The Illusion of Free Will

by I M Probulos

  We must have evil to enjoy good. I love this argument. Other than the fact that we have no reference for it, it’s simply a lack of imagination. One might even label it an availability bias–we don't know of a world without evil. Well, I do. I called it The Other God's Earth–an alternative universe that includes many of the components of this world but without sin, evil and death.

  I find it very ironic that the faithful argue for a world with evil while we are on earth, but once they are in heaven there would then have no evil and they would worship God for the rest of eternity–just like robots! They would bask in idyllic bliss for all eternity with the smug pride that between 70 and 85% of humanity (well over 74 billion humans) were in hell for all eternity. Oh, I forgot, it was all our fault. I call it a design flaw.

  Free will is highly overrated.

  Here is quick summary to counter this “not a robot” mentality. It’s myopic and shows a lack of imagination. I present you with a human robot:

  Programmed to love others as it loves itself.

  Programmed for generosity

  Programmed to love unconditionally.

  Programmed to be unselfish.

  Programmed to maximize human potential.

  Programmed to take care of its neighbor.

  Programmed to strive to reduce human as well as animal suffering.

  That finishes assignments on time

  That cleans up after itself.

  That is never late.

  That is well groomed.

  That expresses itself through poetry, dance, art, and music.

  That does not anger, or show jealousy, or envy.

  Tell me which trait you don’t want and why. Your head will explode trying to rationalize why my hypothetical human robot is a bad thing. Do you feel cheated now that you were designed for good and don’t have the opportunity for evil? This is a great debate topic. Have I robbed you of your free will to perform poorly or anti-socially?

  You don’t want love? Fine.

  You don’t want an unselfish robot? Fine.

  You don’t want a generous robot? Fine.

  Life would be boring if everything went well? Really? Did you really say that? So, if you had a moment, on a yacht, with a hundred of your best friends, and music, and delicious food and joy and laughter, you would tire of this?

  Well, then what do you want? You’re not pro religion, faith, or God. You’re pro sin, evil, and suffering. Think about it.

  I can imagine a world with only good and better. Join me in an alternative universe and I’ll show you that it will be anything but boring.

  We all want to be better functioning robots. You’re a clanking, deterministic, biological computer no better than any other biological organism. Get over yourself.

  Good or Evil?

  Original Sin

  The concept of free will has evolved to fit the situation. Primitive man lived in a capricious, mysterious, and savage world where everything appeared to be under the control of the supernatural (because they had no good natural explanations). So to explain why a good god created such a cruel world the Judaism and Christianity created the original sin narrative.

  Evil, death and suffering are all because of free will. If you want to get out of your free will box based on original sin, read more about Eastern religion/beliefs like Buddhism, Confucianism, and even Hinduism. They don’t start the story with “we are born sinful.”

  The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God. In Buddhism there is no almighty God, no original sin, no reward or punishment on Judgment Day, and no savior concept.

  Karma and Karma Force are cornerstones in Buddhist doctrines. They are expounded very thoroughly in Buddhism. Karma refers to an important metaphysical concept concerned with action and its consequences. This law of karma explains the problem of sufferings, the mystery of the so-called fate and predestination of some religions, and above all the apparent inequality of mankind.

  How can anyone have free will if there is a supernatural agent, Satan, capable of fantastic things (changing shape, impacting 7 billion people all at the same time, and has time to create new sins and ways to commit evil).

  In a 2008 interview entitled "Aliens Are My Brother", granted to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Father José Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, stated:

  "In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists; intelligent beings, created by God may exist in outer space and some aliens could even be free from original sin" concluding "there could be (other beings) who remained in full friendship with their creator”.

  That is actually an argument for The Other God’s Earth. I love it.

  Good men are capable of unspeakable evil. Evil men surprise us with their occasional good.

  –anonymous

  Would the Christian church be as successful if they did not preach that we are broken? Some Christian denominations like Unity and Unitarian Universalism don’t teach original sin and that man is born wicked. Mega "Christian Lite" churches like Joel Olsteen’ Lakewood Church predominantly focus on the good.

  The Confucian philosophy is built on the foundational belief that man is basically good. This is in contrast to Christianity where man was born bad (or became bad). Confucius focused on life here on this earth.

  Buddhism rejects the theory of a transmigrating permanent soul but does believe in rebirth (versus reincarnation as in Hinduism).

  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, European post-Renaissance philosopher, considered morality a mere construct of society and promoted the concept of the "noble savage." [Man is inherently good.]

  Thomas Hobbes, the 16th century philosopher, felt that authority was necessary to prevent men who were “constantly at war with each other” from descent in to anarchy. This is his concept of the leviathan.

