Kenneth W Daniels
  • Home
  • The Deconversion Desert

Is free will an illusion?

3/25/2012

 
Yes, free will is but an illusion. So says neurscientist Sam Harris in his new little book, Free Will. In his view, all our thoughts and actions are determined by prior events and brain states; in other words, we cannot choose to do or to think anything other than what we in fact do and think.

Christian apologist J. P. Moreland, whose book Scaling the Secular City (1990: Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) I read in my seminary apologetics class in 1991, begs to differ, quoting theologian H. P. Owen on page 90:

"Determinism is self-stultifying. If my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or to reject determinism. But if the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am causally determined to believe it, I have no ground for holding that my judgement is true or false."

Busted, as my kids would say. This quote was so arresting that it has remained lodged in my mind for over twenty years since I first read it, allowing me to pull the book from my bookshelf and locate it today as a foil for Harris’ position.

I recall that after first reading Moreland’s defense of free will and his arguments against physicalism, naturalism, and determinism, I arbitrarily lifted my left pinky finger in defiance of the notion that everything I did was determined by natural laws. I didn’t have to lift a pinky finger, let alone my left one, but I did so anyway. “Take that, determinism!” Yet even then, I had a nagging thought that a determinist might wish to dismiss my act of raising my left pinky finger as nothing more than a reflexive impulse against the repugnant notion that all my actions were outside of my control.

Isn’t it self-evident that we are the author of our actions, that we are responsible for what we do (both good and bad), and that we could freely opt for action a or b when given a choice? Isn’t it built into our justice system that a man of sane mind who pulls the trigger of his gun to kill a man who seduced his wife could have instead listened to his conscience, paused, and avoided carrying out the crime? If, as Harris believes, the murderer could not have done anything other than what he ended up doing, must society then give up its mandate to hold criminals responsible for their crimes? Are we really only left to excuse the “guilty” as follows? “It wasn’t his fault; he was just driven to pull the trigger by his circumstances, his underprivileged upbringing, his exposure to violence as a way of life, his genes, his personality, the lax gun laws in his state, a chemical imbalance in his brain, yada yada yada!” Or, to use a recent example from the real world, “Sargeant Robert Bales was driven to murder 17 innocent Afghani civilians because he was stretched to the breaking point by his four deployments, the loss of fellow soldiers in his unit, injuries he suffered, or post-traumatic stress syndrome. He simply had no choice but to go take out his frustrations in the way he did.”

Harris would argue that even the most heinous and most senseless of crimes are triggered not by a free will that could have chosen to do otherwise, but instead by a series of events and brain states governed by the laws of nature, including those described by chemistry, physics, genetics, biology, and (perhaps) quantum mechanics. He rhetorically asks free-will advocates what else but the laws of nature could possibly account for our decisions. Setting aside the special case of coercion by others, if I lift my left pinky finger, it’s because I want to lift it. If I don’t want to lift it, I don’t lift it. But why do I want or not want to lift it? I don’t have control over my wants; they just appear for reasons I’m not often conscious of, reasons that arise from the laws of nature operating on my brain and on my environment. 

Sometimes I sense a conflict of wants within me, and it's when choosing between two wants that I feel I'm making a free moral decision. For example, I want the thrill that comes from clicking on the link to a sexually explicit photograph, but I also want to preserve my marriage and to direct my sexual passions exclusively toward my wife. Since I think (based on the input my brain has received about the dangers of pornography) that I can’t have both, I think I have to choose between the two options, and I prefer a long-lasting, intact marriage over the thrill of the moment, so I decide not to click the link. And because I gave up something potentially thrilling in favor of fidelity to my wife, I gain a sense of satisfaction in having made the right moral decision, for which I think I am entitled some credit. But where in that decision-making process was there room for anything outside the laws of nature? Did I have any control over my upbringing, during which the dangers of pornography were instilled in me? Can I help it that my wife is a beautiful person to whom I’m helplessly attracted, a wife who faithfully loves me in return? Is it up to me whether I want her more than the pornography, or that I have been led to believe that in some sense the pornography jeopardizes my relationship with her? No, my brain controlled my wants, and I ended up doing what I wanted to do, that is, giving up the short-term thrill of the pornography for the longer-term stability of my marriage.

Now, what if I had been away from my wife on a trip without any sexual release for months and the urge to click that link had not been overcome by my desire to remain emotionally faithful to my wife, and what if I had gone ahead and clicked that link because the desire for the thrill was greater than my perceived risk of doing so? In either case, I’ve done what I wanted to do, and I can’t control my wants. If I know ahead of time I’ll be vulnerable to such temptation and wish to avoid it, then I can choose to not take that months-long trip, but my choice not to do so is also governed by my wants, over which I have no ultimate control.

As for a potential criminal who’s contemplating pulling the trigger on his wife’s seducer, what if the thought enters his mind that he might well get caught and put in prison for life or executed if he were to go through with the murder, and the fear of getting caught makes him relent? Then he relents because he wants to relent. Why does he want to relent? Because his brain (whether consciously or otherwise) weighs the various outcomes and decides it’s in his interest to hold off. In this case, the desire to relent is traceable to an external factor, though in many cases it isn’t always easy to determine where our desires come from. But one thing Harris is sure of: they don’t arise from a disembodied or supernatural soul that drives our decisions apart from who we are, apart from the sum of all the circumstances and brain states that precede our every thought and action.

Harris’ confidence in the non-existence of free will is based at least in part on the results of experiments he describes as follows:

“Subjects were asked to press one of two buttons while watching a “clock” composed of a random sequence of letters appearing on a screen. They reported which letter was visible at the moment they decided to press one button or the other. The experimenters found two brain regions that contained information about which button subjects would press a full 7 to 10 seconds before the decision was consciously made. More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict with 80 percent accuracy a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it. These findings are difficult to reconcile with the sense that we are the conscious authors of our actions. One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next—a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please—your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this ‘decision’ and believe that you are in the process of making it.” (From Harris, Sam (2012-03-06). Free Will (Kindle Locations 159-168). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.)

This is incredible: brain scans reveal that our brains make decisions before we’re even aware of the decisions we make. It’s as though I’m an automaton driven by factors beyond “my” control (whatever “my” means), and the decisions I’ll make can be visible to researchers before I’m even aware I’ve made them! Only, it’s not as though I’m an automaton; the inescapable conclusion is that I really am an automaton, albeit an automaton that’s aware of its decisions and consequent actions in such a way that it feels as if it’s making free decisions unconstrained by the laws of nature.

But if we’re all just automatons that will do what we’ll do, why bother to exert any effort to do anything at all, let alone anything noble? Why even get up in the morning? To this question, Harris retorts:

“...people generally confuse determinism with fatalism. This gives rise to questions like ‘If everything is determined, why should I do anything? Why not just sit back and see what happens?’ This is pure confusion. To sit back and see what happens is itself a choice that will produce its own consequences. It is also extremely difficult to do: Just try staying in bed all day waiting for something to happen; you will find yourself assailed by the impulse to get up and do something, which will require increasingly heroic efforts to resist.” (Harris, Sam (2012-03-06). Free Will (Kindle Locations 374-378). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition. )

And to the worry that we’ll not be able to hold others (or ourselves) responsible for our actions, I would add that, even if we don’t have free will, we as a society can seek to provide disincentives (like sending murderers to prison or criticizing those who act recklessly) and incentives (like medals of honor, monetary reward, or verbal praise) as a means of influencing our fellow automatons to behave in ways we perceive to be in the interest of the society in which we live.

What about Owen’s charge that determinism is self-stultifying, that if our beliefs are determined by circumstances beyond control, then even our belief in determinism is determined, and there’s no legitimate reason to think that either our belief in determinism or any other belief is grounded in reality? I am not a philosopher of epistemology (the study of how we know what we know), but as an armchair philosopher who’s open to my readers’ contrary input, my first take on this question is that our brains have evolved a certain (I use “a certain,” because it’s limited) capacity to adjust our beliefs to evidence. If there’s evidence of a poisonous snake in our path (based on visual stimuli reaching our brains), we come to the unavoidable conclusion that a snake really is there, and we decide to take measures to avoid it. It does not follow that, since our decision to believe that a snake is in our path is determined, then there are no grounds for believing it. Similarly, if our decision to accept determinism is itself determined (for example, as a result of learning that brain scans show us to be unaware of our decisions until after they’re made), that does not nullify the grounds for legitimately accepting determinism.

Why should we engage in argument to convince anyone else to adopt our point of view on any matter, if in fact the other’s point of view is already determined, and if that person is not personally responsible for holding what we think to be a mistaken view? It seems to me that there is still plenty of room for us to discuss our differing views in an effort to communicate knowledge and reasoning that will serve as input to the brains of others (this sounds so clinical, doesn’t it? Sorry about that! I can’t help it!) and thus convince them of what we discern to be true, based on the evidence to which our brains have been exposed. In the process, we might ourselves be surprised to be exposed to new evidence that changes our own position, and so knowledge based on good evidence is given a chance to thrive in more and more brains, leading to more lives lived in accordance with a truer understanding of reality.

