Free Will

For those of us who are non-believers, the concept of free will poses a special challenge.

We think of the universe, and the citizens living in it, following laws of science and not spirituality. These laws can already explain a lot of what we see and experience, and, we believe that what cannot be yet explained will be in the future.

In this picture, there is no place for the concept of soul as a separate entity from the body. Soul is not molecules and atoms, and the laws of physics do not dictate what it does. According to the non-believers, soul cannot exist. However, if soul does not exist, how does one explain that I have the freedom to identify choices and make decision on which one to select? What law of science explains that fuzzy, non-deterministic aspect of our experience?

A recent book by Sam Harris provides one theory of how to reconcile this quandary. http://www.samharris.org/free-will

He, of course, is a very vocal non-believer and I like his rational thinking, so I am inclined to believe in what he says.

Basically, his explanation is based on two points:

1. Our brain is under the illusion that it is freely identifying options and making choices, when it is not. One needs to dig deeper to find out what is going on. For example, you cannot decide what you will decide to do. Nor can you choose to choose what to choose. In other words, it is your physical being that decides what you will decide to do or choose what you will choose to choose. Sam cites scientific studies in which the body had made a decision before the person thought he made the decision based on free will.
2. To make the matter more complicated, as yet we do not know what this human “system” exactly is or how it will behave given a certain input. It is as yet an unexplained black box. However, it is a system formed through nature and nurture guided by laws of science. Genetics, environmental factors, neuron connections formed through experience---all are involved in making the system what it is.

Now this my sound like a play on words surrounded by uncertainties. However, it does provide a framework to explain free will without resorting to the concept of soul.

Just as science has cracked (or making good progress in cracking) tough nuts like creation of universe, evolution of life, or prediction of weather, it will make in roads in explaining the very essence of our existence like free will.

I feel confident.

God and Black Swan

‘The Black Swan’ is an interesting book written by Nassim Taleb. If you wade through the pages of somewhat pompous writing, you would find several good insights. One of them goes like this---In our normal life we only see white swans and you may be tempted to assume that all swans are white. However, this may not be the case. A black swan may exist and be seen by some ornithologist someday. So, the word ‘certainty’ can be applied only to indicate the presence of black swan, if one is seen. One can not be certain that no such swans exist if only white swans are seen.

There is an asymmetry here that applies to many situations.

Take, for example, the question of the existence of God. For many of us, we have not seen evidence that would indicate his existence*. So, we conclude that he does not exist. However, if the above logic is used, the absence of evidence implies only that he may not exist, not that he does not exist. The only time we could be certain is when the opposite happens---an irrefutable proof is found.

So, by this argument, we can not be atheist and claim to be rational at the same time. The only rational position is that of an agnostic.

I am troubled by this. In our daily lives we, the doubters, are given more leeway.

Take for example the court of law. You are innocent until proven guilty. So, the absence of an irrefutable proof that you murdered someone is taken to indicate that you are innocent, not that you may be innocent. The onus is on the other side to prove your guilt.

Why can’t the same logic apply while discussing the existence of God?

----------------------------------

* The purpose of this post is not to question the faithful who are able to see the evidence of God in many events and things around us. It starts with the position held by many of us who do not see the evidence and argues for the validity of atheism as a rational position.