Q&A: Questions Regarding The Science of Freedom
Questions Regarding The Science of Freedom
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I studied the book The Science of Freedom after you referred me to it. A few questions:
1) From what I understood, a voluntary action is carried out by creating a force field (say) that affects the movement of particles, etc. I didn’t understand how this fits with your assertion that the physical world is fixed and has no gaps. If there are no gaps, then how can it be that through my choice I "invent" a force field out of nothing? You say the system is fixed and has no gaps, so where is there room to introduce an "electric field" into it, if there are no gaps?
2) In the spirit of the first question: from what I understood, you do not advocate the "God of the gaps" approach. But aren’t you relying on the fact that it is still not possible to explain the entire human nervous system as a direct and absolute result of data transmitted to the brain? According to you, there is some deliberation of mine somewhere in the middle. And the very fact that it has still not been proven that one can see a complete connection between the input to the brain and what ultimately happens is what gives me the possibility of saying that I have a choice in the middle. But isn’t that a God-of-the-gaps argument? That science simply still hasn’t managed to prove it through its experiments, though it may yet be able to prove it?
3) Why do you say that it is more likely that the brain creates a force field rather than electrons? What is the difference? Does this have implications for the previous question—about what can be proven experimentally and what cannot be proven?
Answer
I explained these things at length in the book itself.
1. My claim is that the world operates according to the laws of nature, with interventions by human choices. That is the nature of the world itself (see the discussion there about lex specialis considerations). In this nature, there seem to be no gaps, although even that cannot be determined categorically (the Holy One, blessed be He, may perhaps intervene at times, but it doesn’t appear so, and certainly not often, and surely not on an ongoing basis).
2. I do not prove the existence of choice from the gap. I argue that there is choice because of my immediate experience, and I argue that science has not refuted this because there are gaps. If this is proven in the future, I hope I will be honest enough to admit I was mistaken.
3. I did not write about the possibility that a brain creates electrons, and in general the discussion is about the will, not about the brain. I raised two possibilities: the will creates a force field that moves electrons; the will moves electrons without a force. Between these two, the first seems more plausible, but it really isn’t important. As far as I’m concerned, you can choose the second. My claim is that if you are a libertarian, there is no escape from choosing one of these two.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
2. Why would you admit you were mistaken? After all, you also have philosophical arguments that would remain valid even if it were shown that in reality there is no choice. You didn’t say that it is self-contradictory if I say there is no choice, because I myself said that claim supposedly מתוך deliberation, etc.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Indeed. But if I become scientifically convinced that we have no choice, I will have to reconsider my arguments. When I am in that situation (I hope and expect it won’t happen), I’ll be able to answer you more concretely.