Free Will: Part II

Free Will and its Unintended Consequences

Introduction

Free will, in philosophy and science, is a challenge since it assumes that humans have the capacity to make decisions or behave independently of any prior event or state of the universe. As we behave, most of us feel that our actions and thoughts are freely initiated. The acceptance of free will for most people comes from a felt experience that we own our actions. The belief in free will emerges from a felt experience that repeats constantly. The acceptance of free will rests on two basic assumptions: 1) We could have behaved differently when we acted at a moment than we did in the past because of our free will, and 2) that we are the initiating doer, actor, or causer of our own thoughts and actions. We argue that those two assumptions are wrong. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist who has written extensively about free will, in his book Free Will (2012), informs us “If the laws of nature do not strike most of us as incompatible with free will, that is because we have not imagined how human behavior would appear if all cause-effect relationships were understood.” He concludes, “The deliberative machinery supporting effective action is just as real and causally effective as any other in nature.”

Historical Perspectives on Free Will

Once we began researching the historical basis for accepting or rejecting free will, we soon recognized the immensity and complexity of this task. There is no way we can do justice to this long and contentious topic in this essay. We will just provide some of the pertinent highlights.

The scholars of the Middle Ages, from the foundational writings of Augustine to John Duns Scotus, demonstrated how later work on the topic of free will build upon earlier work. They also demonstrate the many disagreements that often arose as well as their discussions at times shared certain affinities. Most medieval thinkers accepted the common intuition that unless one acts freely, one cannot be held morally responsible for what one does. That belief has been the foundation for moral responsibility and the law that is present in modern times. Most believe that human beings act freely because we possess rational capacities that are lacking in other animals. Most accepted the position that the freedom of human action is incompatible with causal determinism.

Philosophers of the time also believed that the rational capacity that enables human beings to act freely is immaterial (spiritual). They also believed that everything else in the world is made of matter and thus material or physical. Therefore, in their view and the dominant view accepted today, free will does not follow the laws of nature so it cannot be explained. According to most medieval accounts of free will, then, free will is incompatible with causal determinism. A view that remains well entrenched today.

For example, St. Augustine was interested in the topic of human action and freedom because he wanted to explain how it is that God is not responsible for the presence of evil in the world while at the same time emphasizing that God governs the world. In his view, humans do evil things when they give in to their desires for temporal things instead of pursuing eternal things such as knowledge, virtue, grace, and God. Since humans act freely, Augustine argues that they, and not God, are responsible for evil in the world. St. Augustine argues that humans act, in general, for the sake of a particular end that they see as good. Of interest is that St. Thomas Aquinas, who is not considered a utilitarian (an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes), does think that consequences can have an effect on the moral appraisal of an action. He proposed that if an actor could have foreseen the consequences of the act, then bad consequences increase the agent’s blameworthiness and good consequences increase the agent’s praiseworthiness. If the agent could not have foreseen such consequences, then they have no effect on the moral appraisal of the action. He proposed that the intellect is able to deliberate, consider, and reconsider reasons for choosing various courses of action open to the agent that enables the agent to act freely. The will is free but only insofar as the intellect is free to make or revise its judgments. Thus, freedom in the will is dependent upon and derivative of freedom in the intellect.

Other accounts of free will also consider human action in terms of the workings of intellect and will. John Duns Scotus, who was known for the complexity of his thinking, was referred to in the Middle Ages (died in 1308) as the “Subtle Doctor.” He argues that if Aquinas is correct, human beings do not act freely. In his view, the intellect is determined by the external environment, also espoused by others such as Albert the Great. Scotus argues that the content of our beliefs and judgments is a function of the world around us and not within our control. He draws upon ordinary experience to defend this claim noting, “We have all been in situations where we know what we ought to do and yet we are not moved to do it.” He rejected Aquina’s view that the intellect’s judgment determines the will’s choice. For Scotus, the intellect makes a judgment about what to do, but it is up to the will to determine which alternative - out of all those the intellect has identified as possibilities - the actor acts upon.

Philosophers throughout the Middle Ages found the topics of action and free will compelling for many of the same reasons why they remain of significant interest today. David Hume (1711-1776) described the question of the nature of free will as “the most contentious question of metaphysics.”

Most contemporary scholarship and discussion on free will focuses on whether as Sam Harris, the neuroscientist, noted, “Free will is an illusion” so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it. Harris argues, “the fact that our choices depend on prior causes does not mean that they don’t matter.” Are the cumulative scientific findings in neuroscience and the natural science of behavior going to debunk the notion of free will? Before we address those issues, let's see historically what happens to those who challenge our understanding of nature and what are the eventual implications and outcomes of their scientific findings.

Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin Changed Our Views of the Universe...For the Better

It is a fact that these three giants of science have changed our understanding of how the natural laws of the universe work. Each faced many objections and humiliations because of their challenges to the status quo through their scientific discoveries. They all faced the admonishment of the Church. But, as usual, any scientific discovery that proves the laws of nature reinforces our belief in a God and the Church eventually comes out and openly endorses it. Science evolves and discovers facts about the natural laws of the universe and in turn gradually changes our vision of our place, as humans, in the universe.

Our Changing View of the Universe

Copernicus

In the Middle Ages, people believed the Earth to be the center of the solar system and the universe. Aristotle’s scientific theory was that the earth was the center of the universe. The telescope had not been invented yet so Copernicus, using simple mathematical and rudimentary instruments, observed the night sky and documented that from night to night the planets gradually moved with respect to the stars. He also noted that planets appear to speed up and slow down as they cross the sky. Planets even temporarily reverse direction, exhibiting “retrograde motion.” How can this be explained? In 1543, the year of Copernicus’ death, he published On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres and concluded, based on his observations and rudimentary measurements, that the planets circle the sun rather than the earth. Perhaps the most eloquent discovery derived from the Copernican model is its natural explanation of the changing apparent motion of the planets. The retrograde motion of planets such as Mars that he observed is an illusion, caused by the Earth “overtaking” Mars as they both orbit the sun. It is noted that the Copernican model still had limitations and errors due to the limits of the science at the time.

The Catholic Church at the time had endorsed the teachings of Aristotle’s scientific theories and his theory that the Earth was the center of the universe was considered to be without error. Copernicus taught that the sun was the center of the solar system. The teachings of Copernicus clearly contradicted the teachings of Aristotle and therefore the teachings and authority of the Catholic Church. The Church condemned Copernicus’ theory since it removed Earth and humanity from the central position in the universe and was considered heresy.

After Copernicus’ death on May 24, 1543, he was buried in an unmarked grave beneath the floor of the cathedral in Frombork, northern Poland. A few knew he was buried there. In May 2010, his remains were blessed with holy water by some of Poland’s highest-ranking clerics before an honor guard ceremoniously carried the coffin through the cathedral and then lowered it back into the same spot where he was buried. A black granite tombstone now identifies Copernicus as the founder of the heliocentric theory. He was also named a church cannon, a cleric that ranks below a priest. The tombstone is decorated with a model of the solar system, a golden sun encircled by six planets. Jacek Jezierki, a bishop who encouraged the search for Copernicus, noted that “Copernicus's burial is a part of the church’s broader embrace of science as being compatible with Biblical belief.”

Galileo and the Telescope

The telescope was invented in 1608 by Dutch spectacle makers. It is not clearly known who was the first but it is usually attributed to Hans Lipperhey. Galileo learned about the telescope in 1609 and went to work designing a telescope with a magnifying power of 20x that produced good-quality images. He published his telescopic observations initially in Sidereus Nuncius (The Starry Messenger). He described his observations of craters and mountains of the Moon as well as studied and documented Solar rotation, the moons of Jupiter as well as the phases of Venus. He also described spots on the Sun. He documented the rotation of the Sun. He questioned, “If a huge object like the Sun can rotate, why not Earth?”

Galileo then observed 4 moons orbiting Jupiter, Through his power of observation he concluded that the Earth is not the only center in motion in the Universe. There was a solar system in miniature around Jupiter for all to see. He also documented the phases of Venus and concluded from observing the order of phases and changes in diameter proved conclusively that Venus orbited the Sun. He concluded that the Sun was also a center of motion. These discoveries brought fame to Galileo. He had demonstrated the heliocentric astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe.

The Catholic Church at the time officially declared in 1616 that the heliocentric theory was “philosophically false and at least an erroneous belief.” Galileo was cautioned about his findings and was instructed to stop teaching and defending the Copernican model in public. However, he continued publishing his observations. Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 for disobedience. Three of the ten cardinals who judged him refused to sign the verdict. It was eventually discovered that Galileo was charged on the basis of trumped-up charges.  Galileo was placed on house arrest near Florence. He was publicly humiliated and threatened and under duress, he admitted guilt and was noted to “abjure, curse and detest…” his “errors and heresies…”

