{"id":39,"date":"2007-12-14T19:56:49","date_gmt":"2007-12-15T01:56:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.consider.org\/blog\/?p=39"},"modified":"2007-12-14T19:56:49","modified_gmt":"2007-12-15T01:56:49","slug":"free-will","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/2007\/12\/free-will\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Will"},"content":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3<\/a><\/h3>\n

<\/span>Dec 14, 2007, Wausau, Wi\u00a0\u2014<\/strong> \u00a0Last time I looked at the issue of Free Inquiry and the skeptic\u2019s false claim that they were free to go wherever the evidence leads, while Christians were limited by their religious beliefs.\u00a0 But there is a deeper more subtle problem with the skeptic\u2019s claim that they are free to go wherever the evidence leads them.\u00a0 This problem concerns freedom itself.<\/p>\n

Inherent in the skeptic\u2019s belief to be free is the belief that they are free to make a decisions.\u00a0 In fact much of the skeptic\u2019s criticism of religion centers around the concept of freedom.\u00a0 Skeptics believe that Christians surrender their freedom to false religious beliefs.\u00a0 Christians choose certain behaviors, not because they want to, but because the Bible says so. The problem for the skeptic, however, is how they can account for this freedom in the first place.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Now this problem can be difficult to see because the freedom to choose is something we all just take for granted.\u00a0 Of course we have a freedom to choose.\u00a0 Our entire view of our daily lives, our interactions with others and everything we do is dependent upon our freedom to choose.\u00a0 In fact it is difficult to conceive of how we would view the world if we didn\u2019t make the assumption that we have a freedom to choose.\u00a0 For example, the entire legal system and its concept of punishment for crimes is based on the assumption that the criminal had a choice whether or not to commit the crime.<\/p>\n

The problem for the skeptic is not so much that we have free will, but rather how can they explain that we have free will.\u00a0 While the concept of free will is difficult for every one religious believers and skeptics alike, it is particularly difficult for the skeptic who has a naturalistic view of the world.\u00a0 For the skeptic, the natural universe governed by natural laws is the only thing that exists.\u00a0 Miracles are rejected because they would violate the laws of nature.\u00a0 For the skeptic, everything is governed by the laws of nature.\u00a0 There is no room for God.<\/p>\n

What the skeptic often over looks is that free will, the freedom to choose, is inconsistent with their naturalistic view of a universe governed by natural law.\u00a0 Now again, this can be difficult to see because the idea that we have free will, that we have the freedom to make some decisions, is something we just take for granted.\u00a0 We don\u2019t even think about it.\u00a0 We certainly don\u2019t spend a lot of time thinking about how it can happen.<\/p>\n

For the skeptic, we\u2019re simply animals, the result of a long evolutionary process.\u00a0 Our origin and everything about us, just like everything else in the universe, can be explained by the laws of nature.\u00a0 There is no soul.\u00a0 There\u2019s nothing beyond the material body.\u00a0 Our actions are completely explained by the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain and in the rest of our body, or at least will be once science can figure everything out.\u00a0 But therein lies the problem.\u00a0 If everything can be explained by the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain and in our body, where is there room for freedom of choice?<\/p>\n

Now skeptics often claim that what we call consciousness is the result of the electrochemical interactions in the brain, and it is our consciousness that makes our decisions.\u00a0 But while this may be a nice explanation for the skeptic, again how does this happen.\u00a0 Even if for sake of argument we assume that they are correct and consciousness is nothing more than the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain, how do those electrochemical interactions actually make the choice?<\/p>\n

The simple fact is that the concept of choice is incompatible with a universe governed by natural laws.\u00a0 A rock falling down the side of a cliff, does not make a choice to bounce right or left when it hits the side of the cliff.\u00a0 Every aspect of its fall is determined by the laws of nature.\u00a0 A choice, on the other hand, transcends the laws of nature.\u00a0 It is not determined by the laws of nature; it is determined by something else.\u00a0 If it was determined by the laws of nature it would not be a choice.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So if choice is nothing more than the result of consciousness which is itself the result of the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain, then at some point these electrochemical interactions that are governed by the laws of nature must somehow transcend the laws of nature so as to make a choice.<\/p>\n

But if skeptics are correct and somehow our consciousness does transcend the laws of nature so as to make a choice, than this would violate one of their fundamental starting premise is which is that everything is governed by the laws of nature.<\/p>\n

So the skeptic is caught in a real quandary.\u00a0 They must either deny freewill, which is virtually impossible for them to account for anyway, or they must accept that there are things that are not governed by the laws of nature.\u00a0 If they deny freewill, they are denying something so obvious that we simply take it for granted. Yet if they accept that there are some things not governed by the laws of nature, they deny one of their fundamental premises. Either way they have major problems.<\/p>\n

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity<\/a>: a Faith Based on Fact.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3 Dec 14, 2007, Wausau, Wi\u00a0\u2014 \u00a0Last time I looked at the issue of Free Inquiry and the skeptic\u2019s false claim that they were free to go wherever the evidence leads, while Christians were limited by their religious beliefs.\u00a0 But there is a deeper more subtle problem with the skeptic\u2019s claim that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,9,15],"tags":[46,1071,139,229],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}