Loading ...
Disclaimer: As a Mind & Media book reviewer, I received a complimentary copy of this e-book from Beaver’s Pond Press, and have received no further compensation for writing this review.
I must admit, it took me a while to get “into” this book. It took me several days just to get to page 42. In my college days, which I admit were a very long time ago, I did a couple of papers on free will vs. determinism for my philosophy classes. I learned more from Ron Amundson, my philosophy professor, than I did from any other college professor. Of course, that is a subject for another post.
While the “flow” of the book bothered me, some of the examples and explanations in the book bothered me even more, especially this one.
From page 43:
Free will is an inherent and important component of what is meant by the “ability to reason”. The ability to reason is more than just being able to execute a logical operation like a computer. The ability to reason includes the ability to determine what is and what is not logical. Free will is even necessary to decide when the available evidence supports scientific theory or to determine whether or not a logical argument is valid. Free will allows humans to decide whether or not to choose how to act based on what is logical and “reasonable”. Ironically, although the Age of Reason championed human reason and the scientific method (which needs human free will to function), some scientists doubt the existence of human free will based on what they think is a scientific perspective.
Why does the author assume that one must possess free will in order to possess the ability to reason? One can reason, and make decisions based on factual evidence in front of them, with no “free will” to guide that choice. I could give a myriad of examples, but that first sentence could be, and has been, argued, even at a Philosophy 101 level.
The thought that free will is necessary in order to “choose how to act based on what is logical” is an illogical one.
One can clearly know what is logical and not possess an ounce of free will. It doesn’t mean you will choose the logical answer, because if you were pre-determined to choose the illogical choice, you still would.
For example, if you are standing at the edge of a cliff and your friend jumps, do you jump? Logic says no. If you don’t jump, it doesn’t necessarily mean you possessed the free will to make the decision not to jump, but you would still know that jumping would be illogical.
Philosophy is basically the study of the “unproven sciences”, but I for one, do believe we possess free will.
Getting back to the review…
After this initial bump, I still had problems “staying focused” on the book. I don’t know if it was the style of the writing, or the fact that the whole “free will must be a part of reasoning, and is required to know what is logical” issue kept distracting me. Once I got past that issue, putting it aside as an “assumption” rather than fact, things got a bit better.
The section where the author takes on Quantum Mechanics point by point and tears apart the argument that free will cannot exist was darned good. But to be honest, it was the only highlight, and once again, I had to keep the “assumption” in mind rather than the “fact”.
I think the author was well-intentioned, but in my opinion, “Science Of The Soul” is based more on “what I want you to believe” rather than strong philosophical or scientific arguments that support evidence that free will exists or that humans have a supernatural spiritual soul (even though I know they do).
I was very disappointed in this book. I just don’t know what else to say.
Note: Mr. Favero contacted me via email on the 2nd of March, asking if I had questions or comments while reviewing the book. I for one, take it as a negative sign when the author of a book makes contact with me, before the review is written. His email did not influence my review, and I feel, if I had any questions or comments, he could read them when I posted the review.
Sphere: Related Content
