What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Will Explained: How Science and Philosophy Converge to Create a Beautiful Illusion
A compelling essay on free will from an internationally recognized authority on atheism, and author ofGod: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction.
Do we have free will? And if we don’t, why do we feel as if we do? In a godless universe governed by impersonal laws of cause and effect, are you responsible for your actions? Former evangelical minister Dan Barker (God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction) unveils a novel solution to the question that has baffled scientists and philosophers for millennia. He outlines the concept of what he calls “harmonic free will,” a two-dimensional perspective that pivots the paradox on its axis to show that there is no single answer—both sides are right. Free will is a useful illusion: not a scientific, but a social truth.
Do we have free will? And if we don’t, why do we feel as if we do? In a godless universe governed by impersonal laws of cause and effect, are you responsible for your actions? Former evangelical minister Dan Barker (God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction) unveils a novel solution to the question that has baffled scientists and philosophers for millennia. He outlines the concept of what he calls “harmonic free will,” a two-dimensional perspective that pivots the paradox on its axis to show that there is no single answer—both sides are right. Free will is a useful illusion: not a scientific, but a social truth.
160 pages, Paperback
Published February 6, 2018
28 people are currently reading
343 people want to read
About the author
Dan Barker
22 books184 followersDaniel Edwin Barker is an American atheist activist and musician who served as an evangelical Christian preacher and composer for 19 years but left Christianity in 1984. He and his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor are the current co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He has written numerous articles the organization's newspaper Freethought Today. He is the author of several books including Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Barker has been an invited speaker at Rock Beyond Belief. He is on the speakers bureau of the Secular Student Alliance.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
February 19, 2020
Every book I read on the topic of “free will”—and I have read a handful to date—invariably brings me tantalizingly close to an epiphany, to an “Aha!” moment in which I can say: “Oh…I get it now!” But with equal frequency, once I am halfway or more into the book, the moment is gone, and I am left with either nagging questions or just plain incomprehension. To be fair, the authors generally do a valiant job of articulating their respective cases, and I do feel a sense of progress in my overall understanding of the concepts and ideas. But before long, I feel the knowledge gained from the latest book is tenuous at best.
I fear Free Will Explained: How Science and Philosophy Converge to Create a Beautiful Illusion, as terrific a book as I think it is, may leave me in the same place. I was anxious to read Barker’s view of the paradox formed by determinism on the one hand, yet a prevailing sense in humans of free will on the other. I was especially drawn to Barker’s teaser in the very early pages that his original view of the matter, using his concept of “harmonic free will” would “make the paradox disappear.”
My excitement grew one quarter of the way into the book when I reached the chapter on “Harmonic Free Will,” which he declares to be “the centerpiece” of his argument. However, excitement quickly gave way to disappointment when Barker informed me that “the following dozen paragraphs may require some musical knowledge.” Some? The seven-page chapter left me thoroughly confused with major chords, minor keys, A-flats, key of Cs, musical pivots, and notes pulling up instead of down. The chapter redeemed itself somewhat when Barker resorted merely to “melody” and “harmony” to illustrate his point.
Yet in other instances, Barker makes his points brilliantly, such as when he reminds us there is really no such thing as “sunrise,” since it is the earth that rises while the sun stays put. Or, when he uses the notion that while “water is wet,” a water molecule is not. Or, when he introduces a new term, acompatibilist, to extend the traditional labels—determinist, compatibilist, libertarian—used when discussing this topic. And I love his explanation of the difference between “illusion” and “delusion.” An illusion is rooted in reality but does not become a reality in the mind. A delusion is not rooted in reality but becomes a reality in the mind. If I had my druthers, I would have asked for some simple diagramming and a glossary of terms to facilitate my understanding and draw me back to this work as a reference. Many later chapters live up well to the “explained” part of the book’s title. “Depth Perception,” for example, and “A Beautiful Illusion” and “What Do We Get From Free Will?”
Overall, I enjoyed and benefitted from Barker’s short book, and many titles on his list of references are already on my “To Read” list. Of the handful of other books I have read on the topic, Free Will Explained: How Science and Philosophy Converge to Create a Beautiful Illusion will bubble to the top as one of the best. It is superbly written and densely packed with concepts and explanations. Nor is it without a degree of playfulness. His story of recurring encounters with the chipmunk in his garden is funny, though he cleverly makes good uses of the chipmunk’s behavior to illustrate ideas.
I fear Free Will Explained: How Science and Philosophy Converge to Create a Beautiful Illusion, as terrific a book as I think it is, may leave me in the same place. I was anxious to read Barker’s view of the paradox formed by determinism on the one hand, yet a prevailing sense in humans of free will on the other. I was especially drawn to Barker’s teaser in the very early pages that his original view of the matter, using his concept of “harmonic free will” would “make the paradox disappear.”
My excitement grew one quarter of the way into the book when I reached the chapter on “Harmonic Free Will,” which he declares to be “the centerpiece” of his argument. However, excitement quickly gave way to disappointment when Barker informed me that “the following dozen paragraphs may require some musical knowledge.” Some? The seven-page chapter left me thoroughly confused with major chords, minor keys, A-flats, key of Cs, musical pivots, and notes pulling up instead of down. The chapter redeemed itself somewhat when Barker resorted merely to “melody” and “harmony” to illustrate his point.
