On Causality and Free Will.

It may come across to some that I may sound confusing or long winded over the previous posts. I understand that such a topic on Truth requires years of extensive study before I may do justice to address Truth truthfully; let alone attempt to summarize it in a couple of blog posts. There are definitely multiple concepts within this topic I had skipped or simplified, especially in the philosophy or Science & Religion as well as the definition of Truth, and in the process I may have blurred the full picture itself. I sincerely apologise, but I have to move on to other topics-

In general, I may summarize the essence of my previous topics broadly into the following three statements.

Truth is a knowledge.
For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.
Knowledge entails both logic and belief.

Lets take an example, shall we? The subject we are dealing today is: the sky is blue. I take the word 'sky' and 'blue' not to be human interpretations of the object 'sky' and the colour 'blue' but rather them as they truly are.

Naturally, it's True that the colour of the sky is blue. This Truth is objective- it needs no form ontology or epistemology on the part of us humans.

For us to know that the Sky is Blue and know it's true, we have just successfully applied the Correspondence Theory of Truth to sync our Knowledge to the objective Truth. We could have acquired that knowledge via our senses (ontology), or belief.

Note that our senses are logical- we have to Know the concept of blue before we may logically associate the 'blue' of the sky with the 'blue' that has been taught to us. In this respect, Knowledge entails logic.

But do note that it is paradoxical to say that ''I know the sky is blue, but I don't believe it.'' (see Moore's paradox for more information) This is because it requires conviction. In this respect, Knowledge too entails belief.

In conclusion- Knowledge, being correspondent of Truth, entails both logic and belief.

*

Note that I had used 'Science' and 'Religion' as the two primary forms of expression for the concept of 'logic' and 'beliefs'. This topic may have sounded nostalgic, especially to those whom have taken the General Paper at A level. The fundamental controversy of this topic lies in the debate on whether 'There is a conflict between Science and Religion'- or rephrased in today's context, 'can there be a convergence between the two philosophies of Truth'.

-

I have attempted to explain previously (and above), that Truth entails both logic and belief. If Knowledge, being Truth and seek out by both Science and Religion, entails both logic and belief, then it would be rational to assume that both Science and Religion is actually correct at the same time. And if Truth, like Knowledge, is one entity by itself (objectivism and subjectivism are both subsets of the Truth); we can see that there would ultimately be a convergence of the two contrasting philosophies at the end of the day-

-

That being the ultimate convergence to the Truth.

-

Now how is that possible? One of the immediate issues that may arise in argument against this proposition is the long-standing debate on Free Will and Causality. Science, being logical- generally advocates the theory of causality; In other words, everything that exists today is actually a produced effect of some cause in the history of time. Now if everything, including us, are subjected to the laws of causality, where would the Free Will that religion advocates then stand?

-

From here, I would like to channel your attention to the concept of Determinism and Compatibilism.

-

Indeed, the argument I had addressed in the previous paragraph is one of Determinism- Determinism proposes that every event, including human cognition (thinking) and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Applying to the context of Free Will- Determinism suggests that whatever 'free will' we may have is completely caused by either 'Nature' or 'Nurture' and henceforth, we are not 'free' in actual fact.

-

So, are we free? And if we are, how free are we?

-

We should have been all aware by now that recent studies in quantum physics have found proof that not everything in this universe are subjected to the laws of causality. This can be especially seen in the behaviour of quarks and strings when they seem to 'disregard all known laws of physics'. Moreover, the basic concept of radioactivity has already baffled many determinists- indeed, the decay of nuclear particles are caused by the instability of the nucleus, but there is virtually nothing that determines which particle decays at which point in time (the nucleus seems to have a 'free will' in choosing when to decay itself)

-

Hence, while the philosophy of science tends to that of Determinism, many of our scientists actually tend more to the philosophy of Compatibilism. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are actually compatible ideas, and the 'Free will' in compatibilism is taken to be a 'hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.'. I do not have enough expertise to discuss Compatiblism in greater detail, but we could generally portray free will as the choices one can make in a game of chess, where we are still partially determined by the moves the opponent makes, but still have the free choice to choose which countering moves do we want to make on our part.

-

It is interesting to note that the concept of Compatibilism is also portrayed in both Jewish Christian Theology, as stated succinctly:

-

Compatibilism in this context holds that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are both biblical concepts and, rightly understood, are not mutually exclusive. The all-knowing God (who sees past, present, and future simultaneously from the perspective of eternity) created human beings (who have the subjective reality of making choices in the present that have consequences for themselves and others in the future) in such a way that both are true: God is ultimately sovereign and therefore must have at least permitted any choice that a human could make, but at the same time God is right to hold humans accountable because from their perspective within the confines of serial time, humans make moral choices between good and evil.

-

Therefore, if Compatibilism holds, there would then be no conflict between causality and Free will. And hence there would be no conflict in science and religion at all.

-

Please note that whatever that I have stated here is not directly contradictory to my previous GP essay 'There is a conflict between Science and Religion'. In my previous essay I had maintained that " There may be a possibility that ‘science’, or more correctly-”knowledge” in itself can actually be able to prove the credibility of the bible, and the existence of God". In today's context, allow me to patch the concept of Science not only to be only Knowledge, but also of Truth. And since I had maintained that Truth (and knowledge) entails Logic and Belief; perhaps with the philosophy of Compatibilism in mind, we may one day indeed converge both Science and Religion together.

-

-

-

PS: We may do that if we had more time and expertise in such matters, but Project RN does not focus in the converging of science and religion. Project RN instead, seeks more to refine the understanding the Truth in our lives and the world around us.