Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 12:52 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm
It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.
And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.
Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.
Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?
I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.
It's difficult to change habits but they seem to be changeable just by the mere movement of a hand. I mean, I guess I still don't understand what conservation laws have to do with free will. Obviously, there are some things that we are physically incapable of doing, however, we can choose among a number of options at a given time of things we are capable of doing. How does me choosing to brush my teeth versus eating a piece of candy violate "conservation laws" of science if I freely choose to do one and not the other? It seems like I can choose to do either and it seems like there's no law preventing me from doing one or the other. Someone may tell me that it's not healthy for me to do the latter, but I then choose what to do and it seems like if I choose to ignore the advice, then I'm responsible for the outcome.
If someone says that grand theft auto is unethical and I then run out and steal a car and am caught, what is the judge supposed to do? Is the judge supposed to say, "oh well, I can't blame you. You didn't have a choice but to steal the car"? How should we interpret these "conservation laws" in a court of law or what ramification does it have on laws?
Gary, let’s break this down to the nuts and bolts of physics and why the concept of "free will" as traditionally understood is incompatible with conservation laws.
The Physics of Choice
Choosing between brushing your teeth and eating candy involves your brain, which operates on physical processes: neurons firing, neurotransmitters releasing, and ions moving. Here’s the kicker: every one of those processes follows the laws of physics. Let’s focus on one foundational law—Newton’s First Law: "An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force."
For you to "freely" choose between brushing your teeth or eating candy, some nerve signals in your brain have to go one way (brush teeth) or another (eat candy). Those signals depend on ions moving across ion channels and neurotransmitters moving across synaptic gaps, and ions, like all physical objects, only move when acted on by a force. This force can only come from one of the four fundamental interactions: gravity, electromagnetism, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. There’s no fifth "force of will" in physics.
The Problem of Will as a Force
For "your will" to act on those ions in your brain and make a choice, it must itself have properties that interact with physical systems—such as mass (to interact via gravity) or charge (to interact via electromagnetism). But if your will has mass or charge, it’s no longer outside the physical system; it’s part of it and fully subject to the laws of physics. In other words, it becomes another link in the chain of deterministic cause and effect. There’s no "freedom" in that; every action your will takes must itself be caused by prior events, which themselves are caused by others, all governed by physical laws.
Breaking Conservation Laws?
Now let’s consider the alternative: if your will
isn’t governed by these physical laws—if it can somehow move ions in your brain without relying on gravity, electromagnetism, or any known force—then it’s introducing energy or momentum into the system from nowhere. That directly violates the conservation of energy and momentum, foundational principles of physics. For your will to truly be "free," it would have to break these laws—essentially creating energy or force out of thin air. But this doesn’t happen; every observed event in the universe complies with conservation laws. No exceptions.
Free Will in the Courtroom
Your example about laws and moral responsibility is a social question, not a physical one. Determinism doesn’t mean people aren’t accountable; it means accountability must be reinterpreted. Laws and courts don’t exist to assign metaphysical blame—they exist to maintain order and prevent harm. A judge doesn’t need to believe in free will to punish theft; they only need to ensure the consequences discourage future thefts.
The Illusion of Choice
The feeling of "choosing freely" is just that—a feeling. It emerges from complex neural processes that follow deterministic rules. You feel like you’re deciding, but that decision is the outcome of prior causes: genetics, experiences, the state of your neurons, and so on. There’s no ghost in the machine—just the machine itself, running exactly as physics dictates.
In summary: for "free will" to exist as traditionally imagined, it would need to break the laws of physics by introducing uncaused forces. But those laws are unbroken, leaving us with a deterministic framework where every thought and action has a physical cause. Choices aren’t "free" in the metaphysical sense; they’re the inevitable results of preceding conditions.