In 1979, Pope John Paul II initiated an investigation into the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo. It took 13 years for this investigation to conclude, this was after 359 years that Galileo was tried by the inquisition. The pope then closed the investigation and issued a formal apology, acknowledging that errors were made by the judges during the trial. There still remain some controversies in the Church about Galileo’s discoveries (see the late Pope Benedict XVI's speech at La Sapienza University in Rome on February 15, 1990). Subsequently, in January 2008 Pope Benedict XVI was scheduled to return to La Sapienza University to give a talk. Students and faculty planned a protest, stating in a letter that the pope’s expressed views on Galileo “offend and humiliate us as scientists who are loyal to reason and as teachers who have dedicated our lives to the advance and dissemination of knowledge.” The pope canceled his visit. We believe, following Christian teachings, that Galileo’s memory deserves more than an apology, but a full recognition and embrace just like Copernicus eventually did!

The Jesuits and Stargazing

The New York Times recently published Centuries of Stargazing Leave Jesuits Names Written in Heaven (3/22/23). It is an interesting and relevant article about the Vatican’s in-house observatory, run by a Jesuit, and their discoveries of asteroids that are named after them. Since 1801, when space rocks began to be formally named, there have been 30 asteroids assigned to Jesuits. One is also named after Pope Gregory XIII who built the Vatican Observatory so that astronomers could study and reform the Julian calendar which was replaced by the current Gregorian calendar in 1582. The NYT noted, “The history of the observatory, which has been staffed by Jesuits since the 1930s, is a rebuttal to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church has always sought to stand in the way of scientific advancement, an idea perpetuated by high-profile cases like those of Galileo and Giordano Bruno [who extended the Copernican model] at the hands of the Inquisition during the Renaissance.” We may add, it just takes them a long time to enthusiastically accept the teachings of good science.

Charles Darwin, Evolution, and Natural Selection

Evolution is a process that results in changes in the morphology, genetic material, and behavior of a population over time. Evolution reflects the adaptations of the organisms to their changing environment and results in altered genes, physical characteristics, and behavior, and may lead to the development of new species. Darwin and Wallace proposed that evolution occurs in an environment where living organisms produce more offspring than are able to survive in their environment and the organisms are selected by the process of natural selection. Those organisms that adapt tend to survive. Adaptations are physical and behavioral characteristics that shape the organism to become better suited to its environment. 

Human evolution is the evolutionary process within the history of primates. This evolutionary process eventually led to the emergence of Homo Sapiens as a separate and unique species with unique behavior characteristics such as complex language and higher cognitive skills. The linking of humans with earlier apes by descent became clear only after 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Darwin argued for the idea of the evolution of a new species from earlier ones. Darwin then applied the theory of evolution and sexual selection to humans in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Most Christian churches were initially hostile to Darwin primarily because his proposed evolution of ape to man conflicted with the biblical account of creation. 

Darwin and his family had a long connection with the Church of England. The Catholic Church delayed official comments on Darwin’s Origin of Species for many decades. His books were never on the list of prohibited books. The main concern about evolution has always been largely concerned with the implications of man evolving from apes for the origin of the human species and the literal explanation of how God created man as depicted in the book of Genesis. It has been noted that the advantage of this approach lies in the fact that one does not have to decide either for evolution or against it. Authority has not spoken on evolution at the time; therefore it puts no burden upon one’s conscience and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. However, the authority may speak tomorrow.

The Catholic Church first spoke with authority about Darwin and evolution in 1950 when Pope Pius XII wrote in an encyclical “Humani Generis” that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory. He wrote: “The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine  of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”

Pope Francis was bolder. He gave a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 2014 and said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang. In his speech, he also said “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,”  Francis then added, “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Let’s Tackle Free Will

Historically, it seems that the major roadblock to the acceptance of important scientific discoveries that impacted our understanding of the natural universe is the early Catholic Church teachings and proclamations that have remained unquestioned for eons. The previous examples with Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin demonstrate that eventually the Catholic Church accepts the scientific findings and embraces them to different degrees. In looking at the previous examples we can see something positive, it seems that the Church is actually embracing good science and with the cultural evolution into modern times, they are accepting these scientific discoveries faster and appear to reflect a more enthusiastic endorsement of the findings. Science only applies to the physical universe and discoveries regarding the order, control, prediction, and convergence in scientific findings about the universe are seen as a product of an almighty Creator. Can science solve the puzzle of Free Will? That is next!

Pass it on and see you next week!

Francisco I. Perez, PhD

Faris R. Kronfli, PhD

Henry S. Pennypacker, PhD

Our book Engineering the Upswing - A Blueprint for Reframing Our Culture can be found at Amazon or the Cambridge Center at behavior.org