  Eric Hoffer, an American social scientist and author of True Believer, believed mass movements (revolutions, freedom movement and jihads) were not due to poverty nor injustice. His reason was a fundamental lack of self-esteem and loss of existential purpose. Most research shows that poverty, lack of education, and unemployment are highly correlated with crime.

  Hobbes famously followed Descartes in describing humanity as “matter in motion”, just like machines. He also described man's natural state (without science and artifice) as one where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

  David Hume said "We needn't push our researches so far as to ask 'Why do we have humanity, i.e., a fellow-feeling with others?' It's enough that we experience this as a force in human nature. Our examination of causes must stop somewhere." He did not consider metaphysical explanations for any type of cause and effect.

  Darwin presented a widely accepted scientific argument for what Rousseau had already argued from a different direction, that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed nature.

  E.O. Wilson defines human nature as a collection of epigenetic rules: the genetic patterns of mental development, which includes cultural phenomena, rituals, education, and are products, not part of human nature.

  Cognitive Biases and hell

  If we were not broken then we would not need fixing. All of Christianity is based on this precept. To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, “we are born (created) sick and commanded to be well.” Is that any way for a deity to behave?

  Missionaries are crossing the globe with a disease (original sin) and a cure (Jesus Christ). They make you sick and then cure you. Think about it. Their assertions can never be proven wrong yet if you’re wrong the punishment is an eternity in hellfire. Plus they’re bringing food and medicine. This is not a difficult sell and operates on the expectation principle, the possibility effect, and the certainty effect. These are all examples of how we are highly irrational human beings, and certain industries, such as the structured settlement, insurance, gambling and religion take advantage of our cognitive biases that cause us to overweight p
robabilities.

  If there was a one-percent probability that we could spend an eternity in torture and torment–that is far more worrisome that its probability warrants. Even if we did not believe 50% of the religious doctrine (see Catholicism) we still would be inclined to believe in God to avoid that one percent probability of extreme punishment.

  With the concept of salvation as a gift from God (Protestantism), based on faith and not based on works, this is almost a get out of hell free card. As long as we have faith and believe, we are certain of an eternity in heaven with our Creator. We could murder, lie, steal, and rape with impunity–as long as we repent and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior–after the fact. While it certainly hits all the cognitive bias buttons, it does not necessarily promote positive behavior. The good behavior clause is sort of an addendum–oh by the way, you also need to follow the Ten Commandments, but if you kill your neighbor, in a fit of rage, over his dog peeing on your roses, you can still go to heaven.

  Sins

  Do not murder (kill) one another

  Lie

  Steal

  Four commandments related to God behaving like a neurotic and insecure child.

  Adultery

  Coveting really is the same as stealing.

  The seven deadly sins are:

  Gluttony

  Wrath

  Greed

  Sloth

  Pride

  Lust

  Envy

  There is considerable discussion in all religions that one should deny pleasures of the flesh. I am not just talking about sex but essentially all pleasure. It would be interesting to determine the exact etiology of this meme. Why is pleasure inherently bad? I can see how drinking and eating to excess, stealing, lying, and murder can lead to social disorder, but there is an all-encompassing attitude that if someone is pleasurable then that does not lead to God, heaven, or enlightenment.

  Without bronze-age mores, and the realization that the pleasure centers in our brain are there for a reason–and not inherently bad, the concept of what is a sin also must change based on the fall of free will. Using science and reason to determine morality is discussed in Michael Shermer’s book, The Science of Good and Evil [Amazon Link]. He discusses that there are secular ways to know what is good or bad. Some of his recommendations, with some of my own added, are:

  1. Does it hurt anyone?

  2. Does it infringe on another’s rights?

  3. Is it legal?

  4. Is it a zero-sum game? (Are you winning at someone else’s expense?)

  5. Is it a short term benefit at the expense of a long term reward?

  6. Would this benefit society as a while with a minor inconvenience to me as an individual?

  7. If it is a choice between two bad choices, which does the least harm or offers the most good?

  8. Is this taking advantage of a population (e.g., the poor, unhealthy, ignorant, children, minorities, and just plain unlucky)?

  9. Would I object if this was done to me?

  10. Does this promote societal cohesiveness?

  There are actually closer to 667 sins listed in the Bible. Probably the most contentious is homosexuality. I have seen several threads where Christian homosexuals explain that the Biblical references to homosexuality are actually pedophilia and not a loving relationship between two adults. From a free will perspective, this is a great example of the use of the word “choice.” No, homosexuals do not choose their lifestyle. It chooses them–and there are numerous factors, including genetics and fraternal birth order (The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. [Wiki Link]). Research related to prolonged exposure to listening to Barbara Streisand or Bette Midler is currently inconclusive.*

  *The joke was there and I had to take it. Sorry, my lack of free will made me do it. Remember, that in addition to my serious side I have a book on Humorous Quotations for Atheists, Agnostics and Secular Humanists

  –I. M. Probulos

  Prayer

  I would argue that free will is at odds with intercessory prayer. For example, if we fail to study for an exam, practice for our piano recital, eat properly, or exercise, and then ask our personal God to interfere on our behalf, would that not be eliminating the outcome of our actions–in essence, our free will? If we ate fatty, high-cholesterol foods or smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, for thirty years, should our personal God take away the natural consequences of a lifetime of exercising our free will–because we asked him after we received the news we have five months to live?