Yet in other instances, Barker makes his points brilliantly, such as when he reminds us there is really no such thing as “sunrise,” since it is the earth that rises while the sun stays put. Or, when he uses the notion that while “water is wet,” a water molecule is not. Or, when he introduces a new term, acompatibilist, to extend the traditional labels—determinist, compatibilist, libertarian—used when discussing this topic. And I love his explanation of the difference between “illusion” and “delusion.” An illusion is rooted in reality but does not become a reality in the mind. A delusion is not rooted in reality but becomes a reality in the mind. If I had my druthers, I would have asked for some simple diagramming and a glossary of terms to facilitate my understanding and draw me back to this work as a reference. Many later chapters live up well to the “explained” part of the book’s title. “Depth Perception,” for example, and “A Beautiful Illusion” and “What Do We Get From Free Will?”
Overall, I enjoyed and benefitted from Barker’s short book, and many titles on his list of references are already on my “To Read” list. Of the handful of other books I have read on the topic, Free Will Explained: How Science and Philosophy Converge to Create a Beautiful Illusion will bubble to the top as one of the best. It is superbly written and densely packed with concepts and explanations. Nor is it without a degree of playfulness. His story of recurring encounters with the chipmunk in his garden is funny, though he cleverly makes good uses of the chipmunk’s behavior to illustrate ideas.
August 14, 2019
I read a portion of this book before purchase and was very excited to read it. The first couple chapters did a great job dispelling the idea of what Barker calls the 'Libertarian Free Will'. After completing the first few chapters I felt that he had given excellent arguments for Hard Determinism, and then came the linguistic gymnastics.
Ultimately, Barker want's to be a Hard Determinist that also feels like the concept of free will has a purpose. He, like many others, sets up a straw-man argument that moral concepts have absolutely no meaning without the concept of free will. So with that in mind, he tries to resolve this false dichotomy in favor of a fabricated free will. What does it mean for free will to be fabricated? He spends a few chapters on this, the first describing the two necessary components of creating free will: an action, and someone to judge that action. If a man is alone in a forest and no one is around to judge him, does he make a free will? Barker tries to answer this question with a reference to Wilson (the volleyball in Castaway). If no one is around to judge you, you judge yourself or fabricate a society (like Wilson) to judge you. It is a very convoluted argument that despite Hard Determinism being correct, free will and morality still have meaning.
Barker plays a game of love/hate with Hard Determinism throughout the book. One chapter he praises the theory for being an accurate representation of reality, the next chapter he is berating those who believe it for being unable to justify moral ideas. He continuously makes remarks such as determinists shouldn't praise their children, since without free will there is no purpose for praise and blame. This is ultimately due to a superficial understanding of Determinism. He understands the commandments but not the gospels, so to speak.
Finally, in one of the final chapters he touches on an argument that he received from someone else, that the concept of free will is actually dangerous as it serves as a justification for punishment, revenge, and retribution. Barker brushes the proposition aside, simply asking whether it is easier to teach everyone that free will is an illusion or easier to change our retribution based justice system. On the following page Barker confidently states that the truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its utility, undermining his previous page.
If you haven't caught on by now, I am a Hard Determinist. I also believe that moral concepts have a purpose in a deterministic world, contrary to Barkers opinions. Moral theories work as a framework for determining correct actions. That part of morality does not change without the idea of free will. Moral theories are like choosing your computer operating system, they behave differently and some are better than others. However, unlike a computer OS, I do believe that there is a 'best' moral theory (being the theory that leads to the greatest good). I don't want to delve too deeply into my moral beliefs, only offer that there is still purpose to them because they act as a framework for action regardless of freedom to 'choose' actions. If I change my computer OS, my computer (or in this case ME) behaves in similar but different ways. The second thing that Barker glosses over, as I previously mentioned, is the concept of punishment and retribution. Without free will we lose any justification for these concepts. However, we don't lose praise and blame as Barker would suggest. Why is this? Simple, operant conditioning. In a lot of ways, we already believe this to be true. Why do prisons exists? First, to keep society safe from criminals, and second to try to condition them to not break the law again when they are released. And while the prison system today has been corrupted away from this idea, I believe acceptance of a world without free will is fundamental to fixing this system.
Should you read this book? I think so. Sprinkled throughout are some truly golden explanations and comments. The paragraph at the end of page 52 contained some of the best comments I have ever read within free will debates. His chapters incorporating music and the chipmunk can be skimmed, as the chapters surrounding it do a pretty good explanation without as much convolution. His ability to explain certain concepts 4/5 stars, the strength of his overall argument 2/5 stars.
Ultimately, Barker want's to be a Hard Determinist that also feels like the concept of free will has a purpose. He, like many others, sets up a straw-man argument that moral concepts have absolutely no meaning without the concept of free will. So with that in mind, he tries to resolve this false dichotomy in favor of a fabricated free will. What does it mean for free will to be fabricated? He spends a few chapters on this, the first describing the two necessary components of creating free will: an action, and someone to judge that action. If a man is alone in a forest and no one is around to judge him, does he make a free will? Barker tries to answer this question with a reference to Wilson (the volleyball in Castaway). If no one is around to judge you, you judge yourself or fabricate a society (like Wilson) to judge you. It is a very convoluted argument that despite Hard Determinism being correct, free will and morality still have meaning.
