Freedom: Are you Free … Or just a meat robot – Part 2

In answering the first question posed previously, we expanded the definition or understanding of freedom, which appears to give a gloomy outlook for the second question, “2. Is complete freedom possible?”

Because freedom exists on a range, let’s think of an absolute lack of freedom to choose or act at one end of the scale, zero, and absolute freedom from any constraint or overall negative consequences at the other end, ten. What options of freedom does reality allow? Answer: it entirely depends on what worldview fits reality. Here are a few more useful definitions:

• Reality: the way things are (without perceptions)
• Belief, worldview, perspective, theory: the way we think things are
• Truth: that which is true, or in accordance with reality

A worldview belief is just your subjective opinion, or theory, unless it fits reality, only in that case is it truth, and a safe foundation to base your choices and actions upon. Whatever worldview correctly matches reality, will correctly explain what level of freedom we are even capable of achieving.

There are three general sets of worldview beliefs.

1. Atheism claims nature is all there is, there is no God.
2. Pantheism claims God and the Universe and all things are one and the same.
3. Theism claims God exists independently from nature.

You will be amazed, as one set of worldviews, if correct, means every person throughout all time is forever at absolute zero freedom, while another set of worldviews, if true, place us in a range of freedoms, and one worldview, if accurate, paradoxically requires freely choosing to lose of all liberties to reach a potential total freedom. 

What is materialism:

“Materialism is the view that everything is ultimately in nature. At the most fundamental level, everything that exists consists of nothing but matter and energy.  Everything is governed by the basic laws of physics and, in principle, can be completely explained in terms of those physical laws.  Every object is a purely physical object.  Every event that occurs have a purely physical cause (if it has any cause at all). In short, the universe is just a collection of clumps of matter following the laws of physics.”[1]

[1] Jeffery Johnson, The Absurdity of Unbelief, (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2021), 129-130.

In stating we are all one with the Universe, and will eventually return to being part of the Universe as some form of energy, pantheist beliefs are also a form of materialism, meaning we are just matter and/or energy of nature, and therefore, are entirely controlled by initial conditions and natural laws, just like everything else in nature.

If materialism (also known as naturalism or physicalism) is true, then even the most privileged person to have ever lived, is 100% controlled in thought and action, nothing we think, feel or do is our free choice.

This would be a zero on the scale, and would be the reality for all of us if atheist materialism is true. If there is nothing of “You” beyond the matter, and its movements and modifications, making up your physical body, then every single subatomic particle and transfer of energy in your brain is absolutely controlled by initial conditions and natural laws – not you. Free will is an illusion.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of helical structure of DNA, accurately in-line with the materialist belief observes:

“You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”^[1]

Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris notes: “You can do what you decide to do — but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.”^[2]

Physicist Stephen Hawking observes:

“Though we feel we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.”^[3]

University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science, and biologist, Richard Dawkins provides the clear ramifications:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,  . . . there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. ^[4]

In addition to the scientists and fields noted above, Michael Ruse, Daniel Dennett, Alex Rosenberg, Jerry Coyne, etc., the full realm of atheists in biology, physics, philosophy, psychology, etc.,  recognize if their belief in naturalism is true, then we are meat robots, we have no more control over what we think or do than a rock rolling down a hill, just a collection of molecules and motion described by natural laws. Anyone believing otherwise is simply too weak-minded to accept the reality of their situation.

While it may be nice for each of us to think the worst choices in our life weren’t really our fault because “Science made me do it,” there are a lot of other baggage we would also have to accept if naturalism is true. The biography of your life becomes a plot already written by an unthinking, uncaring, purposeless director. Do you believe your choice of what to wear, who to date, what you feel, and what you choose to believe is entirely determined? If it is, even you reading this, and what you decide to make of it is determined, and meaningless, as are the beliefs of atheists making claims to support their forced ideas.

Reality does not care what you like, or are comfortable with, yet many people studying materialism really did not like the ramifications, and grasped at possible escapes, allowing them to believe in materialism, but somehow, still escape the reality materialism brings – truly zero freedom. Unfortunately for these proponents, they have stretched thinking beyond science and logical limits.

Several times I’ve heard the claim that quantum probability means we cannot know what choice will be forced on us, so it is “like” having free choice. Think about that for a minute, if, of course, you are free to do so. Probability operating in quantum fields only means initial conditions and natural laws force options on you, and then probability will select among them. Where does freedom come into play in such a scenario? It is equivalent to your parents having a handful of spouses in mind for you, due to the location and environment you grew up in, then roll dice to select one for you to marry, without any consultation or input from you whatsoever.

Others bring up the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, but whenever someone brings up Heisenburg, you know they are Breaking Bad in their understanding of science and free will. This principle notes the more precisely you know the position of a particle, like an electron, the less precisely we could predict the momentum of that particle.

So what? A certain lack of precision in the predicted values from initial conditions of a pair of particle properties, has zero room to provide us with freedom. In other words, just because our equations cannot predict exactly a property of a particle, in no way means there is room for our brains to act freely, the momentum of that particle is still entirely controlled by natural laws, even if we cannot know the value of the momentum exactly.

