Since I no longer believe in the "Divine Will of God," it stands to reason that I am curious about the nature of the universe, fate, origins, and even my own thoughts. Because there is no soul upon which I can hang my own person, I began to ponder at the nature of my own consciousness. While I was still Christian, I had been introduced to causal determinism by a friend of mine, but since I was Christian, I had no cause to explore what this meant.
"The laws of chemistry and physics do not change in the human brain," is how this friend of mine once explained determinism to me. Although determinism has larger implications than mere human physiology, the fact that I may not be driving the bus of my own consciousness really antagonizes my ego, and so I have spent the last few weeks looking for a loophole I could exploit to say that I - my consciousness - am more than a collection of chemical reactions.
My uncle is a very successful surgeon in northern Alabama, in addition to being a very smart guy (of course, the latter is usually a prerequisite for the former), so I inquired about his thoughts on the matter. He responded that he believes that conscious thought occurs at a subatomic level, and thus the Uncertainty Principle guarantees that we have free will. Although I do not have the same level of scientific education as my uncle, I do not agree with his thesis, here's why:
If consciousness occurs at the chemical level, then the laws of chemistry and physics dictate those interactions (within the brain), thus consciousness is deterministic.
If consciousness occurs at the atomic level, then the laws of physics and chemistry dictate those interactions, thus consciousness is deterministic.
If consciousness occurs at the subatomic level, then the laws of physics dictate those interactions, thus consciousness is deterministic.
If consciousness occurs at the quantum level, then the laws of physics dictate those interactions, thus consciousness is deterministic.
Granted, we do not fully understand quantum physics yet, but that does not mean that the behavior of quarks is not dictated fully by laws that are every bit as inviolable as the laws of gravity. Moreover, I highly doubt that consciousness occurs at this level; since lower forms of thought occur at the chemical level, it stands to reason that conscious thought lies within this realm as well.
Assuming for a second that I believe that consciousness occurs at the quantum level, I do not believe Heisenberg or the Observer Principle give us any leeway for free will, because I believe that every action in the universe is dictated by laws, regardless of whether or not we are able to count on the accuracy of our observations concerning those laws. Of course, I am not a professional scientist and my scientific education is limited, so my opinions are merely those of a curious layman.
Determinism poses interesting problems for religious belief though. Using the Christian model, interpreting the "will of God" to mean that God "saves" whom he will, and assuming a universe with immutable laws, one can therefore infer that God established beforehand whom he would "save." Of course, this is consistent with Calvinist theology and demolishes Arminianism - in addition to pretty much all other religions which base treatment in the afterlife upon one's deeds in life. For Calvinism though, it is much more problematic, since it exposes God as being unjust, unfair, cruel, and capricious; since one has no choice whatsoever how one behaves, it further compounds the issue of "accident of birth" --meaning one has no choice where one is born, because one now has no choice regarding the decisions one makes either.
"The laws of chemistry and physics do not change in the human brain," is how this friend of mine once explained determinism to me. Although determinism has larger implications than mere human physiology, the fact that I may not be driving the bus of my own consciousness really antagonizes my ego, and so I have spent the last few weeks looking for a loophole I could exploit to say that I - my consciousness - am more than a collection of chemical reactions.
My uncle is a very successful surgeon in northern Alabama, in addition to being a very smart guy (of course, the latter is usually a prerequisite for the former), so I inquired about his thoughts on the matter. He responded that he believes that conscious thought occurs at a subatomic level, and thus the Uncertainty Principle guarantees that we have free will. Although I do not have the same level of scientific education as my uncle, I do not agree with his thesis, here's why:
If consciousness occurs at the chemical level, then the laws of chemistry and physics dictate those interactions (within the brain), thus consciousness is deterministic.
If consciousness occurs at the atomic level, then the laws of physics and chemistry dictate those interactions, thus consciousness is deterministic.
If consciousness occurs at the subatomic level, then the laws of physics dictate those interactions, thus consciousness is deterministic.
If consciousness occurs at the quantum level, then the laws of physics dictate those interactions, thus consciousness is deterministic.
Granted, we do not fully understand quantum physics yet, but that does not mean that the behavior of quarks is not dictated fully by laws that are every bit as inviolable as the laws of gravity. Moreover, I highly doubt that consciousness occurs at this level; since lower forms of thought occur at the chemical level, it stands to reason that conscious thought lies within this realm as well.
Assuming for a second that I believe that consciousness occurs at the quantum level, I do not believe Heisenberg or the Observer Principle give us any leeway for free will, because I believe that every action in the universe is dictated by laws, regardless of whether or not we are able to count on the accuracy of our observations concerning those laws. Of course, I am not a professional scientist and my scientific education is limited, so my opinions are merely those of a curious layman.
Determinism poses interesting problems for religious belief though. Using the Christian model, interpreting the "will of God" to mean that God "saves" whom he will, and assuming a universe with immutable laws, one can therefore infer that God established beforehand whom he would "save." Of course, this is consistent with Calvinist theology and demolishes Arminianism - in addition to pretty much all other religions which base treatment in the afterlife upon one's deeds in life. For Calvinism though, it is much more problematic, since it exposes God as being unjust, unfair, cruel, and capricious; since one has no choice whatsoever how one behaves, it further compounds the issue of "accident of birth" --meaning one has no choice where one is born, because one now has no choice regarding the decisions one makes either.
No comments:
Post a Comment