Free Will

                   "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
                                                            Stephen Hawking
               
According to theists a deity must possess the following powers: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (all-virtuous).  According to theists any entity claiming to be a deity must possess all three of these powers.  In this essay I will refer to this being as God and use the conventional masculine pronoun “he” in referring to “him.”

The debate between theists and nontheists has been going on forever.  Of course, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved.  This does not imply that each position has the same chance of being true.  Nontheists can examine the alleged powers of God and then use the same reasoning methods employed in other everyday pursuits to check for internal consistency. If the concept of theism is logically coherent, then it might be valid and true otherwise it must be considered false at least as stated.

Theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with the traditional powers of God.  The concept of evil in this essay is divided into two categories.  The first group includes “acts of God,” such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornados.  In the case of “acts of God,” critics and skeptics argue that God was either unwilling or unable to stop the suffering of innocents at the hands of natural disasters. If God is able, but unwilling, then he cannot be considered virtuous. If God is willing, but unable, then he cannot be considered all-powerful.  Therefore,  God either exist and is evil, or he does not exist.  People of faith respond to this logic with the notion that mortals are incapable of comprehending the infinite wisdom of God and that God works in mysterious ways. This is a creed, not an argument.

The second group of evils are those  resulting from mankind’s actions such as the recent Boston Marathon bombings.  Skeptics ask how could a virtuous God allow atrocities such as the September 2001 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York City to happen?  Apologists use “Free Will” to resolve this problem.  They argue that God gave mankind “Free Will” to choose and then bear the consequences of their choices. Sin is therefore the cause of evil and suffering not God. This is a very clever and convincing argument until its fatal flaw is revealed.

The fly-in-the-ointment of the “Free Will” argument is the incompatibility of “Free Will” and omniscience.  Keep in mind that  “all knowing” requires perfect knowledge of everything that has happened in the past, perfect knowledge of everything happening in the present, and perfect knowledge of everything that will happen in the future.  One example should make it clear why “Free Will” cannot exist in the same space with omniscience. Bill, an atheist lives and dies. An omniscient deity would have known that prior to Bill’s life and death. If Bill had changed his mind and became a Christian before he died, that would contradict God’s prior knowledge and thus invalidate his omniscience.  Apologists must make a choice, “Free Will” or omniscience, they cannot have both!

If God is omniscient then man cannot have “Free Will.”  In this case God is responsible for all mankind’s evil acts and he cannot be considered omnibenevolence.  If mankind has “Free Will” then God cannot be omniscient.  Therefore, God either exist and is evil, or he does not exist.

So far science has not established the existence of “Free Will.”    However, there are three hypotheses that deny its existence. The first one is the quantum theory argument and involves the idea of reductionism down to the particle level of matter.  At this level of analysis everything that happens in nature can be explained by the behavior of particles which can be described by a body of mathematics.  This of course includes the operation of the human brain and at this level is beyond the control of the person.  Therefore, “Free Will” cannot exist.

The second argument was presented by Stephen Hawking in his book,  A Brief History of Time (1992).  Hawking along with others is pursuing what is called the “Grand Unification Theory" (GUT).  Their quest is to develop a single mathematical model that will integrate and explain the four forces in nature: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.  According to Hawking when this is accomplished, scientists will be able to predict the outcome of any system “simply” by determining the initial state and then applying and solving the equations of the GUT.  This would include all of human behavior! If this happens, “Free Will” join the ranks of failed ideas.

The third argument is one made by Neuroscientists such as Dr. Sam Harris who proposed the following thought question:  Are you free to do that which does not occur to you to do? Of course action follows thought, and you obviously cannot do anything without the thought first occurring to you.  Therefore, “Free Will” cannot exist.

Epistemologically a personal God based on the three classical theistic powers cannot exist.  Does this mean that there is no God? The above arguments demonstrate the God of theism cannot exist, but it does not preclude the existence of  Einstein’s deistic God.  Deism does not arbitrarily attribute powers to their God. Instead they entertain a hypothesis whereby there exist in the universe a power that established the laws of natures and then withdrew allowing these laws to create and operate the universe.  Deists refer to this power as nature or the universal architect. Anytime a deist refers to “God,” they are referring to the impersonal “God” of Spinoza and Einstein.  Deism does not anthropomorphize their “God.”  The universal architect does not interfere in man’s affairs, does not perform miracles, does not provide for life after death, does not answer prayers, and does not demand any form of sacrifice or  worship.  “He” reveals his existence only through the laws of science and mathematics. 

Some people might ask the question, “What is the difference between a deist and an atheist?”  Deists allow for some slight possibility that God might exist.  Atheists maintain that God absolutely does not exist in the same way that theists claim God does exist.  The atheist and the theist both accept faith without proof as a basis for their belief.  Deism is more compatible with the scientific method and is favored by scientists.  As a deist I doubt seriously based on science, history, and logic the existence of a personal God.  Furthermore, I am happy with the thought that the God of theism does not exist.