In the previous article, we mentioned that everything was rosy when there was no Libet experiment yet and free will was sleeping soundly in its velvet pouch.
Even the sharpest debates between theists, atheists, deists and agnostics never fell into the velvet pouch of “free will”, free will was protected as the common denominator of all parties. Free will was at the forefront of the “alliance” field of almost all parties, as “a common aspect of all of us”.
When it was revealed by the Libet experiment that this might not be the case at all, both the cat was out of the bag and the velvet pouch of free will was torn.
Now let’s turn back time a little. Inquiries into free will date back to the ancient Greek intellectual history. At that time, it is only in the mode of assertion and vicious contention. There is no evidence, but the spiritual teaching is the winner of the field with its arrogance as it always has been, even if it has no evidence. Always and most often their voice is heard.
Much later, it will lead to a fundamental break in Islamic civilization. These differences of opinion appear as Islamic creeds. When talking about sect, don’t immediately think of ideas about “how to pray”. It is the work of the muamalat or, in other words, the fiqh sects. The sects of creed are the separation in the fundamental issues of belief. This is a fundamental divergence regarding “how to believe”, such as the attributes of Allah, creation, and the principles of faith. The biggest break in this separation has been experienced in the issue of “destiny and free will”.
On the one hand, a sect called “Jabriyya” emerged and said, “Fate is absolute, man has no will, everything happens by Allah’s will”. In other words, according to the Jabriyya sect, everything that happens happens “by force”.
In the opposite direction to this, the Mutezile sect emerged, and they said, “There is no such thing as destiny, God does not interfere with the actions of human beings and the things that happen in nature, He put the rules and order in his way with the first command “be”, he did not interfere beyond, human beings. Whatever he does, he does it of his own free will.”
Moreover, both of these sects based their views on the verses of the Qur’an. Because there are tens and hundreds of verses in the Qur’an that clearly support what both sides say.
This contradictory information naturally caused great distress. It would be a great confusion if two contradictory judgments could be drawn from a book boasting that it does not contain any contradictions, that it is impossible to be defended simultaneously.
Finally, other sects of creed, who were disturbed by this situation, came together under the name of “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaat”. And they said; “The issue is as neither Jabriyye nor Mu’tazila claims”
What is it?
“A little Cebriyye is right and a little Mutezile is right”
“All work and creation, general progress, happens with Allah’s universal will (i.e., his coercion). Provided that he cannot change this destiny and stay within the limits of this destiny, man also has a partial will.
In summary, God has left a “playground” for His servants, the boundaries of which he has drawn. People, with their free will, affect work and becoming in this “playground”.
Since the Qur’an clearly opens the door to both these opposite ideas, a middle way was adopted in order that some of the verses would not conflict with the other parts, but the boundaries of these were never clarified.
For example, if you ask under what will a person’s death is, according to the Qur’an, this is a situation that takes place with Allah’s will. However, life experience reveals that human voluntary action can also lead to the death of oneself or another. In such a stalemate, the will of the person who puts forward the action that leads to death is actually explained as the occurrence of God’s will. In other words, the final result is desired by God in eternity, but the act comes into existence with the will of the person.
In fact, there are basically two reasons for the emergence of this intricate and difficult issue in the Islamic world. The first is the “illusion of free will” that we discussed in the previous article, and the second is the existence of verses in the Qur’an that clearly allow both ideas.
The illusion of free will, despite the very clear statements of some verses of the Qur’an, which we will address in the next two articles, whispers to people in the strongest voice and says, “Here, I think, I do, I choose, I speak”. It is almost impossible for a person to immediately oppose this strong and relatively “right” inner voice, namely the “illusion of free will”. The witness and the evidence are not far away, they are very close, the closest, immediately within the person.
This unresolved and never-ending quarrel was tried to be resolved in a friendly and scientific manner, with the Ahl as-sunnat wal community (who knows) that “there is no compulsion in religion”, murdered the imams of the Jabriyya and Mutezile sects and burned their books. What the Jabriyya and Mutezile sects said could only survive due to the quotations from these views in the books of archivist commentators such as Fahruddin Er Razi, in order to combat these views.
Let’s come to the discussions in the field of science and thought after the Libet experiment, after this “refreshing” journey we made in time.
The Libet experiment, which we mentioned at the beginning of the article, had a shocking effect on all theists, atheists, deists and other sections, and caused a great alarm in the world of thought.