In writing this post, don’t I run the risk of making people feel less responsible for their actions and thus more prone to live immorally? I doubt it, as long as my readers understand that if you live immorally, you’ll still reap the consequences of your actions, and those consequences are no less sufficient grounds for “deciding” to behave than is the notion of free will. In other words, a deterministic contemplation of the consequences of my actions serves to put the brakes on a reckless course of action. The best way to ensure moral living is to gain an ever more complete understanding of how our actions will impact us and those we love in the long term. This is why we educate our children, not only in the 3 “R”s (Reading w‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic), but also in m‘Rality.

Finally, why should I care about whether others adopt a realistic view of human free will, i.e., that we don’t have free will? One practical benefit is a greater sense of compassion for those caught in a trap not of their “own” making. Instead of reacting in moral outrage to those whose who are bent toward destructive actions, we can think to ourselves, “There but for good fortune go I.” It tends to pop the balloon of our smug self-righteousness and arrogant moralizing when we realize that our own accomplishments and moral rectitude aren’t due to our own free will but are a result of the legacy of the nature and nurture bequeathed to us. This doesn’t mean, as I’ve said before, that we can’t still put in place measures to encourage constructive behavior and to discourage destructive behavior in all of us, but it takes the edge off our tendency toward judgmentalism and self-righteousness when we recognize that free will is an illusion.

If you’re interested in knowing more about this topic, I would strongly encourage you to read Harris’ book, which should take no more than a couple of hours to get through, and if you buy the Kindle edition, it’s only $3.99. Having also read philosopher of science Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves (2004, Penguin), I prefer Harris’ more direct and accessible approach, but Dennett’s views are also worth reading and considering as a less hard-nosed naturalistic alternative to Harris’ characteristically pull-no-punches stance. 
Ryan
3/25/2012 07:18:39 pm

I have been following your blog for the past couple of months now but this is my first time commenting. I read Free Will a few weeks ago but no one in my social circle (I am still a closet atheist to all but my wife) has read it. So when I saw that it was your topic this week I just couldn't help but comment. Perhaps literally. The idea of no free will was startling and new for me, and Mr. Harris makes a very good case. I have been surprised over the last few weeks how little this realization has affected my daily life so far. Perhaps the illusion of free will is so strong that even knowledge of its falsity can't break it. Knowing I am (to an extent) out of control has not made me feel out of control at all. One thing is certain though. If there is no free will, there are some pretty damning implications for the Genesis story and "original sin."

Ken Daniels
3/26/2012 09:54:02 pm

Thanks for joining in on the conversation, Ryan, and welcome to the tumultuous adventure of deconversion. Thanks also for your perspective on what it feels like to give up belief in free will. Like you, I didn't notice any change in my actions when I came to accept that my actions are determined, but I have to say it was initially a very scary and unwanted thought. I sometimes now reflect on a given action of mine (e.g., lifting the toilet seat) and realize I hadn't even given the action a thought before I did it; it's as if much of the day I'm on autopilot. It's a difficult leap to think that even the actions I deliberate over, the ones I'm vividly conscious of, are likewise driven by the laws of nature rather than an immaterial "me" that could have made a decision other than the one I in fact made. Lots to chew on.

Erica A.
3/25/2012 10:01:02 pm

That is fascinating. I don't know that I am willing to accept it (or perhaps I should say my brain has determined that I will be resistent to accepting it), but I've been reading James Orbinski's An Imperfect Offering: Humanitarian Action for the 21st Century. Reading his chapters on the genocide in Rwanda has given me nightmares; it's the most horrific thing I have ever read, including graphic accounts of the Holocaust. Maybe if we better understood what turns one person into a doctor, nurse, or priest who chose to stay there and try to help rather than one of those who committed these atrocities, a Hutu who lost his/her life by refusing to harm their Tutsi neighbors or a Hutu who butchered them, maybe we could truly keep things like this from happening again. I can see the knowledge being used for evil as well.

Ken Daniels
3/26/2012 10:07:52 pm

Erica,

Thanks again for contributing your helpful insights. Dr. Orbinski's books sounds like an interesting read. I see he's the past president of Doctors without Borders, an organization I have a good deal of respect for. I'm not sure I would want to read the chapters on the Rwandan genocide (the description you gave was horrific enough). Yes, it's a good question--why do some people do awful things while others do heroic things? You may have heard about that experiment in the 1960s when "scientists" in white lab coats asked volunteers to press a button to shock individuals behind a glass wall. They were to press the button with increasingly high voltages, up to the maximum of 450 volts, while the "subject" behind the wall feigned agony (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Incredibly, 65% of those who participated were willing to go all the way to the highest voltage level. I tell myself I wouldn't have been among those 65%, but how do I know? If I had been a Rwandan in 1994, how do I know I wouldn't have wielded a machete like just about everyone around me? Sobering stuff.

