The Woodward Report
Does Free Will Really Exist?
February 26, 2010
by Brian Woodward
The primary objection to the notion of free will comes from atheistic contemplation and is defined as determinism. There are other objections to free will that address the omniscience of God as well as predestination. For the purposes of this article I will address the former.
Determinism asserts that human beings are nothing more than matter. It declares that consciousness as well as the notion of the soul is a fabrication of religion. To determinists man is a carbon based computer, nothing more than a sophisticated robot. According to such logic man should be understood in the same material terms in which we understand software programs.
Free will is the notion that one holds the power of choice. It asserts that man can choose one thing over the other. This is best explained by the prospect of consciousness. Consciousness allows one to make decisions. For example: I can choose to throw my book or I can choose to set it down. I can choose to eat a pizza or instead a hamburger. I can choose to lie or tell the truth. There are consortiums of choices that one makes everyday. Some are made with little thought and some require great deliberation. To the determinists this is somehow an illusion; it has all been predetermined by natural selection.
The main objection of determinists is that if man did possess a soul or a conscience that it should be observable or measurable in some way. Since we can not observe it or measure it therefore it must not exist. Famed biologist E.O. Wilson claims that “the hidden preparation of mental activity gives the illusion of free will.”
The assertion that if something can not be seen or measured therefore it must not exist is preposterous. There was a time when no one could view planets outside of our solar system, people were unable to see molecular structure, DNA was just three letters grouped together, and large territories of the earth were undiscovered. By the preceding logic these must have been ruled out as possible because they were not observable. Yet they did exist.
In science there are many things without explanation and scientists attempt to reconcile this is by writing an IOU. In other words, they may not be able to explain it now but someday through observable and measurable means they will. Scientists admit that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of material reality but claim that they will later explain how atoms and molecules produces something as radical and unusual as subjective consciousness. But an explanation yet to come is no explanation at all. Until it arrives it makes far more sense to take consciousness for the irreducible reality that it is.
Natural or Metaphysical? The Notion of Consciousness and Self
Within consciousness there exists a concept of self. One experiences one’s “self” much differently then one experiences objects and actions outside of the self. All other things we experience indirectly, from the outside, through the apparatus of our senses, but ourselves we experience directly, from the inside, without the involvement of our senses. This is to say that when I see a painting my mind processes the image through my eyes and relays the image to me. This can be explained by the conglomeration of molecules and the chemistry of the brain. This would be “measurable and observable.” Conversely, the recognition of “self” is something that is not observable or measurable.
Even the most simplistic thoughts and experiences processes seem enigmatic when defined as chemical and physical processes alone. A neuroscientist may be much more knowledgeable about my cerebral cortex than I. However, he will never be able to see, touch or know my inner thoughts, no matter how advanced his instruments. British biologist J.B.S. Haldane sums up the problem: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
As humans we do react according to natural laws in the sense that if the doctor hits my knee with a reflex hammer my leg will kick up or if a light is shone in my eye, my iris will contract. But when cognitive scientist Steven pinker discusses free will, he makes this telling statement:
We also know that there is a part of the brain that chooses what to have for dinner, whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice cream…it’s that kind of behavior, one that engages vast amounts of the brain, particularly the frontal lobes, that incorporates an enormous amount of information in the causation of the behavior that has some mental model of the world that can predict the consequences of possible behavior and select them on the basis of those consequences, all of those things carve out the realm of behavior that we call free will.
This may all to an extent be true. I am positive that when weighing a decision the neurons in the brain are engaged in a fury of activity. However, this does nothing to prove that the brain makes my decision for me. Have you ever calculated the pros and cons of the situation and knew what the correct decision was, just to go ahead and make the wrong one knowingly? Of course you have. The brain may go through processes to help determine what course of action you should take. However, it is determined by the “self” or one’s consciousness which action will be taken. For example, I hold a pen in my hand -- I can throw that pen, I can hold onto that pen, I can set it down, there are a multitude of things that I can do with that pen. Now, it is true that once I throw that pen I can not change the rate at which it falls. This is determined by fixed rules of science. However, I can decide whether or not to throw it. Another example of dual causality is as follows: Boiling water can be explained by the heating of molecules to a certain point that the water begins to boil. However, this purely scientific account of this action does not take in the notion that the water is boiling because I plan to cook pasta. Physicist Paul Davies explains this by way of an analogy: “An electrical engineer could give a complete and accurate description of an advertising display in terms of electric circuit theory, explaining why and how each light is flashing. Yet the claim that the advertising display is therefore nothing but electrical pulses in a complex circuit is absurd.” Even Steven Pinker makes the concession that, “human behavior makes the most sense when it is explained in terms of beliefs and desires, not in terms of volts and grams.”
Philosophy of Religion Diaries