Barker plays a game of love/hate with Hard Determinism throughout the book. One chapter he praises the theory for being an accurate representation of reality, the next chapter he is berating those who believe it for being unable to justify moral ideas. He continuously makes remarks such as determinists shouldn't praise their children, since without free will there is no purpose for praise and blame. This is ultimately due to a superficial understanding of Determinism. He understands the commandments but not the gospels, so to speak.
Finally, in one of the final chapters he touches on an argument that he received from someone else, that the concept of free will is actually dangerous as it serves as a justification for punishment, revenge, and retribution. Barker brushes the proposition aside, simply asking whether it is easier to teach everyone that free will is an illusion or easier to change our retribution based justice system. On the following page Barker confidently states that the truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its utility, undermining his previous page.
If you haven't caught on by now, I am a Hard Determinist. I also believe that moral concepts have a purpose in a deterministic world, contrary to Barkers opinions. Moral theories work as a framework for determining correct actions. That part of morality does not change without the idea of free will. Moral theories are like choosing your computer operating system, they behave differently and some are better than others. However, unlike a computer OS, I do believe that there is a 'best' moral theory (being the theory that leads to the greatest good). I don't want to delve too deeply into my moral beliefs, only offer that there is still purpose to them because they act as a framework for action regardless of freedom to 'choose' actions. If I change my computer OS, my computer (or in this case ME) behaves in similar but different ways. The second thing that Barker glosses over, as I previously mentioned, is the concept of punishment and retribution. Without free will we lose any justification for these concepts. However, we don't lose praise and blame as Barker would suggest. Why is this? Simple, operant conditioning. In a lot of ways, we already believe this to be true. Why do prisons exists? First, to keep society safe from criminals, and second to try to condition them to not break the law again when they are released. And while the prison system today has been corrupted away from this idea, I believe acceptance of a world without free will is fundamental to fixing this system.
Should you read this book? I think so. Sprinkled throughout are some truly golden explanations and comments. The paragraph at the end of page 52 contained some of the best comments I have ever read within free will debates. His chapters incorporating music and the chipmunk can be skimmed, as the chapters surrounding it do a pretty good explanation without as much convolution. His ability to explain certain concepts 4/5 stars, the strength of his overall argument 2/5 stars.
May 31, 2021
In the conclusion of this book, Dan Barker states its central thesis:
Yes, the Tin-Man determinists are absolutely right—we don’t have actual free will. The laws of cause and effect are unbendable, flat as a sheet of metal. As a transcendent essence, free will is just as phony as it can be. But like love, the illusion of free will—the heart in the Tin Man—gives our lives fullness and color. (98, Kindle edition)Free will is an illusion, according to Barker. How does he prove this? Of course, he cites the obligatory experimental psychology experiments of Benjamin Libet—the go-to “proof” of most contemporary predeterminists and compatibilists. As I have demonstrated in my paper “A Critical Analysis of Libet and Wegner on Free Will”, however, to the extent Libet (partially) and Daniel Wegner (totally) deny free will, their conclusions are based on empirical missteps and logical fallacies. So what else does Barker have on offer in support of his proposition that “the determinists are absolutely right”? Analogies, analogies, and more analogies! This is bizarre, since Barker himself states (14): “All analogies become strained if you push them too hard, and they don’t prove anything by themselves. We should never argue by analogy, but we can certainly illustrate by analogy.” Nevertheless, apart from his citation of Libet, Barker’s sole “proof” of the proposition that free will is an illusion consists merely of analogy, metaphor, and endless personal stories. In many ways, this book reads more like fiction than serious scholarship. And fiction it is.
December 17, 2018
I had a difficult time understanding Barker's argument in this book. He keeps equating free will with jazz and a chipmunk he likes to feed on his porch (v. cute tho). It was later in the book that I started understanding why he thinks his acompatibilist view of free will works (a term he coined) & where his argument falls short.
Barker thinks that determinists cannot talk about free will since there's no point - everything's determined he says. "Hard determinists do act as if they are free to jump in and contribute to the debate" (106). Harris, however (one of these 'hard determinists'), has addressed this sort of criticism in his book.
Hard determinists do not negate the importance of discussion and disagreement. Without stumbling upon differing conversations you'd never be able to make a change of opinion. Stumbling upon that opinion is crucial for change. I don't understand why Barker does not see that necessity. We are completely conditioned to believe what we do but that does not mean that we can't change our minds. It means that we should keep having important conversations and stick to logic as much as we can. Education, therefore, is crucial.
Barker also writes that there's more benefit to thinking that we have free will (114) than thinking that we don't. He writes: "Free Will is not a scientific truth. It is a social truth" (119). In other words, Free Will is non-existent but it's more beneficial for us to believe in it. I am not persuaded by this argument. I agree with Jerry A. Coyne & Sam Harris on this. Determinism requires sympathy for the less fortunate that are prone to criminal behavior. Simply, I don't see Barker's argument persuasive whatsoever. Dennett shares Barker's view.
Despite my disagreement with his thesis in this book, I enjoyed reading it. I bought another book of his & I look forward to reading more of Barker's work in the future. He v. helpfully distinguishes between compatibilists, libertarians (think: not political but embracers of autonomy and free will), and determinists or incompatibilists.
Barker thinks that determinists cannot talk about free will since there's no point - everything's determined he says. "Hard determinists do act as if they are free to jump in and contribute to the debate" (106). Harris, however (one of these 'hard determinists'), has addressed this sort of criticism in his book.
