Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times
Almost 80% of top scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers are atheists. I as a theist stand little chance against them while there is so much infighting among the theists. Some are Jew, some Christian and some Muslim even among the Abrahamic faiths. Then, they are sometimes divided into sects at daggers drawn. Now, I am totally lost.
I need to create a fifth column in the ranks of atheists to ultimately prevail. I cannot resist the temptation when a big opportunity arises.
The concept of free will has been a central topic in philosophy, with numerous atheist thinkers arguing that it is an illusion. This perspective suggests that human actions are predetermined by various factors, challenging the notion of autonomous choice.
Denying free will has catastrophic consequences to individual psychology and social coexistence leading to total chaos in every judicial system in every country.
I will introduce my recruits in the fifth column, ready to save theism from the assault of the most distinguished scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers who control the intellectual and academic world.
This is David versus Goliath. Would I be helped by the All-Knowing.
Without further ado, I am lining them up here. You could search them, watch their videos, read their books, and then bring all their scholarship against other atheists, who are compatibilists. Then you could master how to pitch atheist incompatibilists here against the atheist compatibilists.
Robert Sapolsky
Renowned neuroscientist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky has extensively explored the concept of free will, ultimately asserting that human behavior is entirely determined by biological and environmental factors, leaving no room for autonomous choice.
In his scholarly work, Sapolsky contends that human actions are the result of complex interactions among genetics, neurobiology, and environmental influences. He argues that for free will to exist, one would need to demonstrate that a behavior “just happened out of thin air” without any biological precursors—a notion he finds incompatible with scientific understanding. Sapolsky further emphasizes that our sense of making conscious choices is often an illusion, as decisions are influenced by factors beyond our conscious awareness. He states, “Put all the scientific results together from all the relevant scientific disciplines, and there’s no room for free will.”
Recognizing the absence of free will carries significant ethical and societal implications, particularly concerning concepts of blame and punishment. Sapolsky suggests that understanding behavior as biologically determined should prompt a reevaluation of how society assigns moral responsibility and structures its justice system. He advocates for a model that focuses on rehabilitation and understanding rather than retribution.
Robert Sapolsky’s examination of free will challenges traditional notions of personal autonomy. By highlighting the deterministic nature of human behavior, he invites a reconsideration of moral responsibility and the foundations upon which societies build their ethical and legal frameworks.
Alex O’Connor
Alex O’Connor, known as the “Cosmic Skeptic,” presents a deterministic perspective on human behavior, challenging the traditional notion of free will. He posits that our decisions and actions are the inevitable outcomes of preceding causes, both internal and external, over which we have no ultimate control.
In various discussions and debates, O’Connor has articulated his stance that free will is an illusion. He suggests that every choice we make is influenced by a complex web of prior events, genetics, and environmental factors. This deterministic view implies that, given a specific set of circumstances, only one course of action is possible. O’Connor’s perspective aligns with the idea that while we may feel we are making independent choices, these decisions are preordained by factors beyond our conscious awareness.
O’Connor’s rejection of free will extends to discussions on morality and personal responsibility. He argues that if our actions are predetermined, traditional concepts of moral accountability require reevaluation. This viewpoint raises questions about the fairness of praise or blame assigned to individuals for their actions, considering the lack of autonomous control.
O’Connor’s deterministic outlook has sparked debates among scholars and thinkers. Critics argue that dismissing free will undermines personal agency and moral responsibility. Some propose compatibilist views, suggesting that free will can coexist with determinism, allowing for personal accountability within a determined framework.
In summary, Alex O’Connor’s perspective challenges conventional understandings of free will, prompting ongoing discussions about human autonomy, morality, and the nature of choice.
Galen Strawson
Galen Strawson, a prominent British philosopher, has extensively examined the concept of free will, ultimately arguing that true moral responsibility is unattainable. Central to his position is the “Basic Argument,” which contends that individuals cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions due to the impossibility of being responsible for the way one is.
Strawson’s Basic Argument can be summarized as follows:
- Actions are determined by one’s character and motivations.
