Richard Swinburne - Mysteries of Free Will

Follow us on Instagram for announcements, giveaways, and more: shorturl.at/rwC16
Our human sense is that our will is fully free. Our scientific sense is that every action is determined by a prior action. Free will versus determinism is a big question without clear answer. What follows from free will affects morality, responsibility, judgment, even the deep nature of consciousness.
Get subscriber-only benefits with a free Closer To Truth account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He was Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford from 1985 to 2002 and is currently Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion.
Keep Closer To Truth free from paywalls with a tax-deductible donation: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@jamesmiller7457]

This is something i have believed for years. I have never heard it explained so easily. Thank you for this gem.

[@darkknightsds]

Swinburne + RLK is always a good time

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...I always learn when I listen to Mr. Swinburne, & yourself. To me, you take 2 steps forward, stop, and you now have 360 degrees which you turn to. Then wether for good or bad you choose an action and carry it out. Also after establishing the taking of the initial 2 steps and stopping, you have proven that the Multiverse exists each and every moment, because the Multiverse are not parallel stacked and simultaneously. Time/Space is a Turbulent Flow with Vortices & Eddie's, and each and every choice someone makes has a direct effect down line, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...Thank you for your insights...

[@panmichael5271]

He makes free will seem algorithmic in both structure and process. I think there is far more to it than that.

[@RuneRelic]

Can you convict anyone, in a court of law, if there is no 'free will' ?

[@diandeva]

He speaks fluently without a single sort of, kind of, um or like. Virtually no American can speak like that anymore sadly.

[@simonhibbs887]

Few Brits nowadays either.

[@playpaltalk]

Free Will is a gift from God and that's the greatest gift of all after consciousness.

[@evaadam3635]

Free Will is not a gift from God because we already have it since we all were once ONE WHOLE GOD before we split into free souls to have a free family to love and to be freely loved...

[@playpaltalk]

@@evaadam3635 God is not a Tyrant he had and have the power to force us to do what he wants and he chooses to bless us with Free Will iincluding the freedom to believe in him or not.

[@evaadam3635]

@@playpaltalk .. pls read my response again because I don't think you understand it .... ... when you preach that God gave man free will as a gift, then God is ALL TO BLAME if that man use the gift to choose to do evil which he won't be able to do had God not given him free will... you would be confirming Atheists belief that they can not be held accountable for all evils they do ...

[@aiya5777]

both of you are wrong, case closed.

[@seanpierce9386]

To steelman both arguments: A. God had the power to make any world he wanted. We should be thankful that He allowed us to have free will, which we can all agree is a good thing. B. (Problem of Evil) Since humans can use their freedom to do evil things and God gave them that freedom, He is responsible for that evil. I personally believe B because even if free will is better than some evil, it’s still possible to have free will with no evil. Surely, people still have free will in Heaven (deterministic or not) and yet they do no evil. If that is the case, what’s the point of Earth? TL;DR suffering appears to be unnecessary and I don’t think there’s a way to properly dismiss that.

[@Aluminata]

People have "FREE WILL" in the same way white water canoeist have free will. People end up in the same place regardless, but the manner of their arrival may differ substantially via the application of knowledge, muscular strengths and skill

[@catherinemoore9534]

How easily it is for people of bad faith to justify themselves has always been fascinating to me. Conflicts are their launchpad for their self serving arguments. They believe in themselves above all else. Free will doesn't exist in their lives nor operates in their minds.

[@mogley840ify]

It's Not wrong to believe in yourself over everything else. This "illusion" is the only thing you know for sure exists. Everything else can be a hallucination for all you know, every single bit of external reality, but you damn sure know who's experiencing it. The same person that wrote this original comment... You. The only thing you truly know exists, despite your efforts to reject your existence

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Would you be true to truth if it means losing your job? Some truths are to be kept discret, but should the truth be honored?

[@sirgerbilmacintosh9101]

Most British man ever to do the British.