Keep up the good thinking. Maybe the laws of nature will eventually lead you to adopt determinism, or maybe they won't!

Holly
3/27/2012 05:49:28 am

This is the first post you've written that has stressed me out. If this is true, then I would really have trouble finding meaning in anything, or giving myself the privilege of feeling proud of anything or anybody. I now feel like the Christian who might doubt but doesn't want to look further for fear of what he might find. I really need to believe that we have free will and the ability to make choices. Interesting post, though!

Ken Daniels
3/27/2012 10:15:33 am

Thanks for your honesty, Holly. I'd be concerned if everyone always agreed with everything I wrote. I'm with you--it's a tough pill to swallow to even think we might not have free will. But I've found, oddly enough, that even after coming to believe we probably don't have free will, it hasn't led me to being resigned about life. I'd like think I've become a little more understanding, a little less judgmental, and a little less prideful since I've come to this realization. But I do hear you: on a certain level, it seems to deprive us of legitimately finding meaning in life or praising anyone for anything if none of us really could choose to do anything other than what we end up doing. (I think Harris' book itself goes a long way toward alleviating those concerns for those who do end up adopting determinism.) My journey has progressed in stages from biblical/literal Christianity to moderate Christianity to deism to agnosticism to agnostic atheism to doubts about free will, and at every point along the way, I've left the previous stage kicking and screaming, to use C.S. Lewis' expression for his move in the opposite direction. But at each stage I've eventually adjusted to the new reality and have been rewarded by the sense that my views are converging ever closer to the way things really are (not that I'll ever truly understand reality). Which reminds me of my favorite quote: "Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this." --Thomas Huxley

Dave link
3/27/2012 10:25:19 pm

Great post, makes me want to read the book (and I also want to read his book on lies).

I would be interested on your take, as a former Christian, on any differences you see between a Christian determinism (like Calvinism) and a secular one?

It seems to me that in a Christian one God determines everything so you really can't ever change (unless God changes you). In my opinion (and I am a Christian, though not a Calvinist) it seems more hopeless. But based on your post, it seems a scientific or secular determinism does leave you open to change based on entering new data or learning new things. In other words, based on my prior knowledge I do or believe one thing but as I learn new views or opinions or whatever I slowly change (and maybe I can't help it because I am not free) to something else.

Anyway, nice post.

Ken Daniels
3/28/2012 02:41:36 am

Dave,

Thanks for your response; it's good to hear from a believer (a rare event!) on this blog. I'll be curious to learn more of your views.

Several of my past posts have singled out Christianity in a negative light. In this post I decided to take a break from that and focus on a topic that's relevant to readers who have an interest in free will apart from theological considerations. But since you asked, like you I find theological determinism (Calvinism) even more troubling than naturalistic determinism (a la Harris). I was brought up in a "vanilla" two-point Calvinist (from the TULIP acronym, we kept the "T"otal depravity and "P"reservation of the saints bits) evangelical tradition, but for maybe a year or so during and after seminary, I studied and gained a degree of appreciation for five-point Calvinism. I was especially moved by Luther's On the Bondage of the Will. But for most of my Christian life I was probably more Arminian than Calvinist.

What disturbs me most about theological determinism (a.k.a. strict Calvinism) is not so much that our actions and outlook are determined for us but that we are subject to eternal punishment for the path we follow, a path we don't have a choice but to make. It's tough enough to swallow naturalistic determinism; theological determinism, given its eternal ramifications, is infinitely more difficult to accept. Even if Calvinism is true (and I'm not granting that it is), I find it incredible that anyone would nonetheless *want* to worship a god who chooses from the beginning of time who will be eternally damned and proceeds to execute that damnation. Yet, to be consistent with my post on determinism, I have to consider that this desire to worship such a god is itself determined. But that doesn't mean I can't contest the idea in an effort to influence those who adopt Calvinism. Maybe that will be a later post...

Dave link
3/28/2012 05:22:27 am

Personally, since you mentioned being curious to learn my views, I am not a Calvinist and I have come to strongly doubt the whole eternal conscious torment in hell thing.

Ken Daniels
3/29/2012 01:28:35 pm

Note: I've just now removed the following two paragraphs from the above post. Why? Because at least one reader mistook the second paragraph below for my own writing (when in fact it was Sam Harris' writing) and thought I displayed a belittling or pompous tone. I would like to have indented the paragraph to set it off and avoid confusion, but this blog site doesn't give me that option. If one reader was confused, I'm sure there were others, which is why I'm taking the following two paragraphs out of the main blog post.

------------------------

Though I do not intend to turn my blog into a political rag (I’m more interested in religion than in politics, and I tend to be more centrist than liberal or conservative), I’ll close this post with a relatively lengthy but incisive excerpt from Harris’ book on another practical consequence of our views on determinism:

[NOTE: The following is a quotation from Harris' book and is not my writing--Ken] “For better or worse, dispelling the illusion of free will has political implications—because liberals and conservatives are not equally in thrall to it. Liberals tend to understand that a person can be lucky or unlucky in all matters relevant to his success. Conservatives, however, often make a religious fetish of individualism. Many seem to have absolutely no awareness of how fortunate one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, physically healthy, and not bankrupted in middle age by the illness of a spouse. Consider the biography of any “self-made” man, and you will find that his success was entirely dependent on background conditions that he did not make and of which he was merely the beneficiary. There is not a person on earth who chose his genome, or the country of his birth, or the political and economic conditions that prevailed at moments crucial to his progress. And yet, living in America, one gets the distinct sense that if certain conservatives were asked why they weren’t born with club feet or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. Even if you have struggled to make the most of what nature gave you, you must still admit that your ability and inclination to struggle is part of your inheritance. How much credit does a person deserve for not being lazy? None at all. Laziness, like diligence, is a neurological condition. Of course, conservatives are right to think that we must encourage people to work to the best of their abilities and discourage free riders wherever we can. And it is wise to hold people responsible for their actions when doing so influences their behavior and brings benefit to society. But this does not mean that we must be taken in by the illusion of free will. We need only acknowledge that efforts matter and that people can change. We do not change ourselves, precisely—because we have only ourselves with which to do the changing—but we continually influence, and are influenced by, the world around us and the world within us. It may seem paradoxical to hold people responsible for what happens in their corner of the universe, but once we break the spell of free will, we can do this precisely to the degree that it is useful. Where people can change, we can demand that they do so. Where change is impossible, or unresponsive to demands, we can chart some other course. In improving ourselves and society, we are working directly with the forces of nature, for there is nothing but nature itself to work with.” (Harris, Sam (2012-03-06). Free Will (Kindle Locations 621-640). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.)

'Trick Slattery link
4/12/2012 04:03:00 am

Excellent post. I could not agree more, in fact I have been spending the last 5 years writing a book on this topic myself (in my spare time - hence 5 years so far). I read Harris's book and think it an excellent contribution that will help many start to think about this important topic.

My book not only goes through how free will is incompatible with both a deterministic as well as an indeterministic universe (hard incompatibilism), but it touches upon the many contrivances of those who cannot let go of the belief in free will -- from compatibilist redefinitions, to the use of quantum mechanics. I try not to let any contrivance slip through the cracks, hence the book is a little longer at 65,000 words currently. :)

Later,
'Trick


Comments are closed.

    Author

    Kenneth W. Daniels (1968-), son of evangelical missionaries, is the author of Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary. He grew up in Africa and returned as an adult to serve with Wycliffe Bible Translators in Niger on the edge of the Sahara Desert. While studying the Bible on the mission field, he came to doubt the message he had traveled across the world to bring to a nomadic camel-herding ethnic group. Though he lost his faith and as a result left Africa in 2000, he remains part of a conservative Christian family. He currently resides with his wife and three children in suburban Dallas, TX, where he works as a software developer.

    Archives

    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Atheism
    Blues
    Book Review
    Book Review Response
    Capital Punishment
    Charity
    Children
    Christian Music
    Christmas
    Coming Out
    Coming Out To Spouse
    Consciousness
    Contraception
    Depression
    Evil
    Evolution
    Free Will
    Friends
    Gay Marriage
    Global Warming
    Happiness
    Hell
    Homosexuality
    Humanism
    Loyalty
    Lying
    Meaning
    Miracles
    Mixed Marriage
    Morality
    Murder
    Nostalgia
    Planet Purity Without Belief
    Religion And Society
    Religious Liberty
    Sam Harris
    Separation Of Church And State
    Sexism
    Silver Lining
    Social Justice
    Social Networks
    Steven Pinker
    Ten Commandments
    Thanksgiving
    Truth
    Unbelief
    Veganism
    Vegetarianism
    Violence
    Women

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.