I've watched yet another video, by yet another Atheist, declaring their belief in a lack of free will. The basic premise is as expected, that all actions and thoughts emanate from within the brain as a result of past experiences and current input; thought and choice is nothing more than a consequence of unguided chemical reactions and electrical impulses within the brain. This latest video watched(which itself is quite old), was a video by someone I otherwise quite enjoy watching lately and believe a very reasonable person. In fact, I can't argue that this viewpoint is unreasonable to hold. I do argue that it is a premature conclusion(scientifically) at best, and ignorant of modern science and the unknown at worst. In any case, I have never been convinced of this belief.
First off, we know very little of the brain and mind. There are constant advancements in understanding how the brain works, and increasingly how certain elements of decision or mental processing occur. As of this time, however, we are no-where near creating a model of the entire complexity of the brain. Until that is done, it is entirely premature to argue that the brain is nothing more than a state-machine, using current state and environmental inputs to drive us along. We might have a hard time envisioning how free-will works, but it is a non-scientific arrogance to claim free-will is clearly non-existent.
Some of the most interesting research right now has to do with quantum mechanics which are somewhat famously known to be indeterminate. There is a randomness at play in the basic rules of the universe that prevents any quantum system from being 100% predictable at any moment. If science itself supports an indeterminate reality at it's core, is it really a stretch to argue that it leaves no place for free-will? This randomness of nature provides just one possibility that religious individuals can point to as a potential mechanism for the function of a soul(assuming our brain is sensitive enough to a quantum scale randomness to be so perturbed in the first place...this remains to be proved, but science hasn't shut the door on free-will yet). Sure, you might argue that this randomness would be merely another input into our otherwise machine-like brain, leaving still no evidence for a soul. But at the same time, it would not eliminate the possibility of a soul unless you could
also prove it is truly
random in a particular case of an individual decision.
If future science leaves us in such a case of natural indeterminacy as an input to our thought process, we would have no hope of disproving the existence of a soul and proving a lack of free-will. As a scientifically minded Christian, I certainly hope(and expect), this is the sort of situation we eventually reach. Perhaps it will finally stop Atheists from trying to argue against the Truth of Christianity, as they would know scientifically they can't. At the same time, it would stop fellow Christians from painfully ignorant attempts to assert that science is wrong, misguided, etc, as science would limit itself from the religious realm(at least concerning a soul).
I don't personally advocate that quantum indeterminacy is the mechanism by which the soul or free-will works; we just don't know yet. But I do believe it provides just one example of why we shouldn't call the issue of free-will scientifically settled(or even sort of known). We are only now beginning to truly look at the physical function of the brain, and there is still very little known about how physical reality functions on a foundational level. To claim that there is no room for a soul or free-will is at this point a faith. As a scientifically-minded Christian, I find it annoying that Atheists so often ignore the limits of modern science, just as the religious so often ignore the limits of our divine teachings.
