Science in Christian Perspective
Student Paper
Free Will and Determinism
PETER PAYNE
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
Significance
The long standing debate over free will and determinism often seems
like a useless
intellectual battle. What relevance has it to our lives? This type of thinking
is quite understandable, considering the complexity of the problem
and diversity
of opinion, but the fact remains that the question is of considerable
importance.
If man, his existence, actions and thoughts, are all determined
solely and completely
by the motion of atomic particles behaving according to set laws, then how can
anyone be said to have responsibility? When there is no genuine choice involved
in one's actions, both guilt and praise lose their significance. The criminal
is not responsible for his crime, and the compassionate, socially
concerned individual
cannot he said to be responsible for his good deeds.
For the Christian the problem takes on special significance, for how can God he
said to be just in condemning those who do not submit to His will? Also, if our
rebellion against God is something beyond our control, then God must he said to
be responsible for the human evil in the world. At stake is the
question of whether
man is a free agent or simply a complex biological machine, and whether God can
be said to be just if indeed He does exist.
Attempted Solutions
There have been many attempted solutions to the problem, but as yet there is no
clear-cut answer. This
paper is not another attempt to arrive at a definite conclusion but rather it
endeavors to set forth a basic foundation upon which any solution
must be based.
Some possible solutions are outlined and discussed, but these are speculations
and for that reason must he considered lines of approach to the problem and not
final solutions. We also consider the limitations of our reason as they affect
any attempt to find a solution. Finally, in light of this, the
relevance of Biblical
teaching is considered, and a Christian response is set forth.
Any viable solution to the problem of free will and determinism must take into
account the facts which are at one's disposal. One must not ignore either the
scientific data or the experiences which we possess. The whole question arises
as a result of what at times appears to be conflicting evidence.
On the one hand, man possesses something called consciousness by
which he is able
to reflect upon the nature of himself and to see himself as distinct
from "the
world outside" which is present in his perceptions. Regarçlless of
what he conceives the nature of the world to be, he recognizes
himself as a thinking
and willing being. It has taken on such philosophical statements as
that of Augustine
or Descartes: "I doubt, therefore I exist," "I think, therefore
I exist." We tend to regard ourselves as subjects, initiating
action, having
control of our thoughts and actions, being able to choose between
various alternatives
and then having
responsibility for those thoughts and actions.
Arising in apparent opposition to this are the findings of science
regarding the
nature of man. Evolution indicates that man has developed from lower
life forms,
and the advances in chemistry and biology indicate that the human
body is composed
of chemicals operating according to physical laws. More recently this has also
been shown true for the operations of the brain. Although this is a
new frontier,
it is known that emotions, drives, memory, sensations, and thoughts
all have bases
in physical-chemical activities, which if altered cause changes in
our conscious
thought.
It is an assumption of many that, at least in theory, all of our thoughts can
he described in terms of physical-chemical processes. All physical effects can
be seen as arising necessarily from physical causes. This, at least
has been the
assumption of science and in fact has demonstrated its usefulness.
We therefore have here what seem to be two contradictory ideas. Man perceives
himself as autonomous, not being pre-determined in his actions, but
nevertheless
our thoughts seem to arise from the physical structure of the brain
which as far
as we can tell follows the causal laws of physics.
Some people have concluded from this that our perception of ourselves as free
agents is an illusion, consciousness simply being a characteristic of
the particular
arrangement of atoms and molecules in the brain. Man, therefore, is
seen as being
a complex biological machine and nothing more.
Is Man Only a Machine?
This conclusion that man is only a machine and that free will is
simply an illusion
does not necessarily follow. Some of the various possible alternatives are now
considered. They can be placed under three general categories:
1. The incompleteness of physical description.
2. The completeness but not exclusiveness of physical description.
3. The limited validity of physical description.
The first of these takes note of the fact that although we know quite
a bit about
the functioning of the brain, it is still largely a mystery. We know where in
the brain certain functions take place and that they are accompanied
by electrical
and chemical activity. We also know that people's thoughts are conditioned to
a large extent by past behavior patterns and experiences.
Nevertheless such basic
phenomena as memory storage, perception, learning and consciousness
are but very
poorly understood. The belief that every thought will eventually have complete
description and hence in theory complete predictability is based not so much on
the evidence as it is upon the assumption undergirding science that
all empirical
phenomena are understandable in terms of physical causes.
Those who defend free will by resisting the physical determinist's conclusion
may do so by postulating a gap or gaps in the physical description. There are
commonly two approaches. The first approach postulates that as
physiological psychologists
gradually learn more and more about the brain, they will eventually
come to observe
physical events which have no physical causes. The reason why this is
postulated
is
that the mind (which by this view is held to be spiritual) must in some way be
able to affect the physical processes in the brain which give rise to thoughts.
