Excerpts from a Discussion on Whether we have Free Will

In my many discussions about free will (whether we have it) I am truly amazed that there are people who say that we do not.  I cannot imagine anyone living his life believing that he has no control over what he says, thinks, or does.  I also find that it is difficult to get them to answer direct questions with direct (or even intelligible) answers, even though these people seem to be intelligent.

What follows are excerpts from a recent online discussion:

I said:

If a philosophical proposition leads unavoidably to absurd conclusions,
then while we may not be able to empirically disprove it, the unavoidable absurd conclusions
render that proposition pointless.

To say that we have no free will is to say that we have no choice as to whether or not

we believe that we have free will.

It regards us as mere puppets of causation.

It characterizes us as witnesses to our own lives, but not participants.

It removes any basis for personal accountability for our actions.

It equates the coward with the hero, the criminal with the law-abiding citizen.

It makes of us

[Quoting from Shakespeare’s Macbeth]
 

a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

from Act 5, Scene 5

J said,

I blame myself [for not persuading you]

I responded:

No!  How can you blame yourself for something that you did not willingly choose to do?

Oh, I see.  You cannot help yourself.

This is not to troll you, it is simply to substantiate what I said before.

Absurd conclusions are pointless.

If in fact I am a helpless slave (or whatever word you prefer) to causation,

I am incapable of recognizing that,
or am forced by causation to recognize that, but in neither case
could I make any useful results from it.

Quoting you, with apologies,

This is the part I have never succeeded in conveying to somebody who holds your particular view

= = = = =

The primary evidence against free will is in the physicalist principle of inexorable cause and effect.

In that principle, every cause is an effect of a preceding cause (or complex of causes).
There is never an option, because there is never a sovereign, independent free agent
who can override the preceding cause(s) and effect a different outcome.

The evidence for free will begins with the observation that we are conscious,

and physicalism has no certainty about what consciousness is, nor of its
relationship to physical events.  Therefore, it cannot but deny free will.

I often refer to JBS Haldane's insightful quote on the matter, which is,

If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true.

If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain,
they are determined by the laws of chemistry, not those of logic.

Note that Haldane claimed to be a materialist-atheist, and he disdained the

idea underlying the independent agency of free will, even though his
quote opens the door to it.

The arguments for free will are the arguments against physicalism.

= = = = =

I cannot empirically prove that you have free will.

I can only point out that if you do not have free will,
then you are a bio-robot, a witness to your own life,
but not a participant.

If we ever discover that we are automatons,

then what use can we make of that knowledge?

= = = = =

Why make this so complicated?

Are you saying that you never choose your actions?
Or are there times when you do?

= = = = =

 J said:

But, you keep avoid[ing] my point. Do  you remember saying that my use of language that implies choice proves your point? I've asked you if the same goes for 'silly' Christians who speak of Eternity with language that implies time/space? Of course you don't play that game on them.

 
I responded:

This is getting into semantics.  You said: 'silly' Christians. . . Of course you don't play that game on them.

I'm not playing games.  I'm asking a simple, binary question, to which the answer should at least

BEGIN with a "Yes" or "No," after which explanatory modifiers might be called for.

The closest I have seen you come to a direct answer is

nothing suggests that  1) I select the options i'm supposedly choosing between

Supposedly choosing? 

This is moving from exploratory discussion toward rhetorical debate, which I tend to avoid.

My suspicion is that you have a philosophical belief in which free will has no place,
but you do not wish to define yourself as a helpless phenomenon of causation.

I have a different philosophical belief.  I believe that life, consciousness and free will are

fundamentals of physical existence, which are also three attributes of the Creator (God).

I cannot, of course, empirically prove any of this, nor am I able to persuade anyone of it,

but only to suggest that they give it a try, and see if it benefits them.

Then, they (ahem) choose.

:)

= = = = =

 

D wrote:

wouldn't its [cosmic consciousness's] individuated aspects in some way be like 'fractals' of that?

I responded:

I would view this in terms of, we are created in the image and likeness of God.

I also view each of us as sovereign, individual entities that live forever.

We are accountable for our deeds and our decisions.

Our moral decisions have eternal consequence, but we are forgiven for

our sins, and need merely to avoid rejecting that forgiveness.

This is all on faith, of course.

Using that as my anchor points, my life has improved dramatically,
even in the midst of misfortune.

=