Hard determinists do not negate the importance of discussion and disagreement. Without stumbling upon differing conversations you'd never be able to make a change of opinion. Stumbling upon that opinion is crucial for change. I don't understand why Barker does not see that necessity. We are completely conditioned to believe what we do but that does not mean that we can't change our minds. It means that we should keep having important conversations and stick to logic as much as we can. Education, therefore, is crucial.
Barker also writes that there's more benefit to thinking that we have free will (114) than thinking that we don't. He writes: "Free Will is not a scientific truth. It is a social truth" (119). In other words, Free Will is non-existent but it's more beneficial for us to believe in it. I am not persuaded by this argument. I agree with Jerry A. Coyne & Sam Harris on this. Determinism requires sympathy for the less fortunate that are prone to criminal behavior. Simply, I don't see Barker's argument persuasive whatsoever. Dennett shares Barker's view.
Despite my disagreement with his thesis in this book, I enjoyed reading it. I bought another book of his & I look forward to reading more of Barker's work in the future. He v. helpfully distinguishes between compatibilists, libertarians (think: not political but embracers of autonomy and free will), and determinists or incompatibilists.
September 9, 2024
Dan Barker does a good job of explaining the concept of free will as an illusion much like what Daniel Dennett does in his philosophical writings. Barker uses a number of good analogies to explain how FW is a useful illusion--one that is necessary for humans to live as responsible, accountable members of the social world. His analogies and explanation offer good arguments against absolute determinists who argue against any kind of free will at all. Although I agree with a lot of what he writes, I disagree with his ultimate conclusion that free will is an illusion.
May 1, 2018
If you're looking for a book to explain the intricacies of the determinism/free will debate, this is not that book. Instead, Barker uses musical metaphors to describe his own theory on how free will and determinism are not incompatible, but as he defines it, acompatible. An interesting read, and one that brings up good points on how humans think in the collective, as a society. It just was not what I had expected based on the book's description.
June 16, 2021
Dan Barker presents his argument clearly with many anecdotal/metaphorical examples of what he is trying to illustrate. His argument, of course, assumes that free will is an illusion. But, as he describes, a useful one that we can learn much from. I enjoyed this idea of "harmonic free will" arising as an experience more than a reality. Overall, I thought this book was a thoughtful expansion on the free will dilemma, though I do have my quips here and there.
March 14, 2018
Dan Barker definitely never disappoints. Another great read.
May 23, 2018
Some of the reflections in this book were very well thought-out, but some of them simply didn't do anything for me.
February 5, 2019
An honest attempt, but a poor one.
June 14, 2018
This book is my first foray in to the deterministic / free will debate and I think it was a good introduction. Instead of choosing sides, Dan explains both and introduces his idea of “harmonic free will” which combines social and scientific aspects of the debate. After reading this book I tend to agree with this perspective although I have not read some of the more thoroughly research arguments presented by such experts as Sam Harris. Dan makes a clear and uncomplicated argument, though. This short book was a joy to read and it never dragged. Although I wasn’t always in full agreement with Dan or maybe fully grasped what he wrote, I was always entertained and I learned much.
The best parts of this book were the anecdotes and analogies Dan uses to get his ideas across. Some of his analogies utilize his knowledge of music (he is a jazz pianist) and religion (he is a former preacher and now co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (I’m a member)). He even references a Fawlty Tower scene to help clarify a point. He has a good grasp on science and knows how to make a point. He includes quotes by heavy hitters in the science community like Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and philosophers such as Rebecca Goldstein to support or contrast his points.
The best anecdotes in the book involve a chipmunk who lives in his backyard, which gradually becomes tame enough to eat nuts out of his hand (and once accidentally hit a key on his keyboard while writing this book(he left the errant character in)). He uses the chipmunk’s behavior to illustrate determinism and free will. And he updates us on his buddy’s life in the afterword.
I love the way Dan writes and am looking forward to reading more of his books, I already own two others.
The best parts of this book were the anecdotes and analogies Dan uses to get his ideas across. Some of his analogies utilize his knowledge of music (he is a jazz pianist) and religion (he is a former preacher and now co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (I’m a member)). He even references a Fawlty Tower scene to help clarify a point. He has a good grasp on science and knows how to make a point. He includes quotes by heavy hitters in the science community like Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and philosophers such as Rebecca Goldstein to support or contrast his points.
The best anecdotes in the book involve a chipmunk who lives in his backyard, which gradually becomes tame enough to eat nuts out of his hand (and once accidentally hit a key on his keyboard while writing this book(he left the errant character in)). He uses the chipmunk’s behavior to illustrate determinism and free will. And he updates us on his buddy’s life in the afterword.
I love the way Dan writes and am looking forward to reading more of his books, I already own two others.
February 13, 2021
Having fun out with Dan a few times, he down to earth, friendly, and relatable. And then you pick up a book of his and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. A brilliant mind that know how to navigate thick subjects and content and present it to the layman or laywoman that is easy to grasp.
July 29, 2023
This is the first book I've read about the topic, which has fascinated me since I discovered its controversial nature. Since when would "free will" NOT be a thing? It seems to be what underpins every aspect of human society, right?