[@HanifBarnwell]

😂 he’s the most SQL man ever to do SQL. SQL = Structured Query Language.

[@rossw1365]

I don't think blame depends on knowing an action is wrong eg, most laws don't have a "knowing" element you are guilty bc you do the wrong thing, whether you know it is wrong so if you, say, speed, you are guilty, whether you know you are speeding and you are morally culpable bc you freely willed something that is wrong like driving fast actions that have legal and moral ramifications usually involve choice but I don't think choice is necessary for free will if I prefer a flavor of ice cream and eat my fave flavor, I exercise my will, even when my will involved no choice bc I always eat the same flavor that's also free will bc I express my will, free of any compulsion of incapacity I do as I will

[@ondrejsaly749]

I have been interested in free will for few years and I still think it might be real. I mostly find determinists intelectualy less creative...

[@ebptube]

A description only and no explanation

[@jamesmiller7457]

What do u want? A mathematical formula?

[@Appleblade]

Criticisms of free will focus on whether the initiation of an action was simultaneous with choice, or whether the choice preceded it somehow. But that's unsatisfying as a ground for rejecting free will because what everyone means by it is whether we accept or reject the dictates of conscience and align with them. I don't know if there is a 'moment of decision', case by case, when we do that, or if aligning oneself to follow reason and moral principle is something one does as one matures. If that's what is free... just the response to the elements of moral awareness, looking at particular acts as free or determined would be looking in the wrong place.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

These arguments about Free Will are spurious to me and merely some kind of intellectual exercise and do not provide any insight at all into the really deep questions, what is consciousness, how did the Universe really begin or did it begin in fact, etc etc.

[@dragossorin85]

From observation I'm starting to doubt that true free will exist

[@evaadam3635]

if you doubt, how were you able to freely choose to post that comment ?...

[@aiya5777]

​@@evaadam3635 you get your logic upside down, because it's a doubtful idea it's determined for him to doubt it

[@simonhibbs887]

@@evaadam3635 Clearly the ability to make choices for reasons is an established phenomenon, regardless of whether we believe in determinism or libertarian free will.

[@jamesmiller7457]

​@@simonhibbs887clearly

[@aiya5777]

our notion of free will is just the ability to execute the motions that inanimate objects i.e rocks simply cannot execute can rocks choose the chinese food like you do? ofc they cannot even then, both rocks and humans are still fully governed by laws of physics

[@realitycheck1231]

There is no Free Will in the material world. Free will isn't about choice. Choice is primarily determinist, based on previous states of mind. Free will is about having no options to choose from because there are no differences, everything is One and equal. In the material world everything is separate and unequal. You have to make choices in a separated world of bodies and material things. Free will only exists in the spiritual, non-material realm, and it's meaning is the absence of suffering. That's all it means.The closest example of free will on earth would be Nirvana, IMO. Maintain the state of mind of Nirvana and your will is almost free; almost because you are still in the body.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Does time travel negate "determinism"?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Does time travel negate "determinism"?"* ... Time travel is impossible, but hard determinism in no way reflects our reality.

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "time travel is impossible"? According to determinism, or according to current science? Assume its possible. What then is "determinism"? A delusion?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"According to determinism, or according to current science?"* ... According to the grandfather paradox and the fact that time travel (in either direction) has never been demonstrated. The fact that "the past" exists at all means that you can't go back and change things. *"Assume its possible. What then is "determinism"? A delusion?"* ... It's only a delusion if you think that the mere presence of a deterministic situation negates the existence of free will in its entirety. Our reality is a mixture of *predetermined conditions* (obstacles) and *free willed responses* (navigation of obstacles). Some obstacles can be easily negotiated, some obstacles take effort, and some obstacles cannot be navigated. That's "reality" on display!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@kallianpublico7517 I tried to respond twice, but KZbin deleted both comments. ... Sorry!

