Q&A: The Science of Freedom
The Science of Freedom
Question
Hello,
I wanted to ask you about the claim you raised in the book The Science of Freedom.
It says there that someone who claims he has no free choice is denying his own judgment, and that the usual skeptical argument is indeed required in order to answer him.
I really didn't understand why.
After all, even a libertarian admits that he is made up of two systems: 1. soul and judgment (reliable). 2. the system for understanding the external world, emotions, etc.
Without reliability in system 2, certainly the results provided to us by 1 are also not correct and cannot be checked.
By contrast, the determinist argues that system 2 is included within 1.
So undermining 1 is basically almost identical, whether one believes in this matter or denies it.
Also, I wanted to ask another question about the anthropological proof: how did the concept of free choice reach us if that concept does not actually exist? A simple answer to this feeling is that it arose through long years of evolution; for example, when one sees a cat hesitating whether to run right or stay where it is. Once the doubt is resolved, it is left with something like a feeling of choice. And so, from repeatedly choosing between different sides, the illusion of free choice was created in us.
And one last thing: has the Rabbi expanded elsewhere on Plantinga's argument about the lack of correlation between survival and cognitive abilities? It seems simple enough that the wise one is the survivor. See how human beings took over the world. Does the Rabbi have a counterexample?
Answer
Greetings.
I did not understand the first question.
The anthropological proof really is not decisive, but it does carry weight. The evolutionary explanation you proposed explains nothing. If we see hesitation, it can be interpreted as a process of deterministic calculation. Why would a feeling of free choice arise if in reality no such thing exists?
In general, wisdom certainly contributes to survival, but there is no justification for airtightness. That is, such a consideration should have led only to results that are useful for survival, even at the expense of wisdom. But our assumption is complete trust in wisdom, without examining to what extent it is something that is useful for survival.
You can find plenty of counterexamples of creatures that survived without being wise all around you. Among human beings too, and certainly among other creatures.
Discussion on Answer
As I explained there, the argument against the determinist is not a skeptical argument but an argument of certainty. If his sensory and thinking system was created arbitrarily and operates by means of an uncontrolled external mechanism, then there is no reason in the world to assume it is reliable. And in any case, even if by chance that did happen, he himself certainly cannot know it. As for the libertarian, there is only the usual skeptical argument.
I already explained the rest here.
Thank you,
To the extent that we have emotions, then it makes sense that when our brain thinks about one side and then about the other side and in the end decides something, this system will lead to the mistaken feeling of free choice. Think about feeling this way your whole life, throughout all the generations—at some point this sense of imagination would become ingrained; that's obvious…. After all, the deterministic person is nothing more than the course of his ideas and feelings. So that is exactly his imagined free choice.
At the end of the day, wisdom is the most significant survival advantage there is. Do you know of another animal that rules the world? Though I do agree that survival is possible even without wisdom.
The first question I asked is that you present the skepticism argument against the determinist as a stronger argument than such skepticism against the believer—why?