When you take a look at the difference between many eastern and western philosophies, especially of a theological nature (such as Christianity and Buddhism, respectively) you start to see that isn't quite the case. Our concept of "free will," which is known in the debate as "libertarian free will," can be traced quite easily back to the spread, cultivation, and propagation of Abrahamic and Classical belief. Buddhism does not recognize the concept in the same way. Buddhism is a belief about the fundamental wholeness of all things, and as such we ARE not and CAN not be separate from the world around us. Shinto doesn't seem to ascribe to our western ordeal of free will either. Its core tenants state that all things come from external, not internal, forces. "Man can do what he wills, but can't will what he wills," says Schopenhauer. Hinduism seems to be a mix, but mostly suggests people are not free from the will of the Gods. All forms of Christianity, however, insist God bestowed upon us the will to act freely, not outside of his judgment but capable of shirking his influence - for better or for worse. It takes no anthropologist to see how such a belief passed down into our modern, western landscape.
Barring long-winded, scientific analyses and explanations, I've come to recognize free will's rickety, narrow nature. There is quite a lot of science - convincing science, to an uninitiated layperson such as myself - that makes a compelling argument as to the nonexsitance of libertarian free will. It's a concept I have tried to explain to my more philosophically-minded friends to no avail. They're willing to entertain the controversial and nitty-gritty of any other topic; politics, religion, art, death, governance, morality, war, suffering, love, truth. And there's a lot of variation, too. I have religious friends and atheist friends who can have a mild-mannered debate. But when I bring up "free will," they balk. "The simple fact that I CHOOSE to do something," one said to me, "means free will exists. Because I COULD have made a different choice."
But if you DIDN'T, how do you truly know that? That's my rebuttal. Their response: "But I COULD have." That doesn't seem to disprove determinism whatsoever, in my opinion; determinism, inherently, would encompass choice. It's not the denial of choice, it's a statement that whichever option you picked was - due to the unchangeable cause-and-effect laws of nature - is always what was going to be picked. It was an effect from a cause. You always had a choice, but whichever option chosen was the one that was always going to have happened. And that has nothing to do with the divine, either, nor something supernatural like "fate." It can, from what I understand, be explained quite comprehensively with physics.
Barker has a some great ways of backing up this explanation. To elaborate on the passage above, our simple reality of not being able to know the future creates quite a foolproof illusion of our free will. Since the future is uncertain, and results yet-to-happen can't be known, that gives us the impression that our choices are freely made. I cannot think of a single rebuttal to this.
So at times, he paints a vivid picture about the nature of "free will" (as we understand it) being a retroactive illusion. A social construct, yes, but a necessary one. "Marriage" is not a naturally occurring object. It is a social construct, which we recognize has meaning from the motion of the objects involved. The heart, as he puts it, is an objective thing. Circulation, which is the function of the heart, is not -- because it isn't an object. It's the name we give to the function the heart perpetuates, which is a grouping of objects (plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, etc.) in motion. But "marriage" has meaning to us, as does "circulation." Free will, as he asserts, is the same way. Determinists are right; none of our actions are truly "our own." But it is more functional to live as if they are, just as it makes sense to abide by the social conventions of money, careers, marriage, society, etc. Again, I can't find a rebuttal to this. I don't even think - should determinism be factual - it is possible to live without the illusion of free action. Should these arguments be true, it seems as if our brains simply can't win this one.
The book is somewhat pedantic, however, with many metaphors and comparisons that sometimes hit the mark, and other times are really confusing. His whole argument about "harmonic free will" was difficult for me because it relied entirely on an understanding of music theory, of which I have next to none. Even something as simple as keys is quite foreign to me; it's one of the few fields of art that just goes entirely beyond my comprehension, and as such I feel as if my grasp of his thesis is a bit tenuous. Furthermore, he seems to contradict himself, such as on page 106:
"Hard determinists do act as if they are free to jump in and contribute to the debate. They say they are materialistic machines but act as if their writing was freely chosen. If some of us decide their conclusions are unwarranted, it shouldn't bother them. If it was predetermined that they would write their books, it was also predetermined that I would accuse them of creating a false dichotomy."
This reads to me like the exact kind of logic my friends would use against determinism, and feels oddly disingenuous to the previous examples of an understanding he seemed to have of it earlier (and later) passages in the text. Why should something being predetermined mean objects in such a state must stop moving? He argues circles around this, retreading his ideas about how free will "doesn't exist, and is a human illusion," and then saying, "but that means it's useful, so we act like it exists, which means in a sense it does." It isn't technically untrue, on the literal sense - but it's a bit high-minded and low-substanced.
However, as a massive caveat to this entire review, and to the subject as a whole, is this; his arguments are based off of studies he cites, but does little to articulate. "Benjamin Libet conducted a series of decision experiments. The results? Several seconds before the subject's "decision" was consciously made, the brain's motor cortex was activated - the time between brain activation and conscious awareness of a "choice" was several seconds, and in some cases a full seven seconds. What (this) implies is that we are not free to choose in the way we think we are." Many, many books can (and have) been written about this, and the "free will" debate itself is one that goes back to ancient times. But many sources claim these experiments as faulty. I wish Barker had cited more of them, and assessed both sides, because as philosophers we must admit the possibility of ignorance, ESPECIALLY in the field of science, which is constantly changing, expanding, and correcting itself. There was little of that in this book. To betray all of my aforementioned statements, he treated hard determinism as the ultimate, unbeatable truth. I think there is a large kernel of fact in it, yes -- but we simply don't know if it really IS our only answer.
This was a good read. But it wouldn't been a better read if it'd bothered with that topic. Which, to me, is a glaring one.
