We say that a process is random if we can’t discern a pattern in it. However, a truly random process can, in principle, produce anypattern by mere chance. Imagine flipping a fair coin. If we can’t discern a pattern in how the coin lands, we might consider it a random process. However, even in a truly random process, there’s a chance it could produce a specific pattern, like getting heads consecutively multiple times. The probability might be low, but it’s never is zero. So, when we label a process as random, it often acknowledges our lack of understanding of its underlying causes, and the apparent lack of understanding doesn’t necessarily mean it’s entirely unpredictable. Consider the decay of a radioactive atom. It’s often described as a random process because we can’t predict exactly when a particular atom will decay. However, this randomness doesn’t mean there’s no underlying cause; it’s just that we don’t know which individual atom will decay next. Similar to the coin example, our lack of ability to discern a pattern in the decay events leads us to label it as a random process, highlighting the limits of our current understanding.. Think of casinos, often the house wins, because they target that exact idea of targeting people who have less understanding in predicting patterns than them. The patterns of inheritance in genetics were once thought to be random. Gregor Mendel’s experiments with pea plants laid the foundation for understanding genetic inheritance, revealing the principles of segregation and independent assortment. What seemed like random traits in offspring were later elucidated by the rules of genetics Brownian motion. Initially observed by botanist Robert Brown as seemingly random movement of pollen particles in water, it was later explained by Albert Einstein in 1905 as the result of random thermal motion of water molecules. What was once considered a random phenomenon became understood through advances in our understanding of molecular kinetics and the kinetic theory of gases Just because we can not identify the cause of the effect, does not mean it is random. Much like our struggle to discern patterns in seemingly random processes, the denial of free will emerges from a reductionist viewpoint that overlooks the intricacies of reasoning, comprehension, and morality. Just as randomness implies our lack of understanding, the denial of free will highlights a reductionist gap in comprehending the richness of our experiences. Deniers of free will are typically strong materialists who believe that forces are pushing and pulling particles to make up reality. Choice is not explained by this extremely reductionist perspective. Or comprehension, for that matter, or other aspects of the human experience such as morality, forgiveness, and beauty. That does not imply that these things are false. The assertion that free will does not exist, attributing thoughts and actions solely to chemicals in the brain, raises an intriguing paradox. If someone claims that their belief in the absence of free will is also a product of chemical processes in their brain, it prompts an important question about the reliability of their own thoughts. This paradox revolves around the implicit trust in the very thoughts that deny the concept of free will. If thoughts are considered mere byproducts of chemical reactions, it challenges their credibility and questions whether they can be deemed trustworthy or reflective of truth. The dilemma here is that if all thoughts, including beliefs about free will, are reduced to chemical processes, it undermines the legitimacy of any claim, including the claim that free will is an illusion. This paradox highlights the inherent difficulty in completely dismissing free will. The act of engaging in a reasoned discussion about the nature of thoughts and beliefs presupposes a level of cognitive autonomy. If individuals were entirely devoid of free will, their thoughts, including those denying free will, would lack a meaningful basis for trustworthiness or rationality. In essence, the skepticism towards free will, when applied universally to one’s own thoughts, introduces a self-refuting aspect.
Compared to when you were a baby, you now have greater free will—the capacity to perceive, consider, and make decisions. You have more than if you were a mental patient or an active criminal,. Living in the United States as a Black, Female, or Gay person gives you more freedom and choices than you would have fifty, one hundred, or two centuries ago, Free will must exist if certain individuals and civilizations have more options than others—which they clearly do. As we reflect on the historical evolution of free will, one striking revelation emerges – the objective nature of morality persists even as individuals had varying degrees of ability to make choices. Throughout different eras, the intrinsic wrongness of limiting choices and freedom remained constant. It is a timeless truth that transcends historical circumstances. Despite historical periods where slavery was accepted, there was an inherent and persistent moral objection to the restriction of freedom and choice for enslaved individuals. The objective wrongness of slavery transcended cultural norms, ultimately leading to its abolition. Drawing inspiration from Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birmingham prison letter, we see a powerful affirmation of this principle. King, in his tireless pursuit of civil rights, illuminated the inherent wrongness of denying freedom based on race. The objective morality he advocated was not subject to the constraints of time or societal norms; it stood firm against the injustice of restricting choices. King’s letter begins by responding to fellow clergymen who criticized the timing and methods of the civil rights protests. In defending the actions of the movement, King articulates a moral framework deeply rooted in the principles of justice, equality, and individual freedom. King asserts that racial segregation is inherently unjust and morally wrong. He argues that it is not merely a matter of social convention but a violation of fundamental human rights. This perspective underscores the idea that objective morality transcends societal norms. King emphasizes that freedom is not a privilege granted by society but an inalienable right bestowed upon individuals by virtue of their humanity. Denying this freedom to any individual, based on race or any other factor, is a direct affront to the objective moral principles of justice and equality. King’s letter beautifully articulates the interconnectedness of all humanity. He argues that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, highlighting the universal nature of objective moral principles. This interconnectedness reinforces the notion that restricting choices and freedom is fundamentally and objectively wrong. In delving into the intricacies of morality, I find assurance in the notion that ethical principles transcend societal influences. Take, for instance, the unequivocal stance that it is inherently wrong to take the life of an innocent man to pacify an angry crowd. This belief rests on the foundation of objective morality—an idea that certain ethical principles exist independently of societal judgments. Navigating through this moral terrain reveals that certain actions carry an intrinsic wrongness, a moral certainty that doesn’t yield to the shifting perspectives of society. In the given scenario, the act of killing an innocent person is deemed morally reprehensible not because society deems it so, but because it violates a fundamental principle—the sanctity of human life. This wrongfulness endures regardless of collective anger or demands for such a sacrifice. Essentially, society, with its evolving norms, lacks the authority to determine the objective morality inherent in certain actions. The moral compass, pointing resolutely against killing an innocent man, isn’t subject to societal agreement but reflects a deeper, transcendent ethical framework that underscores the intrinsic value of each individual. It is within this acknowledgment of objective morality that a reassuring anchor is found, unswayed by the transient currents of societal opinions.
Agape, the benevolent, selfless love that God shows, is mentioned often in the New Testament, including in the “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13. There, love’s characteristics are listed: love is patient and kind; love doesn’t envy, boast, or dishonor others; love is not proud or self-seeking; love is not easily angered, doesn’t keep a record of wrongs, and doesn’t delight in evil; rather, love rejoices with the truth; love always protects, trusts, hopes, and perseveres; love never fails. Now Consider the issue of father abandonment, If we had a very good friend who just had children with their spouse, and their spouse decides to pack up and leave in the middle of the night forcing your friend to raise the children on her own we would have a great deal of empathy for our friend and be angry at their spouse for making the choice he did, using that same logic, it is not possible then say that the spouse is forced to Love their son, if he is not forced to abandon him, and if he is forced. What right would we have for being angry with them. If our love for God and one another weren’t given of our own free will, it would be impossible for our love to be genuine. Instead, we would have an artificial love, a programmed love. Love, in order to be genuine, must be freely given. With a worldview of artificial given love, we’re forced to say that God created a loveless world.! No one can truly loves God and nobody can truly love anyone. But The Bible teaches that God wants our love for Him to be genuine. This is why the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves in simpler terms, if naturalism is correct, there’s no immaterial human soul. Without the soul, there’s no libertarian free will. Without libertarian free will, rationality and knowledge wouldn’t exist. Since rationality and knowledge do exist, it follows that libertarian free will also exists.
Therefore, my conclusion is free will does exist, and freedom is important and we are morally responsible to allow freedom to all. Acknowledging freedom brings hope and encouragement, it also better helps you understand the gospel. I believe like the Lord who is 3 persons in 1 we are also 3 in 1. Socrates acknowledged this as well he believed, the soul is divided into three parts: the appetitive, the spirited, and the rational. Though we are inclined to be sinful in our flesh (appetitive) but in spirit, we crave the Lord. And the third part of us which is reason has to reason which other part to submit to, the spirit or the flesh.