It is possible to understand the rush of theist sections who have sufficiently benefited and benefited from the spiritualist teaching, but what happens to atheists, my dear?
Atheists held the basic view that there is a Godless universe and that life is wonderfully beautiful and livable. Life without God and without an afterlife could have made extraordinary sense. Flowers, insects, pain, happiness, longing, desires were all things worth experiencing and could be appreciated without believing in a God.
Because, to be born as a rational being in this huge universe, to comprehend life and events, to bring about a change in the things going on in the universe and to leave a trace was an important task in itself.
However, all of these were basically based on the assumption of “free will”, and the works of human beings gained a meaning with their personality, individuality, uniqueness and separation from the others.
What if there is no free will in the universe as there is no God !!!
Oh my God (!)
This is where all hell broke loose. Because all the words that add value to life without God would be a word salad material.
Let’s see what!
The sentence atheist crew is doing “free will defense” hand in hand with theists, who are against their heart’s content!
Let’s see what they said first:
Daniel Dennett, our famous atheist grandfather, speaks in the video below:
Dede Dennett talks about “no free will” until 3:45 seconds of the video, and after that second, free will exists and how valuable and distinctive and responsible it is.
Apparently, the famous atheist grandfather was quite confused. Come on guys! It is the right time to say “let’s take care of our grandfather”.
Also have a look at this:
The British philosopher, writer and comparative religion expert, our charismatic brother Alan Watts, was so confused that around 3:47 seconds of the video, when he was listing the arguments against free will, that is, while he was on the side of the Jabriyye school, he said, “A Mu’tazila, a Jabriyye,” hoop “Ahl as Sunnah Ve’. “The Congregation” became. You have listened to the fancy sentences and words of our brother Alan Watts, which are suitable for making a good salad. Please do not forget to “burpe” and release the contradictory gases after eating this salad.
In fact, similar examples can be given from the world of domestic and foreign thought. I just wanted to exemplify the futile effort and occasional comical situation to “save free will” despite all the confusion that the Libet experiment initiated.
Fortunately, in every crisis, a savior, a prophet or a Mahdi will appear.
Here, That great savior: Holy Quantum!
In fact, the data on quantum physics and what quantum physics is essentially about go way back in time to this discussion (the Libet experiment). In fact, it is known that Albert Einstein insisted on this issue for a long time and took the determinist side.
However, the demonstration that some things could be “undeterminable” in all this determinist point of view caused a serious confusion at that time, and the determinist current (perhaps the equivalent point of view, the Jabriyya school) was hit hard.
Here, this “indeterministic” approach that emerged at the “subatomic” level, after the Libet experiment, is an answer to the “prayers” of all free will advocates and “from the God of every crew” whether they believe it or not.
it became a blessing.
But I ask you to pay attention to Mark Balaguer’s body movements while watching the video. Other than what you say, what do body movements tell? Let’s listen to both:
In fact, Mark Balaguer is supremely worried that even quantum mechanics may fall short of explaining this issue.
But this new Mahdi, Hz. There are also those who show a heartfelt devotion to Quantum:
Let’s see what our “Japanese” big brother Michio Kaku, whose face we are very familiar with from astronomy and physics documentaries, says: (Activate the subtitle feature of the video)
For the sake of the Almighty Mahdi Quantum!
Hey, Michio Kaku big brother, won’t they ask the man, how can quantum mechanics occurring at the subatomic level have anything to do with a person committing murder, for example, searching and scanning his ex-wife, who he divorced, and killing him in the middle of the street?
When we drop an apple from the top down, does it fall somewhere else every time? Are the motions of the “electron” and the motion of the “Newtonian apple” based on the same principles?
Also, what is it to defend outright “randomness” by clinging to a rotten rope of quantum electrons while trying to save free will? However, the defense of free will is, on the face of it, a defense of “will”. Isn’t it self-denial by implying that human behavior is not voluntary, but random and unpredictable, to give an example of subatomic particles acting in an “undetectable” way to save it?
As you can see, “saving free will” is more difficult than “er ryan” and the only defensive line at hand is utter rubbish phrases emblazoned with the words “quantum physics”.
The subject is difficult, the haste is great. So, can this savior of Kurantum really save and set free will?
Is there free will? The next title of our article series will be: “Gene, environment and experience pressure”.
Ali Aksoy – 24.10.2019
(Translated with google translate)
For the original article, see: