Do we have free will?

The idea that we do not have “free will” in making decisions is often called “determinism.” I think it’s fair to say that we may have genetic predispositions (as well as behavioral ones, shaped through experience and habit), but a determinism that completely eliminates our ability to counteract or change what we are instinctually inclined to do doesn’t seem to mesh with our experience. There are two areas that immediately comes to mind, though there are many others: (1) blame/praise and (2) gratitude.

If we were to accept determinism, we would have no basis for affirming praiseworthy actions or assigning blame to negative actions. And yet, I think at our deepest level we act as though we are responsible for our actions (or realize we are acting irresponsibly), and we are readily able to assign fault or blame when something goes wrong. Yet it people really were not able to choose otherwise, it would be grossly unfair to assign blame to them, since someone who is not free cannot be held responsible for their actions.

The twentieth-century author G.K. Chesterton once said that, if the world is determined, it would make no sense to say “thank you” to the waiter for bringing the mustard. That’s because giving thanks implies that something that happened need not have happened. Of course, we could say that, whether we give thanks or not, we are equally determined. Looking back on either, they cannot change. However adequately determinism may explain the events of the past, it seems inadequate for things now and not yet, things that come to pass because we choose them to.  If the world is determined in all its dimensions, nothing freely happens in it. Nothing can be said about it except that it happened. I mean, why bother to say anything at all, if all is determined. Thus, if a tight end makes a great catch in a football game, it seems useless to cheer him. Yet our cheer is as determined as his catch. I have a hard time seeing the rationality in such a worldview.

While I certainly am not an expert in physics, I do know that “physical determinism” was in vogue a couple centuries ago. It is the idea that the laws of physics uniquely determine how any physical system will develop over time.  In other words, given any “initial” state of any system, there would only be one way consistent with the equations of physics for the system to behave at later times.  In the 19th century, this appeared to be correct, because all the physical laws that had been discovered, such as Newton’s laws of mechanics and gravity, had deterministic equations.  It was widely expected that this would also turn out to be true of the complete laws of physics.  Consequently, many people began to doubt the reality of free will, which is when determinism began to be bounced around as a viable philosophical concept. The point was that if physical determinism is correct, then anything a human being does is uniquely determined by the past state of the physical universe.  This of course created a serious crisis for Christian belief.

The situation radically changed, however, in the 1920s, when the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics were discovered.  According to those principles, the laws of physics do not uniquely determine what is going to happen in the future, but only the relative probabilities of various things happening.  It is now generally accepted, therefore, that physical determinism is false. And if physical determinism is false, then the argument against free will is seriously undermined.

Our experience is that we wrestle with choices, and as we do so, we have an awareness of teetering between diametrically opposed choices, and the choice we end up making in no way feels as though we are following subconscious instinct. Our choices do not “feel” inevitable.

One example from a Christian context is original sin. We understand in ourselves a tendency to sin (in Church-speak, concupiscence). Therefore, we can know what would be the best choice in a certain situation, yet still experience something within ourselves that undermines our quest for the good. For instance, a husband may have an understanding of marriage as being a faithful, monogamous relationship, yet may be tempted to have an extra-marital affair. He may follow the baser instinct and have an affair (which would be a “sin”), or he may (drawing upon divine grace, a history of virtuous conduct, etc.) immediately dismiss that temptation, as a noble Christian man should. But if he chooses to act against the strong instinct to be unfaithful, could we really say that such a noble choice was not a “real choice”?

Another example that comes to mind are habits, which are created when we commit acts over and over again such that they become second nature to us, almost instinctual. Good habits are known as virtues and bad habits are known as vices. Some vices take such a hold on us that they become addictions, in which case freedom is severely compromised if not lost. But if freedom is lost, doesn’t that imply that we had it before falling into the vice or addiction? And if we are such “creatures of habit” who merely follow “subconscious instinct,” what do we say about those who deliberately and with great effort are able to make choices not to act on such vices or addictions and eventually overcome them?

So I would say we are able to make free choices, but of course they are not made in a vacuum, apart from experience, habit, concupiscence, and other myriad influences.

Why are our choices free? As Christians we believe that God created us for love. And if we are not free, then we are not able to truly love.

If you’re interested in more discussion on this topic, Bishop Barron gives a very engaging presentation here.

Courtesy of Leon Suprenant

You may also like: IS MARY THE NEW EVE?