I frequently listen to a podcast called EconTalk. It’s hosted by an economist named Russ Roberts. Over the past 10 years or so, I’ve learned a tremendous amount from Russ and the guests he interviews. This past week he interviewed a scientist named Robert Sapolsky who argued that free will does not exist, and it really struck a nerve. So, I decided to write Russ an email, for the first time ever. Here it is below:
Hello Russ! I’ve been listening to EconTalk since about 2012 and I have never written you before. I have forwarded many of your podcasts to friends and family because they are so interesting and insightful. But the interview you had with Robert Sapolsky about drove me crazy, so I had to write.
His entire argument is completely self-defeating. The whole interview, I kept thinking, “Sapolsky believes that he has freely chosen to believe that free choice doesn’t exist!” He never explicitly said this, but that’s the only reasonable conclusion to draw from his interview with you.
The only way he could escape this dilemma is to deny that he freely chose to believe that free choice doesn’t exist. But in this case, his belief that free choice doesn’t exist is a non-rational belief and should be ignored by all rational thinkers. Physics, chemistry, and biology have determined that Sapolsky doesn’t believe that free will exists, and those are non-rational processes.
Rationality presupposes that free will exists. To be rational, you must be able to freely weigh evidence, arguments, and logic, and draw conclusions. If you are forced by physical processes to come to all your beliefs, then you are not rational.
There are additional problems. If Sapolsky is determined by physical processes to deny the existence of free will and I am determined by physical processes to affirm the existence of free will, there is no way to rationally decide who is right. It’s one physical process vs another. Sapolsky’s attempt to rationally persuade me I’m wrong is a complete joke because he has eviscerated the ability of anyone to rationally persuade anyone else.
I found this short video below online where a philosopher points out these very issues that Sapolsky never dealt with in your interview.