  God could have said, “Don’t listen to the talking snake” and saved all of humankind and the entire animal kingdom a while lot of suffering. But he didn’t.

  He could have created Eve 2.0. But he didn’t.

  If a young girl needs a kidney and another child needs to die to donate the kidney, why would anyone think praying would change the mind of a deity? Do not the parents of the doomed child not love her just as much? Are their prayers any less real? Only if we blame the victim does this work. The parents of the dead child must now believe their faith was not strong enough, their daily prayers for the safety of their child not answered, or that God has a plan for their child that is unknowable.

  Why would God interfere with the forces of nature–and our free will–on this particular day? He already knew the consequences. He already knew we would be unhappy with the result.

  Billions pray every day in thousands of different languages and to many different gods. The result is always the same; He answers or not depending on His will. The reason He does not answer is because their faith was not strong enough, the belief was not pure, they were praying to the wrong god, or God has a plan for them that is mysterious and unknowable. They call it faith–I call this superstition and recommend actually doing something over prayer.

  Hierarchy of Stuff

  I am sure there will be some debate on this but I include it to properly argue the common Ken Hovind and William Lane Craig argument that “atoms cannot be good or bad” and that if we are no more than “molecules in motion” then humans cannot be good or bad–there is no morality. This is a logical fallacy–a false analogy, and should always be challenged.

  Sub-atomic particles: fermions ( quarks, leptons), and bosons

  Atoms

  Molecules

  Cells

  Structures

  Dendrites (Branches From A Neuron)

  Neurons, Areas of the Brain, Neurotransmitters, Endocrine System.

  Systems (Neocortex)

  Neural Correlates (minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept)

  Beliefs

  Attitudes

  Consciousness

  Unconscious (involuntary or unknown influences)

  Decisions

  Actions

  Outcome (neutral, positive [for someone], negative [for someone])

  Consequences.

  If you wish to add or expound on my list, please post it to my website: www.improbulos.com.

  Willpower

  At its essence, willpower is the ability to resist short-term temptations in order to meet long-term goals. With more self-control we would all eat right, exercise regularly, avoid drugs and alcohol, save for retirement, stop procrastinating, and write a Pulitzer winner novel.

  In numerous studies, students’ self-control scores were correlated with higher grade-point averages, higher self-esteem, less binge eating and alcohol abuse, and better relationship skills. Of course willpower is a good thing. The issue is that without free will willpower becomes another causal agent. It now becomes “molecules in motion” to use the apologist argument. But we know better. More accurately, it is the interrelationship of thousands and potentially millions of antecedent variables–most of which we have no conscious control.

  Ego-depletion experiments by R F Baumeister appear to show that willpower is a limited resource dependent on blood sugar. Ass
erting will power to control your impulses diminishes will power (ergo free will) in the short-term. If you are hungry you will have less impulse control and rely more on your instinct (System 1). While the focus is on genetics and our environment, this illustrates how something as simple a depleted glucose could click us over into fighting versus a more rational fleeing in a dangerous situation.

  Other books related to this topic include Dan Wegner’s The Illusion of Conscious Will, and George Ainslie’s Breakdown of Will.

  Long held and cherished beliefs like will power will take time to dispel. I am not arguing against positive improvement or change, just that, after the event, we should not blame someone for the choice they made. The very next second, they can make a new choice, but once it is over, we should no longer blame them for their “lack of willpower.

  Self-Control

  Self-control sounds preachy but essentially it is the same as willpower. Both concepts relate to the issue of favoring long-term goals over short-term pleasure–something that is not instinctive to humans.

  The list below is from Kelly McGonigal’s book, The Willpower Instinct [Book Link] [Article Link]. Her book makes some interesting points: that willpower is not a character trait as everyone assumes, impulse control is located in a specific area of the brain, that willpower can be depleted (ego-depletion study), and that optimism bias can be a bad thing.

  It focuses on strengthening the pause-and-plan (waiting for system 2 to catch up with system 1) which enhances willpower to help modulate one's impulses. I also agree that being more aware of one's impulsive tendencies and training oneself to be less susceptible is a sound strategy. She calls them "I-will," "I-won't" and "I-want" challenges. The six ways in the article are:

  Increase your capacity for pressure: Learn how to manage stress.