- To be truly responsible for actions, one must be responsible for the character and motivations that lead to them.
- However, individuals cannot be responsible for their own character and motivations, as these are shaped by factors beyond their control, such as genetics and early experiences.
- Therefore, individuals cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions.
This argument challenges the notion of free will by asserting that the prerequisites for true moral responsibility are unattainable.
Strawson’s perspective suggests that traditional concepts of moral responsibility, which rely on the assumption of free will, need to be reevaluated. If individuals are not ultimately responsible for their actions, then practices of moral judgment, praise, and blame may require significant reconsideration.
Despite his stance, Strawson acknowledges that the belief in free will is a pervasive and perhaps necessary illusion. He notes that while we may intellectually accept the impossibility of true moral responsibility, our subjective experience compels us to continue holding ourselves and others accountable for actions. This tension highlights the complex interplay between philosophical reasoning and human psychology.
In summary, Galen Strawson’s examination of free will challenges deeply held beliefs about autonomy and moral responsibility. His Basic Argument presents a compelling case for the impossibility of ultimate moral responsibility, urging a reconsideration of how we understand human agency and ethical accountability.
Baruch Spinoza
In the 17th century, Baruch Spinoza posited that individuals believe they possess free will because they are conscious of their actions but unaware of the underlying causes. He stated, “Men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
Arthur Schopenhauer, a 19th-century philosopher, argued that while humans can do what they will, they cannot will what they will. He asserted, “You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.”
Ted Honderich
Contemporary philosopher Ted Honderich maintained that determinism is true and that both compatibilism and incompatibilism are false. He suggested that the real issue lies elsewhere, proposing that our perceptions of free will are misinterpretations of the underlying deterministic nature of reality.
Sam Harris
Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris contends that free will is an illusion. He argues that our thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes over which we exert no conscious control. Harris states, “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
Anthony Cashmore
Biologist Anthony Cashmore suggests that the concept of free will is akin to religious beliefs, serving as a comforting illusion. He argues that all biological systems, including humans, obey the laws of chemistry and physics, leaving no room for free will.
Heidi Ravven
Philosopher Heidi Ravven challenges the traditional notion of free will by integrating insights from neuroscience and philosophy. She posits that human behavior is shaped by a combination of biological, environmental, and situational factors, rather than autonomous choice.
These philosophers collectively challenge the traditional notion of free will, suggesting that human behavior is governed by deterministic processes beyond individual control.
Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder
Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder asserts that free will is an illusion, arguing that human decisions are governed by deterministic laws of nature, leaving no room for autonomous choice. She contends that our perception of selecting among multiple possible futures is incompatible with the deterministic framework of physics.
Hossenfelder explains that, according to the laws of nature, particularly within a deterministic universe, the future is entirely determined by past events. This perspective implies that, given the state of the universe at any prior time, only one future is possible, and our sense of making free choices is an illusion. She emphasizes that while quantum mechanics introduces elements of randomness, it does not grant the freedom to choose among different possible futures. Instead, it adds unpredictability to a fundamentally deterministic system.
While some philosophers attempt to reconcile free will with determinism by redefining it—such as suggesting free will exists if no one can predict our decisions—Hossenfelder finds these redefinitions unconvincing. She argues that regardless of predictability or the source of influence (internal or external), our decisions remain determined or random, but not free in the traditional sense.
Despite denying the existence of free will, Hossenfelder suggests that this realization should not lead to despair. She proposes that understanding the deterministic nature of our decisions can foster empathy, as it highlights the multitude of factors influencing behavior. This perspective encourages a compassionate approach toward others, recognizing that individuals are shaped by circumstances beyond their control.
In summary, Sabine Hossenfelder’s viewpoint challenges the conventional notion of free will by grounding human decision-making within the deterministic laws of physics. She advocates for a compassionate understanding of human behavior, acknowledging the complex interplay of factors that determine our actions.
Additional reading:
Atheist Philosophers and Scientists Possessed by Laplace’s Demon
Our collection of articles on free will and consciousness
Archives
Categories: Abrahamic faiths, Atheism, Consciousness, Freewill, Highlight
1 reply ›