Neuroscience Is Irrelevant To Free Will

Metaphysical and epistemological issues, despite being far more complex than the average layperson supposes, are often nowhere near as complicated as some academics regard them in that simple rationality easily dispells many myths and affirms many demonstrable truths.  The subject of free will is no exception.  There are those who mistakenly believe that the existence of human free will is ultimately an unidentifiable and unfalsifiable thing, and there are those who erroneously think that something like neuroscience can settle the matter.

Both approaches are incorrect, and yet the second is far more likely to be accepted than the latter.  Even many Christians are eager to cite neuroscience as if it is of any actual relevance to proving or disproving the idea that humans can freely choose one course of action over others.  There is no need to continually pore over the latest neuroscience research in order to support the notion of free will; anyone can prove to himself or herself that they have free will by a far simpler means (no one has to simply assume that free will exists, as many Christian apologists hold), and neuroscience, like the whole of science, is merely a red herring in inquiries about the epistemology of volition.

At best, neuroscience reveals correlations between mental states, otherwise called states of consciousness, and neural/brain activities.  There is no way to even fully confirm that these correlations are causal relationships, given the inherent limitations of the scientific method, and yet the hype around neuroscience commonly exceeds what the discipline actually deserves.  It is not that neuroscience is of no value, as even identifying mind-brain correlations is of great significance for the treatment of mental health problems, but it is not an epistemological savior by any means.

The plight of neuroscience does not mean that it is impossible to prove to oneself that one has free will, as previously mentioned.  Without free will, rationality is impossible; without rationality, there can be no such thing as knowledge.  Apart from the ability to deliberate and believe in ideas through one's own volition, knowledge is impossible because the only alternative is having one's beliefs controlled by some external source.  A mere puppet cannot have certainty because of this and hence cannot have the ability to know.  To deny that one has knowledge, however, is self-contradictory, as is denying other self-verifying logical axioms, and thus denial that one has free will entails an necessary denial of knowledge (even if the person in denial is ignorant of what follows from their own premises).

Neuroscience, like all other categories within science, is useful for matters of convenience and utility, but is incapable of proving facts about anything other than one's immediate sensory perceptions concerning the nervous systems of other beings.  It is irrelevant to metaphysical and epistemological questions about the soul [1] and free will.  To intentionally avoid scientific matters is pointless and harmful, but so is treating science as anything more significant than a means to the end of convenience.  In an age where science is treated as the supreme indicator of truth, the lower status of science needs to be repeatedly affirmed.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/06/neuroscience-and-soul.html