Book Review: "Free Will" by Sam Harris
Concisely Argues Against All Notions of Free Will
Overall rating: 5/5
In this book, renowned public intellectual and atheist Sam Harris concisely makes a strong case against all notions of free will.
My Prior Beliefs
Before reading this book, it had been about twenty years since I considered whether we have free will. Having some background in math and physics, including quantum mechanics, I spent a few days thinking about how one would define the concept mathematically, presupposing that there are laws of physics. I decided that there could not be a sensible definition without throwing out the notion that there are laws of physics. I further decided that the problem had a minimal practical impact: Even if it was only an illusion, I could still at least seem to make decisions from day to day and should try to make the best ones.
Sam's Case Against Free Will
I read this book to see if I had missed anything: In particular, if there was a definition of free will compatible with there also being inviolable laws of physics. (Saying "inviolable" is redundant: If the laws were violable, they would not be laws. Conversely, if there are laws, their consequences follow out of logical necessity: Even God himself could not change the logical consequences.) From the book, it turns out that Sam Harris also believes that the notion of free will is incoherent in light of the existence of laws of physics. According to Sam, this is the consensus in scientific and philosophical circles. In particular, almost nobody believes in "libertarian" free will, meaning an ability to choose that would imply something other than the laws of physics determine the universe's future state.
Sam's argument against free will is powerful in that it does not presuppose that the universe is deterministic. Sam argues that there is still no room for free will even in a quantum mechanical universe subject to fundamental randomness. The universe may end up in a random state, but the prior state plus randomness, neither of which you control, determine that.
Sam states that most who believe in free will seem to do so because it feels like we have it. Sam rejects this from a couple of angles: First, he asks the reader to introspect closely and answer whether the feelings of free will still feel real after closer thought. Are we really controlling the thoughts popping into our heads, for instance? Why is our choice made at one moment and not another? Sam also appeals to experiments showing brain activity predicting choices that will be made before subjects even feel they are making a choice.
Against Compatibilism
Sam spends a good portion of the book dealing with "compatibilism." This is a notion that free will is possible even if only laws of physics determine the universe's future state. Sam takes compatibilist arguments to either be redefining the idea of free will away from the fundamental question or stating something which can be seen to be false upon deeper introspection.
Societal Consequences
Although not strictly necessary to back his conclusion, Sam discusses the moral, societal, and personal implications of his belief in "no free will." Here he argues that there is a risk of adverse effects from not believing in free will, but he argues that these vanish when one thinks about the issue more deeply. A significant point that Sam makes is that he believes that less belief in free will results in greater compassion. He addresses positive benefits both in terms of secular parts of society: especially the criminal justice system, but, not surprisingly, considering he is an unspoken atheist, he thinks it would also have a positive impact on countering harmful religious beliefs: E.g., although you had no choice regarding your nature, the circumstances of your birth, and your "soul," you should still feel guilty for your failings and are, indeed, maybe even condemned to eternal damnation in some cases.
Summary
In the end, the book reinforced my belief that the notion of free will cannot be made compatible with the existence of laws of physics. I learned what "compatibilism" is and its flaws. I ultimately agree with Sam: upon deeper introspection, we do not even have an illusion of free will. I did not expect to end up believing this going into the book.
Unlike other Sam Harris books like "The Moral Landscape," I agreed with Harris on every point instead of just the vast majority. Given this, I am a bit surprised that Harris believes in consciousness when I do not. I, thus, look forward to reading his thoughts on that subject.
People who do believe in free will will find a strong, concise, and clear case made against it in this book. For those who go in not believing, I suspect they will find the notion even more problematic than they initially thought.