Free Will: An Illusion? | Fazale Rana and Jeff Zweerink

Join Fazale Rana and Jeff Zweerink as they discuss new discoveries taking place at the frontiers of science that have theological and philosophical implications, including the reality of God’s existence.
Free Will: An Illusion?
The prominent neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky has created a stir with the recent publication of his book Determined. Based on a wide range of findings from neuroscience and genetics, Sapolsky argues that free will is an illusion. All of our decisions are predetermined by influences beyond our control.
In this episode, biochemist Fazale Rana discusses the radical and far-ranging implications of Sapolsky’s dangerous idea, before presenting the scientific evidence, demonstrating that free will really exists.
Rana concludes by offering a model for free will based on the Christian worldview.
_____________________________
LINKS & RESOURCES -
Robert M. Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, www.amazon.com...
PLAYLIST - • Stars, Cells, and God
_____________________________
CONNECT WITH US
▶️ Help us reveal God through #science by supporting Reasons to Believe at: support.reason...
▶️ Follow RTB_Official for more #apologetics content!
Facebook: / rtbofficial
Twitter: / rtb_official
Instagram: / rtb_official
Website: www.reasons.org

[@osks]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers

[@ji8044]

Which theologians and which god though?

[@keyman6689]

I was determined to not post a comment. But I chose to ignore that impulse and comment anyway.

[@MS-od7je]

What is over looked in these freewill experiments is that if the subject were then asked to NOT raise their hand/finger then the time was simultaneous. The first person to do this study said that it meant nothing regarding free will and that if you were to attribute that concept to the entirety of the experiment then you could say that you have free won’t if not free will. This experiment is extremely limited and specific. It is not complex ( catching a fly ball or planning a vacation, etc.) You have no choice but to choose and your choices are limited to time and conditions but other experiments show that even given routines it is impossible to know what someone will finally choose. It has come down to the misconception correlating with particle-wave duality. That too is misconceived.

[@andrettanylund830]

How can we choose a certain world view. If we don't have free will it seems that everyone would choose the same world view.

[@andreanittel2240]

same with The Fall......this was the only way humas could have free will to choose God or not..............

[@osks]

The fundamental problem that confronts the materialist like Sapolsky, is the simple fact that it is just not possible for intelligent abstractions (eg consciousness) ever to emerge from from purely physical causes (such as the brain)!

[@user-kf6vj7we9v]

God created the angels with free will and gave them free reign to create. Satan and his angels chose to destroy. Humans are created in the same way. We can choose to create or to destroy. If someone knows that what they will create will be used to harm others, then they shouldn't do it, period. It doesn't matter if other people are going to do it anyway. That's no excuse. Other people commit crimes too. That doesn't mean you have to follow suit.

[@andrettanylund830]

How can you think to restructure something if you don't have free will. I'm not as intelligent as these guys but I'm confused. I appreciate this discussion but I'm still confused. This has really been bothering me lately cause I'm learning about Calvinism and it has depressed me so much that I am questioning everything and I'm old and been a Christian a long time. I won't leave Christianity but this has caused me to not have the peace of God. Thank you for discussing this even though I don't completely understand it.

[@shin_hibiki]

Fuz used to claim he was theologically calvinist, so I'm a little surprised by this video. Maybe something changed. In any case, friend, calvin isn't the only interpretation, so don't let it get you down. There are robust alternative interpretations. I don't want to spam the comments, but I'd be happy to point you to some resources if you like. Don't doubt that God genuinely loves you!

[@andrettanylund830]

@@shin_hibiki thank you

[@osks]

“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…

[@ji8044]

That's not the problem. That's the foundation of science.

[@andreanittel2240]

why does God seem to bring some people to Himself and others not- I, myself, was drawn into a church/chapel by being drawn there by the music I heard...............

[@andreanittel2240]

I think that at times we don't have free will- take the situation of Judas- he was an apostle who loved Jesus, followed him and then had Satan enter him, which I wonder if God ordained so the events that needed to happen would happen.............. the soldiers finding Jesus so He could be crucified.....................

[@adamfernandes7323]

I read some excerpts from this book and listened to some reviews dissecting it. From what I’ve heard and read, the arguments presented aren’t unfounded but not strong at all. Either way, I’ll eager to hear you guys discuss this

[@duanelinstrom4292]

I can easily debunk Zapolsky’s thesis about lack of free will by my own experiences. Frequently I choose one path over another, often the one against my immediate desires. I am absolutely in charge of me. The argument against free will is the road to chaos.

[@andrewwilson8776]

If I didn’t have free will and basically lived off auto pilot, I would probably be an alcoholic and a guy who watched a lot of pornography yet that’s not the person I want to be and fight against it. People who don’t fight temptations and those desires are what I would assume are atheists and just do whatever comes to mind for the most part. You have the power and ability “free will”, to change who you are especially when you let God lead and not just act off the first thing that comes to mind. People reaallllyyy want to over complicate things it seems.

[@andreanittel2240]

also why do some people die from a very bad illness and others miraculously get better? Does God not at times choose to interfere and heal some people but not others so that future events could be determined on what happened to the person.....there r lots of examples..............

[@Terrylb285]

We have a will thats submits to the sinful nature that has , if we had a complete free will , the sinful nature would have nothing on us.

[@andrettanylund830]

What about DNA?

[@ji8044]

Where does the idea of repentance enter into free will? If for instance you make a bad choice and are immediately killed by Yahweh for that choice there is no chance of repentance.

[@adamfernandes7323]

A fair and accurate assessment of determinism. My belief in free will has been further bolstered by this!

[@osks]

OK, so you believe in ‘free will’ BECAUSE of their argument - yes? But because there’s a ‘because’ (ie a reason which causes you to believe in ‘free will’), you really don’t believe freely! Anything that has a cause (or that has a ‘because’ as its predicate) is determined and therefore, not ‘free’ in the Libertarian sense!

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

Isn’t quantum mechanics random? If we where to have a truly fair coin toss, wouldn’t a setup to collapse an atom’s wave function in a superposition spin up + spin down be 100% indeterminate to our instruments?

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

It is at this level where only God knows. “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:33, KJV)

[@Tino_Tino_Tino]

For me it always comes down to this: there is no room for free will because our conscious intentions always follow from our desires and values. Even if we argue that we can shape our desires and values over time, that doesn't get out of the meta problem that "desiring to shape our desires" was the impetus for behavior change. And the challenge to my argument would be to pose one example of a conscious intention made by a person that goes against their desires and values. Even if you can come up with a behavior that seems to run counter to common values and desires, like suicide, self-sabatoging behavior, self inflicted punishment, etc. then you're failing to consider all the nuances and trade-offs present in how a person's beliefs and worldview can shape their values.

[@Tino_Tino_Tino]

I'll kick off the conversation with some possible objections: 1. Pick a completely inert binary choice where both options have equally limited impact on our sense of value and desire. For example pick "up" or "down" and pick one completely free of any predisposed beliefs, values, tendencies, etc.. Actually let's not do that because we may have a predisposed bias towards preferring "up" over down since up is usually associated with positivity and down with negativity. Let's strip away our binary options of all possible emotional colouring or dispositions that we might have. Let's just choose between either " A " or " A " in a compete vacuum. Imagine that you have the letter A on your left side and the letter A on your right side... Or maybe this isn't a good option either because maybe you like to prefer choosing whichever is on your dominant-handed side. Or maybe you are the type of person to go against the pre-established expectations and you'll pick the opposite of whatever your initial instinctual preference is. So just abstractly imagine two letter A's floating around in some kind of abstract space. Mentally tag one of those A's so you can still distinguish it from the other A and at some point just pick one. Were you free to choose which one you picked? Were you outside of any sort of predisposed tendencies? Did the time you made your decision have any impact on the outcome? 2. Choose when you're going to lift a finger. Now you're not really choosing between two different options you're just using when you're going to commit to an action. Are you free to decide when you commit to that decision? 3. How about vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Maybe you're thinking cuz I'm thinking if you like vanilla that means you'll choose vanilla 100% of the time? Maybe you're thinking "wait no I have the power to veto that choice and I can go against my preference of vanilla Ice cream and that proves I have free will by choosing chocolate. But it only proved you desire to make a philosophical point more than you desired getting your ice cream flavor preference. Did you just sneak in an additional hidden degree of freedom into your valuation?: which do I prefer most? "Chocolate ice cream", "vanilla ice cream", or "Demonstrating free will is real".

[@thedepriestcompound]

Do animals show free will?

[@osks]

All God’s creatures (including puppies and budgies and Capybaras and you and me) possess a WILL - in the case of animals (not image bearers of God), their wills are guided by instinct (therefore, not ‘free’), and in the case of humans (image bearers of the Creator God), their wills operate either under the aegis of the god of this age (Jhn 8:44) or the Spirit of Righteousness (Gal 5:16) - therefore, also not ‘free’ (in the Libertarian sense)… “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires” - Romans 8:5

[@lherz13]

Fuz! 👏👏

[@ji8044]

If free will existed, Yahweh would not have ordered the Levites to murder 3,000 of their friends and families for choosing to worship another deity. There is no concept of free will with judgement in the afterlife anywhere in the OT whatsoever. In fact the result of making choices is usually immediate death and destruction in this life, by the hand of Yahweh himself.

[@osks]

A universe created by God for His glory wherein God sovereignly ordains and sustains all things after the council of His will (Eph 1:11), is not subject to logical necessity… As the creature, you have NO RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD!

[@ji8044]

@@osks Thank you for illustrating my point so nicely. We do not even have the free will to speak about the subject.

[@osks]

“As Christians we have ‘free will’ ‘cause we are created in the image of God” - REALLY??? What is your BIBLICAL warrant for making such a claim, without anthropomorphising God… Ultimately, God is not ‘merely sovereign’ or ‘just so sovereign’ or ‘nominally sovereign’ but ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over absolutely ALL THINGS, INCLUDING THE WILL OF MAN! To wit, Scripture is clear - man possesses a WILL, but either his will is in bondage to the god of this age, or he walks in bondage to God the Spirit… “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds (wills) set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds (wills) set on what the Spirit desires” - Rom 8:5 Either way, man is just not ‘free’ (in the libertarian sense)! And if he were, then it would render the promise of TRUE FREEDOM found only in Christ (Jhn 8), to be a lie! Your commitment to Autonomianism therefore compels you to pray… “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be they name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in heaven but not here on earth where MY will reigns supreme”… What you are really doing, is asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God!

[@myinternetname5911]

Did Adam and Eve freely eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or were they compelled by God to do so? If you say God compelled them, then you’re in the awkward position of accusing God of compelling them to sin against him by forcing them to do something he commanded them not to do. If you say the serpent compelled them, then you’re in the awkward position of defending the position that Satan is more powerful than God. If they exercised free will, the sin is their own.

[@osks]

@@myinternetname5911 Why do you assume that ‘sin’ is a MORAL INFRACTION, rather than SEPARATION FROM GOD as Scripture clearly teaches… “…your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear” - Isa 59:2 (ESV) Biblically speaking, ‘sin’ is NOT the things we do - rather, it is WHAT WE ARE - alienated and separated from God! We sin because we are sinners - we are not sinners because we sin! BIIIIIIG difference! And the Law is neither a capricious or arbitrary set of rules as Euthyphro suggested - rather, it reveals something of the person of God to His own (Psm 145:17/Psm 119:182, Psm 31:5/Psm 119:142, Psm 25:8/Rom 7:12, Gen 21:33/Psm 111:7,8, 1Pet 1:16/Rom 7:12, 1Jhn 4:8/Rom 13:10, Mat 5:48/Psm 19:7, Jhn 4:24/Rom 7:14, Deut 32:4/Rom 7:12, 1Jhn 1:5/Prv 6:23…) “I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live” - Ezekiel 20:11 Scholars tell us that the Law was given to Moses around 1446 BC, some 4,500 years AFTER God spoke everything into existence by the power of His word and well after sin first came into the world with the fall of Lucifer… Sin therefore was in the world looooong before the Law was given to Moses! The Law (as the measure of our fallenness) therefore does not CONVICT us for the things we do - rather, it EXPOSES us for what we are - SINNERS (Gal 3:24)! The apostle John expounded sin as ‘lawlessness’ (1Jhn 3:4), so God rejects us, not because of the things we do (or do not do) (Rom 9:16), but because, since Genesis 3, we no longer properly and faithfully reflect the image of God which we are intended to bear (1Jhn 3:4) - it is only when Christ intercedes for those chosen by God before the foundations of the world (Eph 1) that He sees, not us as sinners, but the perfection of Christ standing before Him in our stead (Gal 3:24-27)… Thanks be to God! A careful rendering of the gospel (that bit between Gen 1:1 and Rev 22:21) exposes the human condition, not as MORAL WICKEDNESS, but as UNGODLINESS (falling short of God’s in whose image we were created) So then, answer me this… is God sovereign? Or, to put it differently… is God GOD over all (Deut 10:17, Rom 9:5…)?

[@shin_hibiki]

​@@oskswhy, at the root of it, are we sinners?

[@jonathanhatcher7042]

@osks Well, you're leaving a bunch of stuff out. First off, it's not an anthropomorphism to say humans are created in the image of God because it would be the exact opposite. We bear the image of God, not the other way around. Second, humans having free will does not take away God's sovereignty. God still has supreme power and rule but doesn't mean He is sitting there flipping switches and pushing buttons for every single action that's takes place on Earth. Free will is a testament of His love for us by allowing us to choose whether or not we align our will with His or not. It's not really love if we have to do it. And that's why it is BOTH a moral issue and sin issue. Evil and sin go hand in hand. If believe there is sin then you believe there is evil. If you believe there is evil then there is also good which implicates a moral law. If there is moral law, then there is a moral law giver. Right back at square 1... God.

[@osks]

‘Quantum indeterminacy’ is predicated on the unexamined philosophical assumption (it is unexamined only because it is unexaminable, rendering it entirely a philosophical position) that a random event is somehow possible, when randomness (ie sheer chance) is just not possible!

[@osks]

Oh, and one final thought… you state on your Reasons To Believe web site, “Scripture is our supreme and final authority on all matters” (sic), when you in fact confess the very opposite, “The more we know about science, the more we have reasons to believe”… In other words, SCIENCE is really your ultimate epistemic (and moral) authority, NOT God and His revelation!