This idea echoes the theological concept of the Holy Trinity. Much like the Lord’s triune nature and because we are made in the image of God it is possible humans embody a complexity that encompasses the physical, the spiritual, and the rational. Recognizing and embracing freedom to reason becomes evident in Socrates’ work. The autonomy to choose, inherent in free will, aligns with Socratic principles of individual responsibility and self-examination.
The acknowledgment of freedom instills hope and encouragement, fostering a deeper understanding of the gospel’s teachings. The interplay between flesh, spirit, and reason reflects the perpetual struggle and choice inherent in navigating the moral landscape. Socrates, in his pursuit of wisdom, recognized the significance of reason as the guiding force in determining the course of action. the acknowledgment of free will underscores the significance of personal choice and responsibility, aligning with the moral agency emphasized the gospel.
Recognizing the autonomy to make decisions allows individuals to actively engage with the ethical dimensions. the interplay between flesh, spirit, and reason mirrors the internal struggles depicted in biblical stories. The human tendency to be inclined towards sin, represented by the flesh, resonates with the biblical concept of original sin.
The recognition of autonomy to make decisions is evident in various ethical dimensions of modern society. For instance, issues like environmental conservation, where individuals must decide on sustainable practices, reflect the exercise of free will in aligning personal choices with ethical considerations. For instance, someone choosing to adopt eco-friendly habits like reducing plastic use, recycling, or supporting environmentally conscious products demonstrates the conscious exercise of autonomy.Similarly, debates on social justice and human rights highlight the importance of recognizing individual autonomy to actively engage with the ethical dimensions of societal issues. The interplay between flesh, spirit, and reason finds resonance in the struggles people face in navigating moral dilemmas today. Consider the ethical challenges posed by advancements in technology, such as artificial intelligence. Individuals and societies must grapple with decisions about the ethical use of these technologies, requiring a delicate balance between rational consideration (reason), material implications (flesh), and moral values (spirit). The human tendency to be inclined towards sin, represented by the flesh, can be observed in societal issues like corruption or unethical business practices. The recognition of this inclination prompts the need for ethical frameworks and accountability measures to mitigate these challenges, reflecting a societal acknowledgment of the biblical concept of original sin.
In exploring the concept of free will and the intricacies of human existence, it’s essential to consider the perspective of God’s timeless nature. The physical world we inhabit is governed by four known space-time dimensions—length, width, height (or depth), and time. However, God exists in a realm beyond the limitations of our physical senses—the spirit realm (Isaiah 57:15). Moses’ analogy in Psalm 90 presents a captivating perspective on God’s timeless nature—“For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” This portrayal emphasizes the disparity between the eternity of God and the fleeting nature of human existence. To comprehend the concept of time, we must recognize it as a property resulting from the existence of matter, a principle elucidated by the science of physics. God, as the architect of the universe, initiated the existence of time. It is crucial to acknowledge that time began with God’s creation, and before that, God existed without the constraints of time. Understanding God’s timeless existence adds a layer of complexity to the concept of free will. If God stands outside the confines of time, then His perception of our choices is not constrained by past, present, or future. If God created time and granted humans the capacity for free will, it implies that our choices are not predetermined within a fixed temporal framework. Consider a person faced with a moral dilemma. From a temporal standpoint, the decision made in a fleeting moment has consequences that echo through time. However, God’s timeless gaze encompasses the entirety of that decision, providing a perspective that transcends the temporal boundaries of cause and effect. Examining historical events, such as pivotal decisions made by influential figures, illustrates the enduring consequences of choices within the framework of time. God, with His timeless perspective, observes the unfolding of these events in a manner that surpasses the confines of historical timelines.
The autonomy to make decisions is a gift bestowed upon us, providing a temporal context within which free will operates.
Ben Simon
1/19/24
Pilgrims Ponder 