Interesting realization I came to today. I was reading up on quantum mechanics, trying futilely to understand it before I run off and major in physics, and I was delighted to discover that quantum physics may put a nail in the coffin of causal determinism, which essentially is an argument against free will. (and no i'm not obsessed with free will, it just seems to come up a lot in these areas of thought.) It basically states that existence is determined by cause and affect. You can't have free will because when you make a decision, you're simply acting as your life experiences have taught you to act and this is how you MUST act. and consequently.... freewill is history...
(and all the arminianists scream NOOOOOOOO!! While the Calvinists gloat and revel in their own cleverness...)
But not so fast! recent research in quantum mechanics is showing that at an atomic level, molecules seem to act completely unpredictably and randomly. They are not locked into a specific state based on the forces at work around them. Sooooo.... The atomic world is not predetermined, and randomosity becomes not only possible but quite factual. (Of course no one really understands why or how this is possible...but it's quantum stuff so you aren't supposed to...) But the point being that if molecules are able to act randomly, then it may be assumed that human choices could also be random. of course in this case, random is understood to mean undetermined, or free choices.
Freewill: 1
Determinism: 0
HURRAY FREEWILL!!
Now if I can just reconcile all the other sneaky forms that determinism takes I'll be well on my way to being awesome;D
My dear reader,
I will frequently award your patronage of this blog with such entertaining cartoons to atone for the sin of my highly boring self-absorbed prattle... so keep reading...
15 comments:
Interesting. We had just been discussing this kind of thing in philosophy class. I had been arguing a point similar to your view, but I had kept it free of quantum mechanics since I have no background in physics.
thanks man. I think it's always fascinating when science contributes to the resolution of a philosophical dilemma.
Well, boy... you've done it again. We need to have a talk. Prehaps it's because I'm not a philosophy major. PREHAPS. But... I don't get it. I need you to speak to my face and make me understand.
Besides, free will is kind of like... impossible to argue. It's kind of like God's will, because, no matter what happens in between, He's going to come out on top, and the end result will be what He said it would. I don't really know how that applies, because I'm tired, but human free will is only existent because God GAVE us free will, right? RIGHT? I don't even know what I'm talking about here, because I don't know what YOU'RE talking about. But this sounds fun. Give me some clarity.
I realize you were directing the question towards traceur4ever, but I personally believe that if there is an omniscient and omnipotent being, then free will would have to be an illusion.
In his post, he takes a decidedly scientific approach, which renders it incomparable with theological understanding. In the issue of free will, the quantitative and the qualitative are vastly distant from one another.
I think I understand what you're saying Matt, as far as how omniscience and omnipotence denies free will anyway. I dealt with the omniscient side of that in an earlier post entitled "free will".
Although it was only a six page essay so I was barely able to skim the surface of the argument, it might begin to offer a way in which omniscience could be compatible with free will, (i'd love to hear what you think)
though I'll be the first to admit that there would seem to be many other problems in the concept of free will.
However, insomuch as I am follower of the Bible, my relationship with God is one wherein trust (or faith if you will) takes precedence, even at times over what reason might seem to indicate, because I believe in a God who is infinitely bigger than my own pitifully finite understanding.
I believe that God and free will do coexist. So I continue to search for answers, as we all do.
as for eilonwy....you should use more paragraphs...i can't understand a word you say:p
YOU WARMONGERER! THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID!!! Seriously, I've known you for seventeen years, and I don't understand a darn thing you say when you write stuff. I was tired; maybe that's the problem.
Anyways, Matt. I don't really feel I understand you, either. Could you possible expound on the whole "if there is an omniscient and omnipotent being, then free will would have to be an illusion"? Because I decidedly disagree with you on that, but I'd love to hear your reasonings for it. I agree with Traceur, because I am a born again Christian who believes that the only way in which free will could exist at all is if God simply CHOOSES to give us free will, and sometimes I think we overthink things. For me, it's perfectly acceptable that some things are so complicated that we can only view them as being the simplest things in the world. We're humans. We aren't physically able to grasp the awesome of God. I'm just kind of stating my case, here. Again, it's kind of hard when I still don't quite grasp the literal meaning of either of your arguments.
Well, I'm not saying my argument is an absolute truth by any means. I just think that if a higher power chose to give us free will, it is difficult to claim total freedom.