When you take a look at the difference between many eastern and western philosophies, especially of a theological nature (such as Christianity and Buddhism, respectively) you start to see that isn't quite the case. Our concept of "free will," which is known in the debate as "libertarian free will," can be traced quite easily back to the spread, cultivation, and propagation of Abrahamic and Classical belief. Buddhism does not recognize the concept in the same way. Buddhism is a belief about the fundamental wholeness of all things, and as such we ARE not and CAN not be separate from the world around us. Shinto doesn't seem to ascribe to our western ordeal of free will either. Its core tenants state that all things come from external, not internal, forces. "Man can do what he wills, but can't will what he wills," says Schopenhauer. Hinduism seems to be a mix, but mostly suggests people are not free from the will of the Gods. All forms of Christianity, however, insist God bestowed upon us the will to act freely, not outside of his judgment but capable of shirking his influence - for better or for worse. It takes no anthropologist to see how such a belief passed down into our modern, western landscape.
Barring long-winded, scientific analyses and explanations, I've come to recognize free will's rickety, narrow nature. There is quite a lot of science - convincing science, to an uninitiated layperson such as myself - that makes a compelling argument as to the nonexsitance of libertarian free will. It's a concept I have tried to explain to my more philosophically-minded friends to no avail. They're willing to entertain the controversial and nitty-gritty of any other topic; politics, religion, art, death, governance, morality, war, suffering, love, truth. And there's a lot of variation, too. I have religious friends and atheist friends who can have a mild-mannered debate. But when I bring up "free will," they balk. "The simple fact that I CHOOSE to do something," one said to me, "means free will exists. Because I COULD have made a different choice."
But if you DIDN'T, how do you truly know that? That's my rebuttal. Their response: "But I COULD have." That doesn't seem to disprove determinism whatsoever, in my opinion; determinism, inherently, would encompass choice. It's not the denial of choice, it's a statement that whichever option you picked was - due to the unchangeable cause-and-effect laws of nature - is always what was going to be picked. It was an effect from a cause. You always had a choice, but whichever option chosen was the one that was always going to have happened. And that has nothing to do with the divine, either, nor something supernatural like "fate." It can, from what I understand, be explained quite comprehensively with physics.
Barker has a some great ways of backing up this explanation. To elaborate on the passage above, our simple reality of not being able to know the future creates quite a foolproof illusion of our free will. Since the future is uncertain, and results yet-to-happen can't be known, that gives us the impression that our choices are freely made. I cannot think of a single rebuttal to this.
So at times, he paints a vivid picture about the nature of "free will" (as we understand it) being a retroactive illusion. A social construct, yes, but a necessary one. "Marriage" is not a naturally occurring object. It is a social construct, which we recognize has meaning from the motion of the objects involved. The heart, as he puts it, is an objective thing. Circulation, which is the function of the heart, is not -- because it isn't an object. It's the name we give to the function the heart perpetuates, which is a grouping of objects (plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, etc.) in motion. But "marriage" has meaning to us, as does "circulation." Free will, as he asserts, is the same way. Determinists are right; none of our actions are truly "our own." But it is more functional to live as if they are, just as it makes sense to abide by the social conventions of money, careers, marriage, society, etc. Again, I can't find a rebuttal to this. I don't even think - should determinism be factual - it is possible to live without the illusion of free action. Should these arguments be true, it seems as if our brains simply can't win this one.
The book is somewhat pedantic, however, with many metaphors and comparisons that sometimes hit the mark, and other times are really confusing. His whole argument about "harmonic free will" was difficult for me because it relied entirely on an understanding of music theory, of which I have next to none. Even something as simple as keys is quite foreign to me; it's one of the few fields of art that just goes entirely beyond my comprehension, and as such I feel as if my grasp of his thesis is a bit tenuous. Furthermore, he seems to contradict himself, such as on page 106:
"Hard determinists do act as if they are free to jump in and contribute to the debate. They say they are materialistic machines but act as if their writing was freely chosen. If some of us decide their conclusions are unwarranted, it shouldn't bother them. If it was predetermined that they would write their books, it was also predetermined that I would accuse them of creating a false dichotomy."
This reads to me like the exact kind of logic my friends would use against determinism, and feels oddly disingenuous to the previous examples of an understanding he seemed to have of it earlier (and later) passages in the text. Why should something being predetermined mean objects in such a state must stop moving? He argues circles around this, retreading his ideas about how free will "doesn't exist, and is a human illusion," and then saying, "but that means it's useful, so we act like it exists, which means in a sense it does." It isn't technically untrue, on the literal sense - but it's a bit high-minded and low-substanced.
However, as a massive caveat to this entire review, and to the subject as a whole, is this; his arguments are based off of studies he cites, but does little to articulate. "Benjamin Libet conducted a series of decision experiments. The results? Several seconds before the subject's "decision" was consciously made, the brain's motor cortex was activated - the time between brain activation and conscious awareness of a "choice" was several seconds, and in some cases a full seven seconds. What (this) implies is that we are not free to choose in the way we think we are." Many, many books can (and have) been written about this, and the "free will" debate itself is one that goes back to ancient times. But many sources claim these experiments as faulty. I wish Barker had cited more of them, and assessed both sides, because as philosophers we must admit the possibility of ignorance, ESPECIALLY in the field of science, which is constantly changing, expanding, and correcting itself. There was little of that in this book. To betray all of my aforementioned statements, he treated hard determinism as the ultimate, unbeatable truth. I think there is a large kernel of fact in it, yes -- but we simply don't know if it really IS our only answer.