[@seanpierce9386]

@@kallianpublico7517​​⁠We know that on a small scale, quantum mechanics could break causality or locality. These are indistinguishable since we cannot test the difference. In the former case, time travel is only probabilistically impossible. In the latter case, determinism still holds, but the speed of light restriction is violated for hidden variables in a specific way that maintains Bell’s inequality.

[@MichiganSpinnaker]

As if physics doesn't matter

[@michelangelope830]

I a psychologist, a knowledgeable person. I am not a fighter. If the Earth is round it is not flat. Reality is what it is. If God exists eternity is guaranteed. The truth matters. The universe was created by something incredibly powerful and intelligent. That's a fact. Why? God decided to create the universe and I want to know why. Why would you create life if you were God. Be honest with yourself. Why God created life after existing forever. God is impossible to understand. God is impossible to understand precisely because it created the universe after existing forever from self. I am not a preacher, I think Spinoza was right and God is literally everything that exist past present and future. The endless debate has to end. God exists and everything makes sense if you think the universe is designed. My idea is God created its own Life and Death, God created its own purpose, God gave sense to its own existence. God is literally a game to eternal life or death. Your life counts forever in the history of reality. Reality matters because God is alive as long as there is life in the universe. I need this loving poem to be shared. I want to end the war in Ukraine and the rest of the world. Is it my fault that you are deceived believing? Thank you.

[@8xnnr]

Nah

[@carolvassallo26]

​@8xnhnr hahahahaaaa

[@SuperMrAndersen]

But you invented god for yourself. You just need it. You should know that as a phycologist.

[@TheCosmicRealm3]

What God? Do you mean the God that exists in your imagination? Your imaginary sky-daddy?

[@TheCosmicRealm3]

You are brainwashed into believing a God with absolutely 100% zero evidence of there being a God.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Hm

[@shephusted2714]

of course people have free will - some would like you to think this is not the case

[@dr_shrinker]

Freewill can’t exist. It’s impossible.

[@simonhibbs887]

I'm not a fan of this kind of questioning of people's motivations. For me, it's not a matter of what I would prefer to be the case. How things fundamentally work in the world isn't something that can be swayed by my opinion. Either our decisions are a result of deterministic processes, or non-deterministic ones, and I have no reason to persuade people of an opinion that I don't genuinely think is the case.

[@annagirlieee5290]

i'm going 😮 😮😢😮😅😮😅 1:10 years y

[@ShivamPhysics1]

Weak arguments... Sapolsky has far stronger arguments

[@hypnoticmonkee]

Videos need to be longer

[@simonhibbs887]

These are all clips taken from full episodes, which are available on their web site.

[@hypnoticmonkee]

@@simonhibbs887 website or KZbin?

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Rambling gibberich. Free Will is fallacies. Unpredictable conscieusness unfit random reality.

[@ghaderpashayee8334]

Superficial answer as always. He is a good example of a believer!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(1:43) *RS : **_"The issue of choosing to give them money doesn't come in secondly when there aren't any moral issues"_* ... Handing out money to someone in need is not as clear-cut as Swinburne suggests. Nature doesn't "gift" those in need, and more often than not, nature eliminates those who fail to demonstrate the ability to survive. ... Regardless of the situation, "gifting" is not an autonomic response. As far as "Free Will" goes, it absolutely exists because that's what we all subjectively experience prima facia. We all communicate the experience of choosing in similar ways. The ability to choose between two or more options is the *default condition* that nature presents to us. Therefore, the onus is on anyone arguing against the default condition to prove otherwise. Note that if your argument against free will is based on semantics, time machines, personal preferences, or Newtonian physics, ... then your argument is doomed from the start.

[@simonhibbs887]

Nobody is denying that humans can make choices. Thats not what the free will argument is about. The question is whether our choices are the result of the situation prior to the choice. I think they are, and that the main prior condition is our mental state. In any given situation if we had a sufficiently different mental state we would make a different decision.