I think where my disagreements lie most strongly is the issue of the coexistence of God's omniscience (all-knowing) with free will. If the higher power has foresight and knowledge of what we will do and everything we become, then we are not independent people but like trains on tracks. If God does not have absolute knowledge of our futures, then he is not, by definition omniscient. This is a small part of my issue, which I could expand upon were I not so tired.
Hhhmmmm...welp. Mr. Traceur, I think that freewill is like this: God knows everything. He is outside of time/space, He created us and because of His omniscience, He knows what choice we will take.
*however*...God made us as free moral agents, so that we have the *freedom* to do what we want, while He has had the *knowledge* of what choice we will make before we were even born. It comes down to the basic idea of salvation...God loved us enough to send His Son to die for us, but He will have no unwilling followers. Whosoever *will* can have eternal life.
And Matt...you cannot separate theology from science. Science is the most simple form of theology, because the whole world was created by God, and humans were even made in God's image. The best way to learn about an artist and to relate to him is to study his work.
Oh, and another thought...since when has science been qualitative?
I have a darn splitting headache, so excuse any weird stuff going on. Or female intuition vibes, my traceur man. lol
This is gonna be huge. I apologize in advance.
1)I was not saying science was qualitative. I was saying the quantitative side is science and the qualitative side is theology.
2)I do agree that the best way to relate to an artist is to study his work. But artists are tangibly real. Picasso could be defined by science. God, regardless of whether or not it exists, is said to have a transcendental nature, beyond our tangible limits. Science does not (usually) study such things, because they are subjective.
The faithful are perfectly welcome to put religious labels on science, but that doesn't mean it's correct or with any basis beyond their precious ancient books.
3)To address your comment on free will, if God knows where we are going to go, then there is only an illusion of free will. Even if God is an amazing, super-benevolent entity, its knowledge of our future destroys any true control over out destinies. The power is no longer in the hands of humankind, but in the hands of the intangible. To reiterate my earlier point in case anyone's forgotten, if Free Will truly exists for humans, then God does not have control over us. Omnipotence is therefore denied.
Essentially, what I'm saying is either God or humankind must be limited under the theistic view on free will. As religious people, which one will you choose?
I am perfectly willing to consider a good argument objectively, but I'm tired of the company line. (God is so great that He..., God loved us so much that He...)
God COULD have control over us but he chooses to LET US go our own way. It's like a balancing scale. Sort of. So Eilonwy wins.
This is going to sound incredibly lame, but Matt, if you don't have a relationship with the God of our universe, this kind of stuff is exponentially more weird and illogical-sounding. Like traceur said in his second comment, the balance between omnipotence and freewill of man falls into a category that faith has to fill in the blanks. Another company line maybe, but it really is true. I hope you can truly come to find this out for yourself.
Fair enough. If I had ever felt as you feel, we could pursue this argument, but we've reached that immortal blockade against understanding between theistic and atheistic positions. (Though I'm not an atheist. I agree with you all that there is a god, it is just the nature of said God that I remain unsure of)
I think we're all a little unsure of that. Even though I love Him more than the air I breathe, and have a one-on-one relationship with Him, I, personally, think that God's too great and awesome for me to even WANT to understand the full nature of Him.
It would be like that ridiculous part in the new Indiana Jones movie where the Russian chick's all like "I WANT TO KNOW! TELL ME ALL OF THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE, YOU ALL KNOWING ALIENS!" And they were like... K. And then she found out stuff, and melted from the pure overwhelming knowledge of it. It fried her brain, essentially. Part of the beauty of my God is His mystery. He wouldn't be all powerful if we knew His full nature.
Well, I don't know about you guys, but... I'm having fun with this!
i believe that the concept of freewill is problematic no matter what perspective you hold. the idea is simply illogical for any number of reasons, be they naturalistic, or theistic. so in that sense, there does not have to be such a division between theistic and non theistic thinking on the issue.
I do disagree with matt in that freewill is not necessarily denied by God's omniscience. i think such an argument demands that God be a temporal being, but our understanding of his nature implies that he cannot be so.
i agree with gracie on a certain level, in that faith does "fill in the blanks" in some areas of Christianity. i believe that in such matters faith precedes understanding, but understanding is certainly not unattainable.
i serve a God of order, and the task of working through the staggering complexity of that order is the main purpose of this blog.
God is a beautiful mystery, but I also think that He has charged us with the task of unlocking this mystery to the best of our abilities. Hence mankind's ever inquisitive nature.
Post a Comment