Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, the Chief Editor of the Muslim Times
Most of the Muslims are Muslims by tradition. They have been born into Muslim families, but to have robust justification of their faith they should find it where the Jews and the Christians have lost it. Among the thousands of academic philosophers in the Western universities, only 13% believe in real free will, which in academic circles is called libertarian free will. Can the Muslim philosophers and theologians reenact it?
How will we do that? For that we first need to understand our challenges. This article presents four leading apologists or presenters of incompatibilism. They staunchly believe in determinism at the expense of free will, which every person experiences in every moment of their lives and those who have not studied philosophy do not deny:
Baruch Spinoza
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), a Dutch philosopher, is renowned for his deterministic worldview, which challenges traditional notions of free will. In his seminal work, Ethics, Spinoza argues that human actions are determined by prior causes, leading to his stance on incompatibilism—the belief that free will and determinism cannot coexist.
Determinism in Spinoza’s Philosophy
Spinoza posits that everything in nature, including human behavior, operates according to deterministic laws. He asserts that individuals are part of the natural order and, like all natural entities, are subject to causal determinism. In Ethics, he states:
“In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will; but the mind is determined to will this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on to infinity.”
This perspective implies that human thoughts, desires, and actions are the results of preceding causes, eliminating the possibility of free will as traditionally conceived.
The Illusion of Free Will
Spinoza acknowledges that individuals often feel they possess free will, attributing this perception to a lack of awareness of the underlying causes influencing their decisions. He suggests that people are conscious of their desires and actions but remain ignorant of the external and internal factors that determine them. This leads to the illusion of free will. As he explains:
“Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to wish and desire.”
Freedom Through Understanding Necessity
While Spinoza denies free will, he introduces a concept of freedom rooted in understanding necessity. He argues that true freedom arises from recognizing the deterministic nature of the universe and aligning oneself with it. By comprehending the causes that govern one’s actions and the world, an individual can achieve a state of rational acceptance and inner peace. This form of freedom is not about altering the course of events but about attaining clarity and equanimity through understanding.
Implications for Ethics and Responsibility
Spinoza’s incompatibilism challenges traditional views on moral responsibility. If actions are determined, holding individuals morally accountable in the conventional sense becomes problematic. However, Spinoza suggests that understanding the deterministic nature of human behavior can lead to compassion and a more humane approach to ethics, as individuals recognize the constraints under which others operate.
Conclusion
Spinoza’s defense of incompatibilism presents a deterministic view of human existence, denying the possibility of free will while offering a path to freedom through understanding necessity. His philosophy encourages a shift from blaming individuals for their actions to seeking a deeper comprehension of the causes that drive human behavior, fostering empathy and rationality in ethical considerations.
For a more in-depth exploration of Spinoza’s views on free will and determinism, you may find the following discussion insightful:
Spinoza on Free Will and Freedom
Robert Sapolsky
Robert Sapolsky, a renowned neuroendocrinologist and professor at Stanford University, presents a compelling case for incompatibilism in the free will debate. Incompatibilism posits that free will and determinism cannot coexist; if our actions are determined by prior causes, true free will is an illusion.
Determinism and Human Behavior
Sapolsky argues that human behavior is entirely determined by a complex interplay of genetics, neurobiology, and environmental influences. In his 2023 book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, he asserts that our choices are the inevitable outcomes of these factors, leaving no room for autonomous decision-making. He states, “Behind every thought, action, and experience there lies a chain of biological and environmental causes… Nowhere in this infinite sequence is there a place where free will could play a role.” Thought Economics
Critique of Compatibilism
Compatibilists maintain that free will can exist within a deterministic framework, suggesting that freedom involves acting in accordance with one’s desires and intentions. Sapolsky challenges this view by emphasizing that desires and intentions themselves are products of biological and environmental determinants. He contends that if our internal states are causally determined, the sense of freedom in acting upon them is illusory. As he notes, “The neuroscientists in question believe that establishing that the brain works deterministically implies… that there is no free will.” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Implications for Moral Responsibility
Sapolsky’s incompatibilist stance has profound implications for concepts of moral responsibility and justice. If individuals lack free will, traditional notions of blame and praise become questionable. He suggests that acknowledging the absence of free will could lead to a more compassionate and humane society, as it would shift the focus from retribution to understanding the underlying causes of behavior. In an interview, he remarks, “Determined isn’t just a bio-philosophical treatise: It covers the potential benefits that a society that accepts… there being zero free will and agency over our actions will likely become more humane.” RealClearScience
Conclusion
Robert Sapolsky’s defense of incompatibilism challenges deeply held beliefs about autonomy and moral responsibility. By grounding his arguments in neurobiological determinism, he invites a reevaluation of how we perceive human agency, ethics, and societal structures, advocating for a perspective that emphasizes understanding over judgment.
Derk Pereboom
Derk Pereboom, a prominent philosopher and professor at Cornell University, is renowned for his significant contributions to the debate on free will and moral responsibility. He advocates a position known as hard incompatibilism, which asserts that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, leading to the conclusion that humans lack the type of free will required for moral responsibility in the traditional sense.
Hard Incompatibilism Explained
Pereboom’s hard incompatibilism challenges the notion that individuals possess the control necessary for moral responsibility. He argues that if determinism is true, our actions are the inevitable result of preceding events and natural laws, leaving no room for free will. Conversely, if indeterminism holds, actions resulting from random events also fail to provide the control needed for moral responsibility. Thus, under both scenarios, the traditional concept of free will is untenable.
The Four-Case Argument
To illustrate his stance, Pereboom presents the Four-Case Argument, a thought experiment designed to show that causally determined actions are analogous to scenarios where individuals are manipulated, thereby undermining moral responsibility. This argument challenges the compatibilist view that free will can coexist with determinism.
Implications for Moral Responsibility
While Pereboom denies that we have the kind of free will required for desert-based moral responsibility—the notion that individuals deserve praise or blame for their actions—he does not dismiss all forms of moral evaluation. He suggests that forward-looking approaches, such as moral admonishment aimed at behavioral improvement or societal protection, remain viable and constructive.
Living Without Free Will
In his book Living Without Free Will, Pereboom explores the consequences of accepting hard incompatibilism. He contends that relinquishing the belief in free will can lead to a reduction in negative emotions like anger and resentment, fostering more compassionate interpersonal relationships and a more humane criminal justice system.
Conclusion
Derk Pereboom’s hard incompatibilism offers a profound challenge to traditional notions of free will and moral responsibility. By questioning the compatibility of free will with both determinism and indeterminism, he encourages a reevaluation of how we perceive human agency, ethics, and societal practices.
For a more in-depth exploration of Derk Pereboom’s views on free will, you may find the following discussion insightful:
Free Will Skepticism: Basic Arguments and Misconceptions
Galen Strawson
Galen Strawson, a prominent philosopher, is renowned for his critical stance on the concept of free will, particularly through his development of the Basic Argument. This argument posits that true moral responsibility is unattainable, regardless of whether determinism is true or false, leading to a form of incompatibilism that challenges both compatibilist and libertarian views.
The Basic Argument
Strawson’s Basic Argument can be summarized as follows:
- Actions Stem from Character: An individual’s actions are a direct result of their character, motivations, and preferences.
- Responsibility for Character: To be truly morally responsible for one’s actions, one must be responsible for the very character and dispositions that lead to those actions.
- Infinite Regress: However, to be responsible for one’s character, one would have had to have consciously and freely shaped it. This would require a prior self with a pre-existing character to make such decisions, leading to an infinite regress.
- Conclusion: Since this infinite regress is implausible, it follows that individuals cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions.
As Strawson articulates:
“You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.”
Implications of Strawson’s Incompatibilism
Strawson’s perspective leads to several profound implications:
- Rejection of Moral Responsibility: If individuals cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions, the traditional basis for moral praise or blame is undermined.
- Critique of Compatibilism: Compatibilist positions, which reconcile free will with determinism by suggesting that freedom is acting according to one’s desires, are insufficient. Strawson argues that since individuals are not the ultimate originators of their desires or character, such freedom is illusory.
- Challenge to Libertarian Free Will: Libertarian views posit that free will exists and is incompatible with determinism. However, Strawson contends that even in an indeterministic framework, the problem of ultimate responsibility remains unresolved.
Philosophical Context
Strawson’s incompatibilism aligns with a deterministic view of human behavior, suggesting that all actions are the result of preceding causes and that the notion of free will is an illusion. This perspective challenges traditional concepts of moral responsibility and has significant implications for ethics and the justice system.
Conclusion
Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument presents a formidable challenge to the notion of free will by highlighting the impossibility of ultimate moral responsibility. His incompatibilist stance invites a reevaluation of deeply held beliefs about autonomy, ethics, and human agency, urging a reconsideration of how we assign praise and blame in light of the deterministic nature of human action.
For a more in-depth exploration of Galen Strawson’s views on free will, you may find the following discussion insightful:
A strict incompatilist position makes the whole field of psychology or psychotherapy null and void.