW… dont call the cops… its not his fault, no free will. The folks that are destroying the world (global warming, cultivation of the rain forest, water pollution) dont hate on them… it isnt their fault.
Take care buddy.
Oh, and by the way… whats up with your whale bones? Have not heard back from you on that one.
Comment by Rick — 7/29/2007 @ 4:18 pm
Oh, I have another one for you to sink your teeth into:
There is no free will, because there is no god and we are all responding to stimuli, so everything is perfectly predictable; BUT - the system in its entirety is so complex that in order to predict it you need to simulate every piece of it, which for us, today, is impossible. So while there is no free will, we look at the world as if there is because we cannot know what it is that we will do lacking means to predict it.
And another one:
Quantum theory predicts a certain randomness that’s impossible to predict, only to calculate the chance (probability) of an event happening in a particular way. It has been shown to be a good description of reality so far and made semiconductors possible. If this theory is true, there is a lot of randomness to manifest an arbitrary decision maker or a god instead of the randomness. Albert Einstein realized that, and was very much against the theory, with his famous quote “God does not play dice with the universe”.
In conclusion, from my experience, talking about free will is pretty much meaningless, because the way we subjectively perceive the world determines whether we perceive an action we made as ‘free willed’ or not. For the same action some would say it’s free will and some would say it’s not.
Take care,
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 7/29/2007 @ 5:16 pm
@Arik
I definitely agree on the first one; life might as well be random because we can’t possibly fathom the variables, and the same goes for those that influence our decisions.
I fully accept that this is outside of my expertise and that I’m probably not qualified to comment on the matter, but I also disagree with the notion of “true randomness” when discussing an omniscient perspective.
Tell me something isn’t known, or that it can’t be known by us, and I’m fine with that. But to say that a system such as the physics that govern our universe can function in a non-repeatable fashion to me is absurd. Again, I’m seeing my own limitations here, so I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just saying it makes no sense to me.
I think that little bit of randomness represents yet another hole in our understanding — not something truly unknowable.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 7/29/2007 @ 11:55 pm
If I’m just a deterministic cog in a big machine, that’s ok with me. I don’t see how that should lead me to act any differently.
Part of the argument here seems to be “If a human is just a deterministic function from input to output, then the human isn’t responsible for his actions, just the input and the function are.” This makes no sense to me. Even if I’m just a deterministic function (that I didn’t get to choose), I’m still responsible for my output.
On a different note, as a physics major I see the world as definitely non-deterministic, though I don’t like to rely on that in philosophical discussions. Matter behaves like waves (e.g. you can diffract a beam of neutrons), and the waves behave like probability distributions, where a value gets drawn when you actually go to measure a particle’s position. People have hoped desperately for “hidden variables” that are responsible, but it’s never panned out, and as we probe deeper into the “hidden” properties of matter, things seem to get more quantum-like, not less. But this really proves nothing philosophically — maybe god seeded his pseudorandom number generator once and it’s been humming along deterministically ever since.
Comment by DavidG — 7/30/2007 @ 2:22 am
Can someone please define “free will”? Everyone is using the phrase, but no one has really stated what it means, in the context of this argument.
Comment by ncloud — 7/30/2007 @ 9:16 am
Daniel,
“I think that little bit of randomness represents yet another hole in our understanding — not something truly unknowable.”
Science being what it is, I can’t say that your hypothesis is wrong. I can however suggest that there is a good argument for the ‘truly random’ - and probably more that I don’t understand:
The distribution functions assume true randomness, and so far the universe behaves according to the predictions
Hawking has shown that for black holes to exist they have to radiate somehow, and that particular randomness enables it. I don’t claim to understand exactly how, it’s beyond me.
It is of course possible you’re right, and there won’t be any randomness in future more accurate models of the world. As of now, there is plenty of randomness, enough to cause some of the biblical miracles if you assume a conscious entity manipulating that randomness in a certain direction…
I can’t believe I’m giving pro-deist arguments, but if you want to present a topic, better present it whole; and if you’re talking about complete predictability - you can’t predict actions if there’s an element of randomness.
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 7/31/2007 @ 2:23 am
@Arik
You’re right, of course, about the possibility of true randomness. I for one simply feel it’s an illusion based on a lack of information. But I’m talking from intuition there, so it’s nearly worthless.
I simply feel that our little system was seeded by something, and whatever created the rules that govern it did not have the ability to create randomness. Highly-random “randomness”? Sure. But I almost feel like true randomness is something that exists outside of physics and systems.
Anyway…that’s just talk. Accept it as such. :)
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/1/2007 @ 1:50 pm
John Locke already solved the problem of free will centuries ago.
Comment by me — 6/6/2008 @ 4:03 pm
I think this is all semantics. Quantum theory rejects a deterministic universe. The question is whether randomness and chance are good enough pysical truths to justify a conclusion that free will is happening. I think the real debate here is on where to draw the line between randomness chance and will. But the notion of a purely deterministic and predictable human should be thrown right out as contradicting the probabalistic nature of quantum scale occurences.
If I’m predisposed by my personality to respond to a certain stimuli one way 95% of the time and another way the other 5%, then we could say that my “decision” to not have vanilla ice cream this time was just the occurence of that 5% random chance. All that really does is define free will out of existence. And a point above that it would be foolhardy to act as if there were no free will is well taken. In sum, Failing to concieve of how a system we don’t completely understand could produce a phenomena that we don’t completely understand is not proof that the phenomena is impossible.
Comment by rcglinsk — 6/6/2008 @ 9:41 pm