Freewill

Minus certain intellectuals, I think it is fair to say that everyone believes that they have freewill. The question is why? Unlike other philosophical questions, freewill is pretty much logically disproved.

1. If determinism is true, then there is no free will.
2. If determinism is false, then everything is random and there is no free will.
3. Determinism must be true or false; therefore, there is no free will.

Premise 1 says that determinism is true. All events are caused. All our actions are therefore pre-determined. There is no free will or moral responsibility. Premise 2 says if our actions are caused by randomness, we lack control. We can not call that free will because we could not be held morally responsible for random actions. There are arguments for reality being deterministic versus random, but regardless, it still means that freewill is an illusion. If you aren't sure about reality being random, then look up quantum mechanics.

But hold on! Surely we have freewill. I am in charge of my choices. If not, then what does this mean for our justice system? Not to worry, I believe I have a solution. Now I haven't thoroughly researched this, but I am certain that no one else has pitched this idea (or at least I haven't heard of it).

My solution to the freewill dilemma is the human soul. I believe that in order to believe in freewill you must believe in a human soul. Let's first assume determinism is true meaning that quantum physics is incomplete and that the phenomena of quantum mechanics is just not fully understood yet. If there is no human soul and consciousness is just a byproduct of the brain, then no matter how sophisticated the brain, it is still a slave of neurons and stimuli. If consciousness is yearned by the soul, then it is not subjected to that because the soul is supernatural. Therefore, if determinism is true and the soul is real, then there can be free will!

Now I will admit that this may be a stronger argument for proving a soul rather than the reverse, but let's assume you can at least buy into the idea of the soul. The strongest objection to this rationale is what about mental illness? Is insanity an illness of the soul or of the mind? More importantly, if the soul makes our choices and is immune to physical cause and effect, then how does a mental illness affect these choices? The best way to answer this is with an analogy.

Imagine you are the President of the United States. No matter how smart and capable you are, you have to act based upon information briefed to you from intelligence agencies. Think of the intelligence agencies as your brain. The president is independent of the intelligence agencies, but must make choices based upon the information given.

Likewise with your body, the soul is independent of the mind. Now the mind can give the soul bad information, but the soul is still making a choice regardless of the information given to it. For instance, you may believe murder is wrong, but if someone kills a loved one, you may feel righteous in murdering that person but then immense guilt afterward. This could be considered temporary insanity, and you may receive a lighter sentence than say premeditated murder. In the more extreme cases of schizophrenia, the same logic applies except your soul is trying to navigate through a reality that differs from actual reality.

Now my proof on freewill entirely rests on the existence of the soul. This is admittedly another reason why I am a religious person, but I really don't see any other way around this especially since it seems inherently obvious that freewill must exist and must exist for society to properly function. I would honestly like to know how a nonreligious person would rationalize the dilemma of freewill without the existence of the soul.