Chapter 1: The Dichotomy of Free Will and Materialism

In a thought-provoking debate regarding the concept of free will, renowned physicist Brian Greene stated, "I don’t see any way to reconcile that (free will, my ed.) with the laws of physics because whatever actions you take are merely your particles in motion; the movement of your particles in the brain or body does not permit you, as a conscious entity, to direct them." This perspective embodies a common materialistic stance that views science and its principles as definitive of reality. According to this viewpoint, our minds and consciousness arise from these physical laws, relegating all experiential phenomena to terms like "illusion" or, at best, "epiphenomenon."

This notion is not only alluring but also convenient; however, upon closer inspection, it appears quite absurd. Greene's assertion contradicts itself and reveals more about a particular philosophical inclination—materialism—than about the actual nature of reality and the beliefs on which it is founded.

Let’s delve deeper into Greene’s argument. If the absence of free will is contingent upon the inability of your "brain or body" to influence the fundamental laws of physics, then we face a larger issue: not just with free will, but with the very nature of thought, which underpins the foundations of science and rationality.

Indeed, Greene's stance necessitates a coherent logic—a belief in his own capacity to affirm a rational thought as true, and a belief in the concept of truth as an abstraction we strive to grasp. For Greene's argument to hold any weight, "truth" must also "influence" the basic laws of physics, meaning that these laws would need to account for the thoughts he produces. If not, then the origin of thought becomes a matter of pure physics rather than reasoned argumentation, perception, or judgment. In this view, the distinction between a flat-earther and a geography expert is not rooted in knowledge or reason, but rather in the arbitrary arrangement of atoms.

This leads us to the crux of contemporary reductionism. It is a convenient philosophical framework that critiques others while disregarding the fact that its principles undermine its own arguments. Reason is an idea predicated on the belief that the universe is understandable, and that our minds are capable of comprehending it—not merely as a heuristic tool, but as a pathway to truth, which is itself a worthy pursuit.

Ironically, the very foundations of science, which largely emerged in Christian societies, rely on specific beliefs. These include the notions that truth is both accessible and a good in itself, that reality is not only comprehensible but also responsive to our inquiries, and that our minds are designed to seek truth rather than merely survive, thereby challenging the idea that we can only seek truth heuristically. Furthermore, we possess an inner conscious agency and a discerning rationality—beliefs that underpin everything we often take for granted in the modern scientific landscape.

Nevertheless, the practice of science frequently involves the rejection of belief. Much of scientific inquiry is based on a form of "heuristic materialism," suggesting that as we analyze reality in greater detail, we approach a more fundamental truth. Consequently, emergent or irreducible phenomena such as consciousness must be set aside until we can explain them through underlying processes that render them insignificant, leaving us with a form of pure mathematics at the core—the laws of physics, or the so-called "theory of everything."

This perspective marks a hypertrophy of a basic approach to science. It is akin to understanding a car solely through its mechanical components. While fixing a malfunctioning vehicle requires a focus on mechanics, the overwhelming influence of science and technology has led us to view mechanics as all-encompassing. This suggests that elements like capitalism, aesthetics, and the human context of motor vehicles are merely meaningless illusions.

Mathematician John Lennox aptly summarized this idea: "If I wake up and find a dollar missing from my hotel bedside, I don't say that the laws of physics have been breached; I say the laws of Alabama have been broken."

Consequently, we are left with awkward statements like Greene's at the beginning of this article. Understanding mental phenomena necessitates more than just physics, as subjectivity cannot be reduced to mere objectivity. They must align, but our inner thoughts rely on beliefs we continue to take for granted regarding our agency and choices, the nature of truth, and the purpose of the mind. Whatever free will may be, it has not been disproved by the efficacy of science, and we should remember the astonishing fact that science functions precisely because of it.

The first video, "Science Suggests Free Will Doesn't Exist," explores arguments against the existence of free will, emphasizing the implications of scientific laws on human agency.

The second video, "You Don't Have Free Will, But Don't Worry," reassures viewers that the absence of free will does not diminish human experience or responsibility.