If only nature exists, and you are entirely explained by the physical particles and energy of your physical body, then, regardless of whether you are comfortable with the idea or not, free will is an illusion and not something you can believe in if you want to be reasonable (having better reasons, or tests of truth, supporting your belief than against it). Hopefully you understand all this would entail: a) there is no free will, b) there is no right and wrong, c) people are not responsible for their thoughts/actions, d) feelings and love are illusions and forced upon you, e) you have no purpose or value beyond passing on your genetics as purpose and value as viewed by humanity have no place in natural law.

In Consciousness Explained, atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett explains his changing understanding:

But recently I have learned from discussions with a variety of scientists and other non-philosophers … free will, in their view, is obviously incompatible with naturalism, with determinism, and very likely incoherent against any background, so they cheerfully insist that of course they don’t have free will, couldn’t have free will, but so what?

            Here is what: if those scientists and Dennett believe there is no free will, why should they or anyone else believe they freely reached the truth of the matter? Their belief in naturalism and no free will is not free, but forced upon them. Deterministic forces simply repeat the same patterns, which is why they are predictable. To discover truth and have any confidence in your theories, one must have the freedom and flexibility specifically absent in determinism. This is a problem, and another option is worth considering.

If, and only if, there is something of “you” beyond the physical world, a spirit, an immaterial mind, which can interact with the physical body, but is not controlled by initial conditions and naturals laws as all physical things are, only then is true freedom, of any degree of freedom, possible. Atheist materialism necessarily corresponds to a zero on the freedom range, so what options are possible for us if there is something of us beyond our physical bodies?

[1] Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994, p. 3.

[2] Sam Harris, Free Will, 2012, p.38, Simon and Schuster

[3] Stephen Hawking, Grand Design, 2010, pp. 31-32.

[4] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, 1995. 

If materialism is false, and we have a spirit, or immaterial consciousness interacting with our physical body, then some level of freedom is possible.

For those who have trouble accepting the idea that there is something of “you” transcending your physical body, something supernatural or beyond nature, there is already scientific confirmation of the supernatural.

The Big Bang model for the origin of the Universe observes all of nature came into existence, was not in existence before this, and therefore, necessarily has a cause transcending or beyond nature, which is supernatural, or if you prefer another term, metaphysical or immaterial. The existence of something(s) beyond the physical or natural world is not a fact we interact with commonly or even consciously enough to make it easy to wrap our mind around, but whether we can fully explain it or not, the evidence and logical need for the supernatural remains.

An immaterial consciousness would not be constrained by natural laws. However, this spirit and body is still constrained not only by the external and internal factors we are all familiar with (what we usually think of when we think of control over our lives), but also by the natural consequences of reality, or the truth of our world.

Therefore, while no one would be at either extreme of zero freedom or absolute freedom, people would be living in a fluid range between the two extremes. Horrifically, some people could be in slavery, not at zero, but low on the range of freedom. While there are others, not by personal virtue as much as by circumstances granted at birth, much higher on the available freedom range. The question then becomes, how much freedom can we realistically reach, and would it be enough to give us peace (so we can stop fretting about our restricted choices and enjoy life the best we are able)?

We cannot realistically reach absolute freedom, at least not for everyone, as absolute freedoms would, as history has shown, run into other peoples’ freedom, so some will necessarily be restricted. Our freedoms could only extend to the point of infringing on another person’s freedom.

History has shown us some who have reached very high freedom levels. When I think of absolute dictators and their sons, such as the horrific abuses Saddam Hussein’s son was able to freely pursue, they had about as much freedom as possible, as external, internal and even many natural consequence limits were kept from them. Are such high levels of freedom best for us? Debatable, with the answer again depending upon which worldview is true.

This world, and I would argue any world where rational beings have the ability to learn from their environment, requires the laws of cause and effect to operate. Have you ever seen a person protected from proper negative consequences for foolish choices? Consider the documentaries of absolute rulers, people who unfortunately do not have functioning pain  receptors, or watch an episode of MTV’s My Super Sweet 16.

Learning and rational thought depend upon cause and effect, and correspondingly, also entail nasty effects being brought to bear on poor choices based on incorrect expectations of reality. This is important, because it means the very best situation may not be absolute freedom at level ten, as no learning or character development for us could occur. We learn best through experience and observation of others. 

Summary of option 2: if we are more than just a part of nature, having an immaterial mind or spirit, we actually do have freedom of thought, choice and action. In addition, we likely would not only want people’s freedoms restricted when infringing on other people’s freedoms, but also require the constraints cause and effect bring as being able to learn and develop ourselves are important, beneficial to our lives, and dependent on natural consequences.

Further, the constraints government, society, and our internal issues place on us seem an inherent part of our lives. The well-meaning, but not well-thought-out attempts at freedom beyond those constraints can be illustrated with examples, such as the silly and sad experiences of the police-free, supposedly self-governing “Chaz” utopia.

Therefore, option two is much more intuitive than option one. We have true freedom, but at different levels. This also means attempts for greater freedom for ourselves, and for others, is entirely warranted in some circumstances, and is not beneficial in others.

So, the question then becomes, is there any option capable of either reaching absolute freedom for anyone, or, at least, absolute peace in the freedom we do have? Yes, and it has been historically displayed and documented.