Critic:
This essay is emotionally powerful. The examples of the condemned man, loveless vows, and Viktor Frankl in Auschwitz make a strong case that without free will, love, morality, and meaning collapse. However, I see significant philosophical problems.
- Appeal to Consequences
You argue that if free will is an illusion, then life has no meaning — therefore free will must exist. This is a classic appeal to consequences. Just because a belief would make life unbearable doesn’t make it true.
JB:
I am not claiming that if free will is an illusion, then life has no meaning is empirical proof that free will exists. I’m saying that if we allow for the possibility of the existence of a loving God who created us, He would have given us free will and thus our lives would have genuine purpose, love, and moral weight.
Critic:
- Over-simplifying Sapolsky
You call his view “dangerous.” But Sapolsky isn’t advocating moral nihilism. He argues for compassion and systemic change instead of retributive blame. Many find this more humane than traditional punishment. Isn’t your characterization a bit unfair?
JB:
I see his intent is compassionate. However, I still believe removing genuine moral responsibility ultimately weakens society’s moral fabric and our sense of personal accountability. Even if his motives are good, the implications are dangerous.
Critic:
- The Leap to God
You move quickly from “Sapolsky is wrong” to “therefore God and free will.” A skeptic can simply reject the God premise. Without God, your argument loses its foundation. Isn’t this circular?
JB:
That is the point: if a skeptic simply rejects the God premise, as most do, it nullifies the whole argument. I am not saying, therefore, “free will”; I am saying that if you allow for God, our lived reality of love, purpose, and moral experience becomes logical. The existence of a loving God provides the best foundation for that reality.
Critic:
- Missing Steelman
You don’t fully engage the strongest version of the determinist position: that even if it feels bleak, it may simply be true, and we have to learn to live with it honestly rather than clinging to comforting illusions.
JB:
I acknowledge that if there is no God, Sapolsky is likely correct. But I believe the theistic worldview better matches the depth of human experience — love, meaning, and moral responsibility feel real because they are real. We are not forced to choose between scientific honesty and meaning. The two can coexist if we allow for a Creator.