[@seanpierce9386]

@@simonhibbs887Very carefully worded. I think the core question here is “what am I?” since no one doubts that it is you doing things. Is there some quality of “me” that is irreducible, perhaps supernatural, or is this just a useful lie? More and more, the evidence points to the latter.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Nobody is denying that humans can make choices. Thats not what the free will argument is about."* ... Yes, it is! It's a toggle-switch type of argument. The Hard Determinist argues that we only "think" we're making our own decisions when in actuality we aren't. And the moment this argument is defeated, the Hard Determinists switches over to claiming that making decisions is not what the free will debate is about. Whenever one argument is losing the battle, just toggle-switch over to the backup argument. Atheists use this same tactic when arguing about the nonexistence of God. *"The question is whether our choices are the result of the situation prior to the choice."* ... That's a semantic argument because there is ALWAYS a prior situation that precipitates a decision - otherwise there would be no necessity for any decisions to be made whatsoever. Also, a prior situation does not mandate that whatever decisions we make were inevitable. ... THIS is where the Hard Determinists typically switches back to using semantics. *"In any given situation if we had a sufficiently different mental state we would make a different decision."* ... And that would be irrelevant because whatever mental state I have at the time is "my" mental state, and I'm making my decisions based on my current mental state. I do not make decisions based on mental states that I had three weeks ago, from high school, or from my infancy. All arguments against free will are ridiculous, and I am surprised that so many people even entertain the idea that we don't have free will.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 I cannot respond to your comment. Both attempts were deleted by KZbin. That's why CTT currently gets less than 1000 views under their videos. People are fed up with wasting their time. If they did something about it, then maybe they would have more views and subscribers?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Nobody is denying that humans can make choices. Thats not what the free will argument is about."* ... Yes, it is! It's a toggle-switch type of argument. The Hard Determinist argues that we only "think" we're making our own decisions when in actuality we aren't. And the moment this argument is defeated, the Hard Determinists switches over to claiming that making decisions is not what the free will debate is about. Whenever one argument is losing the battle, just toggle-switch over to the backup argument. Atheists use this same tactic when arguing about the nonexistence of God. *"The question is whether our choices are the result of the situation prior to the choice."* ... That's a semantic argument because there is ALWAYS a prior situation that precipitates a decision - otherwise there would be no necessity for any decisions to be made whatsoever. Also, a prior situation does not mandate that whatever decisions we make were inevitable. ... THIS is where the Hard Determinists typically switches back to using semantics. *"In any given situation if we had a sufficiently different mental state we would make a different decision."* ... And that would be irrelevant because whatever mental state I have at the time is "my" mental state, and I'm making my decisions based on my current mental state. I do not make decisions based on mental states that I had three weeks ago, from high school, or from my infancy. All arguments against free will are ridiculous, and I am surprised that so many people even entertain the idea that we don't have free will.

[@johnandrew2370]

So, he believes we do not have free will except for this tiny bit of it and that makes us accountable for actions? Respectfully, poppycock. No means no. No free will means no free will. And, consciousness is a brain state. We are simply a brain state in a biological auto bot.

[@seanpierce9386]

I see this argument a lot: X is reducible to physics, therefore Y property of X doesn’t exist. I don’t think this logically follows. We can discuss happiness, anger, love, and other topics whether or not they are reducible to physics. Why not also free will? Sure, it breaks down when you look too close, but it’s still very useful sociologically.

[@aiya5777]

​@@seanpierce9386 we learned from scientific findings that infants release a certain hormone so their mothers can love em, it's called oxytocin or the chemical of love which means fundamentally, mother and baby relationship is fueled by nothing but oxytocin if these chemicals of love ever get severely disrupted, the mother would suffer from a severe postpartum depression, they'd legit become suicidal, nothing but suicidal mothers who would completely forget their supposedly "beloved" babies