This was a good read. But it wouldn't been a better read if it'd bothered with that topic. Which, to me, is a glaring one.
September 10, 2024
I'll be honest, I read this thinking it was the 90 page one by Sam Harris Free Will. After watching a 2012 Youtube video of Sam Harris on Free Will (my boyfriend put it on because he originally recommended the Sam Harris book - how embarrassing!), this book by Dan Barker essentially repeats all that he talks about in that video. Except it talks too much of chipmunks and music analogies. I skipped most of chapter 7 and chapter 20 because it was predominantly music speak - I don't care to read about that, or notes, or how his father didn't like to improvise music. It didn't help me understand his message all that much, and the end of the book ends with a really long weird song. I appreciate the author loves his music, but sometimes you have to separate your passion from a philosophical topic.
Maybe I'm just not all that philosophical, but trying to understand free will made me think people had too much time on their hands to ask never-ending, and usually unanswerable, questions, about everything. I kept thinking, 'why are people even thinking this deeply?'. It sounds tiresome!
You could save your time and just skip to the conclusion to get an idea of what, at least the author thinks, free will is. Or you could read the shorter book by Sam Harries, or watch the one hour speech on Youtube instead. I didn't feel like I gained much from this book.
Maybe I'm just not all that philosophical, but trying to understand free will made me think people had too much time on their hands to ask never-ending, and usually unanswerable, questions, about everything. I kept thinking, 'why are people even thinking this deeply?'. It sounds tiresome!
You could save your time and just skip to the conclusion to get an idea of what, at least the author thinks, free will is. Or you could read the shorter book by Sam Harries, or watch the one hour speech on Youtube instead. I didn't feel like I gained much from this book.
January 24, 2022
From my understanding of what was written, Dan Barker is a determinist, he just doesn’t want to admit it to himself. I absolutely adored “Godless” and “God: The Most Unpleasant Character In All of Fiction”
He regularly tend to dismiss the determinist viewpoint as well as the indeterminst view. In this book though Barker comes to the same conclusion that we don’t have free-will, but he wouldn’t call himself a determinist. He basically says “Free-will rises into existence when we judge behavior. Like a beating heart produces circulation, a morally functioning society produces free-will.” This is his work around, so that he doesn’t have to be a hard determinist despite his admission.
I love Dan’s work, but he should stick more to religion and The Bible. Philosophy is not his strongest subject to write on.
He regularly tend to dismiss the determinist viewpoint as well as the indeterminst view. In this book though Barker comes to the same conclusion that we don’t have free-will, but he wouldn’t call himself a determinist. He basically says “Free-will rises into existence when we judge behavior. Like a beating heart produces circulation, a morally functioning society produces free-will.” This is his work around, so that he doesn’t have to be a hard determinist despite his admission.
I love Dan’s work, but he should stick more to religion and The Bible. Philosophy is not his strongest subject to write on.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 24, 2019
I had no choice but to write this, so here goes! I don't have free will, but I sure feel like I do, so it's an illusion. Dan Barker argues that the illusion is a useful one. In this concise treatment, Dan uses a variety of analogies and personal experiences to present the idea that free will is a result of moral judgment that occurs after a decision is made. As Sean Carroll would say, it's a way of talking about something, that's not objectively real - useful, but clearly an illusion.
I'm down with Dan's view of free will. I don't think it eliminates personal responsibility for behavior, but I now see behavior as something that is either creates a social good or a social evil. If a social good is created, society should encourage that behavior and bring the behaving peron into the fold of society. If the behavior creates a social evil, the behavior should be discouraged and the badly behaved person should be separated from society, but not punished.
A brilliant scientist who discovers something of great benefit to society had no choice but to make that discovery, but she's the one who did it, so society should give her its seal of approval and bestow a portion of its resources to her personal as well as professional wants and needs. A child molster had no choice but to behave the way he did, but although it's not his fault, he's the one who did it, so society should show its disappointment and disapproval and remove him from it's graces; imprisoning him, but not making his imprisonment intentionally painful.
The recognition of free will for what it is can lead to a better justice system, better parenting, better education and a healthier society. Dan's little book should be shelved along the best of writing on this subject.
I'm down with Dan's view of free will. I don't think it eliminates personal responsibility for behavior, but I now see behavior as something that is either creates a social good or a social evil. If a social good is created, society should encourage that behavior and bring the behaving peron into the fold of society. If the behavior creates a social evil, the behavior should be discouraged and the badly behaved person should be separated from society, but not punished.
A brilliant scientist who discovers something of great benefit to society had no choice but to make that discovery, but she's the one who did it, so society should give her its seal of approval and bestow a portion of its resources to her personal as well as professional wants and needs. A child molster had no choice but to behave the way he did, but although it's not his fault, he's the one who did it, so society should show its disappointment and disapproval and remove him from it's graces; imprisoning him, but not making his imprisonment intentionally painful.
The recognition of free will for what it is can lead to a better justice system, better parenting, better education and a healthier society. Dan's little book should be shelved along the best of writing on this subject.
January 19, 2020
The chipmunk book on free will! The chipmunk is such a great illustration of the point. We might see rodents as a boundary case of "free will." They respond to stimuli — drawn toward food, scared from threats — in a way that, at least to us as observers, is indistinguishable from autopilot. On the other hand, they can be tamed, and then, watching them more closely as friends, we may project onto them the idea that they are judging, thinking, choosing, deciding, and acting freely.
