On Causality and Free Will (patch)

Note: the following except is a patch to the original excerpt (on Causality and Free Will) on the topic of truth. While both excerpts seek to integrate objective epistemology and subjective ontology (as advocated by science and religion), i feel that the concept of experience (ontology) was not well elaborated in the original excerpt.

This patch would have to do away with the precluding thought experiment on truth, knowledge, and belief and summarized Moore's Paradox into a single paragraph. I believe that the essence is still kept, but should you wish to have a greater insight into Moore's paradox, you may still refer to it in the original post which is still made available within this blog.


*


From our previous posts on Science and Religion we had left with various open conclusions. Re-capping, we see that both the faculties of secular science and theistic religion advocate to the existence of an objective truth. Science is practiced epistemologically by realists, and henceforth all theories formulated in the field of science tend to be true, or approximately true. Religion on the other hand, is an act of ontological personal conviction, and from Moore’s paradox we know that it is impossible to disassociate conviction from (subjective) truth. We cannot say “I know the sky is blue, but I don’t believe it”, similarly, we cannot say “I believe the sky is blue, but I know it isn’t true.”

Now, that we have seen the both advocators philosophy in regard to Truth, the fundamental question that would naturally arise would be as such: Why the irreconcilable discrepancy? This question in general 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'.

Can there be? We have started this discussion from the acknowledgment of a singular objective truth, and from there we had sub-categorized to objectivity and subjectivity. And in the second excerpt we see that such objectivity and subjectivity comes in two primary forms- namely epistemology (theoretically) or ontology (experientially), and that such derivations may be realistic (materialistic) or idealistic in nature. Science being a logical (epistemological) manipulation of empirical data is seen today to clash with Religion, which derives the bulk of its truth from a subjective metaphysical (Ontological) faith. Of course both advocators have very different roles in bringing what kind of Truth to our lives today, but if we were to trace back such contrasting philosophies of Science and Religion back to their parent concepts, we 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.

How is that possible? Moreover, why should we wish to reconcile this eternally bickering couple married by Truth and separated by objectivity, subjectivity, epistemology and ontology? Now we have to reflect the fundamental philosophy of this project, and Truth. The living best is an ideal state of life that many before us have attempted to seek out, and in project RN we wish to join them in ranks to search for this objective idealistic goal. It is imperative that we have to live in goodness and truth should we wish to live our best, and henceforth it is imperative that we have to holistically embody whatever that is true to live the full truth of truth. Indeed, truth as we know today has been sub-categorized into objectivity, subjectivity, epistemology, ontology, realism (materialism) and idealism today; with various advocators siding unconditionally that their respective takes of truth be that complete objective truth itself. We have to transcend such notions should we wish to see the full picture, and definitely such transaction can only be fulfilled by reconciliation, integration and moderation.

Naturally, the first set of concepts we have to integrate today is between empirical science and metaphysical religion.

If we were to look in greater detail between the issues that had arisen in argument against this proposition of integration, we see that of such, the most pressing issue would probably be the long-standing debate on Free Will and Causality. Science, being logical in nature- 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, is subjected to the laws of causality, where would the personal ontological experience and 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. A ball moves as such because it is acted upon by a set of forces that determines its path of motion. We apply the brakes in a car because the car in front has slowed down, and this is in turn determined by the earlier braking action of a previous car; should we wish to trace this chain of prior occurrences, we see that it goes on ad inifnitum. Applying to the context of Free Will- Determinism suggests that whatever 'free will' we may have is completely caused and determined by earlier forces of either 'Nature' or 'Nurture', and that such determinism goes all the way beyond our existence. For that manner of speaking, we see that the ‘free will’ does not stem from us but beyond us, and that we are never 'free' in the first place.

So, are we free? And if not, how determined are we determined?

Indeed, hard-determinism had reigned supreme during the classical era of Newtonian Physics. From the electron to the heavenly bodies, physical laws reigned supreme in perfectly determining the cause and course of action. It was inevitable for the scientific community to assume that everything (including ourselves) would one day be mathematically and physically determined just as long as we have enough knowledge to embody these concepts. There was little room left beyond the imposition of determinism for randomness, unpredictability and free will. There was even less room for a God, let alone a human soul to intervene with events ad libidum.

Hard determinism had softened with the advent of relativity, and the underlying philosophy of relativity has made freedom for free will and the self to exist within a world of causality. Relativity has alluded a concept of a ‘self’ and the ‘others’, making room for subjectivity to exist while hard determinism has its loyal place in objectivity and universality. Previously, to move forward only means that one must be compelled beforehand; but today the experience of moving forward by the individual is physically valid- we know time slows down for the moving individual while not for the ‘others’. Although subjective, it is still truth that individuality exists and has its own place and time within our universe

Moreover, 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 behavior 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.' We could generally portray free will as the choices one can make in a game of chess, where we are still determined by the moves the opponent makes, but still have the free choice to choose which countering moves we wish to make on our part. It is interesting to note that the concept of Compatibilism is also portrayed in both Jewish and 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.

From the above we begin to see a true world with room for both the experience of the individual self (as in the form of subjective ontology) and the (objective) determinism of the system. This world is universal and independent of our individual whims and fancies as we side unconditionally on one over the other. But while science and religion are both right in their philosophies to truth, and that subjective ontology and objective epistemology are indeed one in essence, we of course would not take the above discussion as objective proof to a conclusion that there will inevitably be a perfect integration between the two advocators.

But even with the integration of such concepts of epistemological logic and the ontological free will we know that the resultant truth is still incomplete. Even within the above mentioned concepts, we know that there is still a realistic and idealistic dimension to them, of which we will have to integrate should we wish to paint the full picture of truth. In the next post I would make a second integration between the real (material) and the ideal, basing it on the same set of examples we have discussed today; and subsequently from there see that our lives are equally dependent on such aspects just as those we have acknowledged today.