free will . . ? free will ? On the Question of the Freedom of the Will The question as to whether or not we have free will is an important topic of debate in philosophical and theological circles. In his famous 1962 paper ‘Freedom and Resentment’ Peter Strawson starts from the assumption that determinism, the thesis that all human action is pre-determined, is probable but not certain. At least this view is widely held by those in his field. He then argues that even if determinism is true people should still be held responsible for their actions. I will not go into the details of Strawson’s argument here but I will deal with the concept of determinism. A philosophical argument begins with what are considered to be obvious and uncontroversial first principles. Determinism refers to the nature of cause and effect. If A happens it will inevitably (deterministically) cause B to happen, which then causes C to happen etc etc. There is a broad consensus throughout much of the philosophical community that this sort of cause and effect relationship occurs throughout all reality. This view is, of course, incorrect. Einstein’s famous ‘God does not play dice’ statement refers to his refusal to accept the observed fact, as the majority of the scientific community accepted, that at the level of the very small, smaller than an atom, what is called ‘acausality’ comes into play. If event A happens it will not result in any certain outcome B, but rather may result in a number of possibilities to which one can ascribe probabilities regarding their occurrence. If A happens then it is, say, 50% likely that C will happen, 25% likely that D will happen, 15% likely that E will happen and 10% likely that F will happen. Because of the success that Quantum Mechanics has in predicting behaviour in this probabilistic manner the majority of scientists do believe that “God” does indeed play dice at this level of reality. Determinism, one domino falls causing another to fall and then a third, describes the behaviour of macroscopic inanimate objects. The standard response to the above by the philosophical community involves the assertion that acausality is neatly parcelled in the realm of the very small and the rest of reality is “obviously” deterministic in nature. However the statement “there is one type of thing in the universe, why not two?” is quite different to “there are two types of thing in the universe, why not three?” John Searle in ‘Minds Brains and Science’ mentions the possibility of the freedom of the will or “contra-causality”. He asserts that this would involve a force of a magical nature causing molecules to swerve in their path. I will now continue with a short story. Suppose it is the early 1920’s and an anthropologist visits an isolated tribal community. The locals understand his desire to understand their lifestyle and one local, in particular, befriends the visitor and is curious about the Westerner’s ways. He develops some understanding that his technology is not really magic. The first time he sees an aeroplane he discusses the phenomenon with the visitor. With the aid of a very rudimentary aerodynamics lesson he understands, again, that what is involved is not really magic. Now, this does not mean that he denies that the plane is actually in the air. And it is certainly not on the ground and only seeming to be in the air. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards maximum entropy, maximum disorder. A unicellular organism is essentially a mechanism that creates an inversion of this law in a localised area. This does not, of course, involve magic. The process involves the organism ingesting an energy source, usually carbohydrates. It is my belief that the Hindu legend of the guru who could levitate is a parable which illustrates the ‘mind over matter’ nature of any living entity. Levitation is a valid and strong metaphor for entropy reduction. If one looks at a unicellular organism under a microscope one is witnessing the ‘guru levitating’. The fact that this is not happening by magic does not contradict the observation. Energy is used and the figures regarding energy input and output all add up but this does not mean that the ‘guru’ does not ‘levitate’. At the level of the single celled organism rudimentary contra-causality is an observed fact. Accordingly the idea that a human being is capable of making choices is in no way contra-indicated by science. The idea that our behaviour is subject to deterministic laws involves extrapolating from areas of the universe where this form of analysis is valid to other aspects of reality where it is not. A wise man once said that the opposite of an error is usually its complementary error. Jean Paul Sartre in ‘Existentialism and Humanism’ proclaimed that every human being is responsible for what s/he is from the moment s/he is thrown into the world. While it is indeed laudable that one should behave in a responsible manner as and where appropriate the idea that we each create ourselves is surely an absurdity but by behaving responsibly we make use of ‘what we are’, a given, and thus what we ‘become’ will be in broad general terms successful. ‘What we are’ refers not only to our physique or our innate talents but also to the socio-cultural environment in which we find ourselves. The assertion that we create ourselves means that others who are less fortunate or in a less powerful situation are fair game as they inflicted this vulnerability upon themselves; and, indeed, accordingly inflict any of the violence by others upon themselves. They may be even fairer game in that I may not be responsible for the violence that I inflict on the less fortunate as free will is an illusion. When it suits me. Rigorous science does not support the idea that human actions are mechanistically determined although there may be many reasons why the freedom of the will is limited. Our physical nature is one; which may involve and explain much about innate talents and limitations of personality. That our being is a function of our interaction with others is self-evident and is certainly not so only of individuals who are weak willed, for whatever reason. We are conditioned by our interaction with our environment in its most general sense. The actual truth lies somewhere between the pseudo-science of the determinists and the egomania of the existentialists. But precisely how free any individual is may not have any easy answer. Strawson argues that even if determinism is correct people are accountable for their actions. However there is little genuine scientific evidence that determinism is likely. Brendan Burke MA(Phil) Cork Unitarian Church 13th March 2007 Cover