By Michael Hall
The majority of the world’s population believes in some sort of higher power. Many of these belief systems are built on the foundation of the concept of free will. But does it really exist or are we, like Skinner believes, living predestined lives. We shall see that it has much to do with the belief structure of the individual. The existence of free will depends on one’s definition of God.
First, let us define free will. According to the dictionary, free will is the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. So free will is the ability to make choices that are not predetermined. This also introduces the concept of morality. This gives us the ability to choose between a right and wrong action. Under this concept, we are given the option to follow a good or evil life. But every decision has consequences: good or bad. And the concept of free will also allows for the realization of mistakes.
Next, let us define the opposite of free will: destiny. According to the dictionary, destiny is a predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control. So a destined life would have a predetermined and unalterable future. It would be impossible to make any decision because choice would become non-existent. The apparent choice would only be an illusion. Good and evil would also not exist because they are based on the relationship between these choices. Thus, morality also could not exist. And without choice, mistakes would be impossible. We would be like characters in a story that has already been written.
But how could choice be an illusion? Well let’s think about it. Could the perceived choice be based purely on previous factors in which your mind responds (through choice) as an effect to the consolidated causes? Could it be possible that it is only assumed to be a free act but could be explained in a purely physical or chemical sense? Basically, the sum of all your past experiences is the cause of the choice. So the illusion of choice (or free will) could be based on the supposed, or perceived, evolution of thought of the individual over a span of time.
Let us imagine that you are transported back five years ago to your former self. You do not remember any of the experiences that have occurred in this span of time. Would you not end up in the exact same spot as you are right now in five years? Of course you would because it all depends on the inputs that enter your thought pattern. So whenever opposing thoughts enter your mind, you believe that you have the option to choose whatever path that you wish. But the choice you think you are making was already decided. You are just carrying out a role that you can never screw up.
Can anyone be held accountable for actions he or she was conditioned to do? If there is no free will, should we do away with the entire justice system? Should we let the criminals roam the streets? These questions and others are asked by proponents and opponents to the concept of free will. These questions prove that people on both sides of the argument do not understand the implications of this concept. Words like can and should are assuming that you still have a choice. But you don’t. Everything has already been decided. The future has already been written and cannot be changed. So could a realization of destiny collapse society? I believe that is possible, and if it did, it was meant to happen.
But then again, if there is the question at all, it must have a reason to exist. We must have been meant to read and ponder over it. But to think that any real change to future events will come from debating it is illusory. Any change that we do see is just a perceived change, because change does not exist.
So now that we have a brief understanding of both options, which one is correct. Are we living a life of choice or a predetermined life? Well, the answer to the question of free will is directly related to the answer of this question: Is God all-knowing? But what is all-knowing? Basically, God would know the interaction of the smallest particle in a remote part of the universe just as much as he knows our passing thoughts here on earth. Let us assume that He is. Since God is all-knowing, He must know the future and all of our future choices. He would, in fact, know whether we would lead a good or evil life before we were even born. We would be unable to make a choice that God would not already know. So how would choice exist if the outcome was already known? Choice could not exist; there would only be one way for the future to unfold. The argument that God knows, but does not act, does not apply. This is because regardless of the action of the deity, the knowledge is in existence. And you cannot surprise an all-knowing God.
Free will can only exist if the outcome to actions are not known anywhere in existence. So in order for free will to be, God must not be all-knowing. If that is the case, God will have to be redefined. But there is also a second possibility: there is no God. Could the concept of free will be an attempt to justify existence? There are great implications to both the scenarios of free will and destiny. I believe this is a question that is avoided because all outcomes are undesirable.
You can build a massive and luxurious skyscraper. Everyone can come and marvel at how amazing it is. It can withstand the worst storms, and anything you throw at it. But if it is built on an unbalanced foundation, the whole building can come down. I believe that the cracks are starting to show in the foundation of free will under the skyscraper of human existence.
Leave a reply