If there were a complete physical description, i.e., that every physical event
necessarily follows from its causes according to the physical laws, then there
would be no room for a spiritual mind to have any effect upon the activity of
the brain. People of this view therefore see the human mind as
supernatural (outside
of Nature), and each physically uncaused thought can properly be
called a miracle.
Man perceives himself as autonomous, not being pre-determined in his actions, but nevertheless our thoughts seem to arise from the physical structure of the brain which as far as we can tell follows the causal laws of physics.
The greatest problem with this approach is that it has no support
from empirical
evidence and must stand in a corner of knowledge (or more properly nonknowledge)
which continually gets smaller. It is felt to be justified as an exception to
the natural physical order by the fact of the uniqueness of man and
his perception
of his own personal autonomy. Although this is a possibility, it opens itself
to the same possible fate as other "God-of-the-gap" theories.
The second and more popular gap approach rests upon randomness at the
atomic level
which is at limes hypothesized from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The
Heisenherg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the
position and the direction of velocity of a subatomic particle. It may he that
there is indeed randomness at the atomic level, but then again it may be that
the present unpredictability of position and velocity is due not to randomness
but is instead due to problems of measurement, i.e., in the process
of measuring,
we affect what we are trying to measure. Still another possibility is that the
concepts of position and velocity may simply not have meaning at that
level.
This approach has two problems. First it must be assumed that randomness does
exist at the atomic level. Secondly, randomness in itself does not
lead necessarily
to the conclusion that we have responsible choice. Responsibility does not mean
lack of predictability, for the action which doesn't utilize past information
and follow lines of reasoning is said to be the opposite of
responsible. Therefore
if this approach is to be valid, it must be assumed that randomness
at the atomic
level merely opens the door for the spiritual mind to control, on a
large scale,
the motion of atomic particles and hence effect control of macroscopic events
in the brain. If a nonmaterial mind is not hypothesized then the randomness at
the atomic level loses any effect on a larger scale due to averaging
probabilities,
and responsibility is lost. Indeed responsibility is the central issue at stake
in the problem of free will and determinism.
Both of the above approaches, which assert the
incompleteness of physical description, are possible solutions to the problem,
but they are not the only possible solutions. We now consider the
type of solution
which asserts the possibility of complete physical description but nevertheless
claims that physics is only one of many valid and necessary levels of
description.
Rejection of Reductionism
This type of solution to the problem is based upon the rejection of
reductionism.
It, unlike reductionism, asserts that the whole is more than the sum
of the parts.
With increasing complexity of an interactive whole, new and different levels of
description are required, and these are not reducible to the atomic particles
of which they are composed. This is not to say that different
descriptive levels
exist apart from matter and ultimately energy, but rather, it is
saying that various
configurations of matter viewed as a whole have characteristics which are not
contained within the sum of the parts considered separately.
This can perhaps be made clear by considering a very simple example. When two
hydrogen atoms are brought together, they form a hydrogen molecule.
The two atoms
interact and a vibration occurs. This interaction is not something we
would call
real in the same sense as is the matter involved, but it is not an
illusion. Further,
although we can think of the interaction being potential in the
individual atoms,
it is nevertheless not present in them individually. It is lost when we attempt
to reduce the description of the hydrogen molecule to its constituent
parts. For
this same reason geology, biology, psychology, sociology, politics,
etc. are not
reducible to the level of description of physics. They are ultimately
based upon
matter, the atomic particles which compose them, but as we consider different
and higher levels of interaction, new and unique characteristics
arise which are
irreducible to lower levels which form their basis.
Instead of postulating the control of a non-material mind through random atomic level activity, one can hypothesize that the control of the direction of one's thoughts arises from the character of man as a whole interacting being.
The point of all this in regard to the question of determinism is
that, although
a complete description may be possible on the level of physics, this does not
mean that other levels of descriptions are invalidated. In brief, one can say
that on the physical level of description one is determined, and yet
on the level
viewing man as an interacting whole, he can be said to possess
freedom and responsibility.
It can, by means of this approach, be argued that those characteristics which
are unique to man (self-consciousness, personality, developed rational pntentialities, consciousness of God, and consciousness of moral
standards) all arise
from the structure and interaction of man as a whole person. These can be seen
as having their foundation in physical description, but they
themselves are unique
in man and are more than the physical level from which they arose.
This uniqueness
of man enables him to rise above the sheer subservience to passion. He is able
to evaluate his possible courses of action and their consequences and then act
upon them. Therefore instead of postulating the control of a nonmaterial mind
through random atomic level activity, one can here hypothesize that the control
of the direction of one's thoughts arises from the character of man as a whole
interacting being. Everyone therefore can be said to have a basic
awareness through
his reason of what is right and wrong, and to have the potentiality to turn to
what is right.
This formulation, however, does not completely solve the problem. It
hypothesizes
that, due to its complexity and structure, the brain, although
following the laws
of nature, does have genuine alternatives. This accords with subjective human
experience, but goes against the general assumption of science, that
effects can
be fully understood in terms of efficient and necessary causes.
Limitations on Understanding
This brings us to the last type of solution to the question. Briefly stated it
asserts that the problem lies in our inability to understand reality
in anything
more than a limited perspective. The fact that we are finite human beings means
that our conceptions of determinism and free will are going to
possess only limited
validity.
The best-known formulation of this is that of Immanuel Kant. Like empiricists,
he maintained that all of our thoughts and ideas must be founded on the data of
sensation. Nevertheless what we perceive is not reality, things-in-themselves,
but rather we perceive only what our mind has synthesized and made to conform
to the categories inherent in the structure of the mind. Space, time,
causality,
and principles of science and math are all categories of the mind.
Therefore anything we perceive, we must of necessity perceive as being causally
determined. This does not mean that things-in-themselves are causally
determined,
but rather that this is a category imposed by the mind. It is
therefore, according
to Kant, possible for man to be phenomenally determined and yet
noumenally free,
phenomena being things as we perceive them, and noumena being the
things-in-themselves.
Kant may not be right in his radical separation of phenomena from noumena, but
the fact remains that our perception of the world is our perception. The very
act of perception sifts and orders the content of our perceptions. In addition,
we use models as constructs for understanding our perceptions. Such is science.
The lesson for us to learn from this is that we must avoid the
temptation to equate
our constructs with reality itself. This lesson is also coming to us in modern
physics.
Newtonian physics had assumed that the world consisted of
fundamental, irreducible
particles which move and interact with each other according to certain natural
laws, which at least in theory would enable a neutral observer to predict any
future event, given complete knowledge of the state of affairs at a
given moment.
Scripture, in what appears as paradox, is expressing profound truth.
This is the assumption of physical determinism.
Today we know that Newtonian physics has been shown to be sorely inadequate. We
are confronted with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the relativity of
time and space. Because matter seems to be convertible into energy we no longer
know what "matter" is. We might say "static
energy", but what
is energy? We try to explain something like light, and we are forced
to use conceptual
models, which, if taken strictly, appear to be contradictory to each
other i.e.,
waves and particles. The utility of Newtonian physics in most areas is obvious,
but we know today that it is woefully lacking when its constructs and
asssumptions
are taken for reality-in-itself.
In the light of recent discoveries in science and recognition of the fact that
we must view the world from a limited perspective, we ought to be humble before
such a complex question as free will and determinism. We are beginning to see
that we understand the world much less than we had thought. It may be
that there
is neither determinism nor free will as we conceive of them, and that both of
these ideas have only limited validity.
Teaching of Scripture
With these things in mind the profundity of Biblical teaching is
fairly obvious.
Throughout church history people have twisted Scripture to try to deny either
free will or determinism. The fact is, however, that Scripture clearly teaches
both that all things are taking place according to God's sovereign
plan, and that
we have responsibility for the decisions we make. God does not lead
us into temptation,
and He does not
cause us to fall. From one perspective this appears to be a paradox, but then
we have only a limited view of reality. We are making a mistake if we think the
world must be exactly as we conceive it.
Scripture recognizes both what we know about determination and free
will. We are
conditioned by our actions and environment. The command to keep our
minds on those
things which are pure and of good report is no idle statement. By the things we
do, we develop patterns which may either be molding us into the image of Christ
or be hardening us to God's will, Each time Pharaoh acted against
God, his heart
became more hardened. Scripture clearly indicates we are not free
from determining
influences; it recognizes the phenomena which we today call
psychological conditioning.
When we fail to appeal to God, we succumb to the power of our passions, losing
the ability to become the sort of people that we should be.
In spite of our conditioning, we do in some sense have free will.
Scripture clearly
teaches that we have responsibility. We may not know exactly how this fits in
with the idea of our thoughts being describable in causal terms on the level of
physics, but from our experience it makes good sense.
In conclusion we see that Scripture, in what appears as paradox, is expressing
profound truth. Its statements are found to be quite accurate in
describing reality
as we see it. Also as we are coming to recognize our limitations in
conceptualization,
we are beginning to see the necessity of paradox in our attempt to understand
reality. The Christian therefore in his response to the problem of
free will and
determinism ought to be willing to recognize that he doesn't possess any clear
solution, and yet he need not think that the Biblical teaching is in error. On
the contrary its insightful statements, its consistency with reality
as observable
by us, its historical verification in Jesus, and its efficacy in the lives of
believers, all give credence to a fait
in its reliability as a source of truth.