The question is not unique to rodents. We're really asking about ourselves. Dan Barker persuasively argues that "free will" is an illusion, but not one that we can or should give up, as this illusion allows us to care about our thoughts and actions. We are (as everything in the universe is) indeed scientifically determined. We, as humans, also experience the sense of free will as part of what it means for us to be conscious, and that is fine and not a problem. Determinism and free will, he explains, are like width and depth, melody and harmony. They are not in conflict.
The paperback is also beautifully designed.
The question is not unique to rodents. We're really asking about ourselves. Dan Barker persuasively argues that "free will" is an illusion, but not one that we can or should give up, as this illusion allows us to care about our thoughts and actions. We are (as everything in the universe is) indeed scientifically determined. We, as humans, also experience the sense of free will as part of what it means for us to be conscious, and that is fine and not a problem. Determinism and free will, he explains, are like width and depth, melody and harmony. They are not in conflict.
The paperback is also beautifully designed.
June 10, 2020
I really enjoyed this book. Superbly written, it offers a unique perspective and many interesting ideas about the nature of free will.....and I say this as very much a theist and Christian. While certainly I would dispute some of the assertions with respect to what ‘christians’ believe throughout the book, Mr. Barker does acknowledge that not all Christians believe in “free will” (I do not, see p. 111).
While his views and characterizations in certain areas reflect his commitment to an atheistic world view (as one would expect) this book is worthy reading for anyone interested in contemplating further the topic of free will.
While his views and characterizations in certain areas reflect his commitment to an atheistic world view (as one would expect) this book is worthy reading for anyone interested in contemplating further the topic of free will.
August 28, 2021
Our book review of 'Free Will Explained' by Dan Barker:
https://thebeerthrillers.com/2021/08/...
Make sure to check out our other book reviews as well.
Excerpt:
"His idea of harmonic free will, falls in line with what he calls ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ thinking. He says not everything is compatible on the same line of thinking. That there’s latitude and longitude thoughts. Vertical thoughts and horizontal thoughts. And so this is where he develops ‘harmonic free will’.
His idea of harmonic free will is that he stands by his guns (or attempts to look as if he does) that he’s a determinist. He then builds up the idea that we ‘NEED’ to believe in free will. That we have a ‘societal free will’ and a ‘moral free will’ that we all need to keep in mind. That this is what keeps us moving."
https://thebeerthrillers.com/2021/08/...
Make sure to check out our other book reviews as well.
Excerpt:
"His idea of harmonic free will, falls in line with what he calls ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ thinking. He says not everything is compatible on the same line of thinking. That there’s latitude and longitude thoughts. Vertical thoughts and horizontal thoughts. And so this is where he develops ‘harmonic free will’.
His idea of harmonic free will is that he stands by his guns (or attempts to look as if he does) that he’s a determinist. He then builds up the idea that we ‘NEED’ to believe in free will. That we have a ‘societal free will’ and a ‘moral free will’ that we all need to keep in mind. That this is what keeps us moving."
February 10, 2023
I enjoyed his initial explanation about ‘vertical’ vs ‘horizontal’ comparisons of determinism and free will, but he unfortunately lost me about half way with his metaphors. Ultimately, Barker admits to being a determinist but gets lost in a semantic word salad while trying to fight to preserve some concept of free will. Which is odd, because most of the hard determinists I’m familiar with would agree on his policy positions regarding punishment and credit anyway.
February 11, 2019
It is well written although sometimes hard to understand. He believes that free will is an illusion - however I do not believe that he has proved his case. He assumes that free will is inconsistent with determinism. If one accepts that a decision causes an act it does not follow that the decision was predetermined even though it had a cause.
January 28, 2019
Dan Barker has done a very good job explaining “free will”. If it were perfectly clear to me that I had free will I would have given the book five stars. At least I now understand the difference between determinism and free will and how they can coexist. Still confused but less so. Thanks Dan.
October 29, 2019
This is overall a good book for providing an understanding of what the debate surrounding free will looks like. The analogies that Barker uses are useful and interesting,
but a few could have been sacrificed to make room for a slightly deeper philosophical discussion.
but a few could have been sacrificed to make room for a slightly deeper philosophical discussion.
November 8, 2020
Pretty meh. No real point in reading it unless you've never heard anything about the debate since most of the book is just explaining the basics. It also doesn't help that pretty much every chapter has at least one analogy, most of which fall flat.
November 30, 2021
nice little book. like the out of the box thinking. Zeno Paradox: if you can’t get to the tree, because de arrow always travel half the way, just point to a distance twice the tree, and you will get the tree in the first try… that’s funny!
April 15, 2022
This is a refreshing look at the free will/determinism discussion. The author likes to think that free will and hard determinism can be compatible if viewed from a perspective which allows both to be valid explanations of thought and behavior.
June 18, 2019
very informayive
February 1, 2023
Interesting I didn’t find his argument as compelling as Sam Harris deterministic view. Easy read.
November 3, 2024
A brief (perhaps too brief) examination of the concept of free will. Dan Baker does a nice job bringing a complex curiosity in a way that feels very user friendly.
May 13, 2024
Seriously even this book is way better than Sam Harris small book on the same topic .
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews