For much of my life I took it for granted that human beings possess free will, the power to make decisions and experience the consequences of them. When I first encountered arguments against the existence of free will, I almost wasn’t sure what to make of them, as if they couldn’t actually be serious. It turns out however that there are many people that are extremely serious about their belief that human beings do not possess free will, to the point that some of them cannot understand those of us that do believe in it.
Certainly it is clear to me that most human beings act unconsciously much of the time. That is, we repeat patterns of behaviour that we have learned through the conditioning of our family, education, culture, religion and general life experiences etc. As I have grown I have seen more and more how much of human behaviour is unconsciously driven, and how little of it is consciously directed. Certainly then I will concede that human will isn’t as free as we like to think it is. However, I consider full rejection of free will to be a completely different matter, along with full rejection of moral responsibility.
Plurality of truth is one of the basic foundations for my overall worldview, and I have been writing on this for well over 10 years now (see the following article for my thoughts on the matter[i]). In short, I believe it is essential to make use of both relative and absolute conceptions of truth to make sense of reality and hold a cohesive worldview. There are many people that profess to hold exclusively to one end alone (and thus reject all relativity or absolutes). However, there are countless real life examples that demonstrate the necessity of both.
We know that physical matter is not solid, but made up almost entirely of empty space. It is this fact that allows for much of the modern technology we now take for granted (like Wi-Fi signals passing through walls etc.). And yet we experience the material world as being solid (aside from liquids, gases and plasmas obviously), and this experience cannot simply be downplayed, denied or rejected. There is clearly room for both perspectives here, although they could be thought of as contradictory in isolation. Whilst there are many examples that demand only relative or absolute applications, the complexity of life as a whole naturally demands we use both.
In the case of free will, many different thinkers have argued for a complete rejection of free will on grounds of materialistic interpretations of science (neuroscience in particular), spiritual/religious grounds and complex philosophical grounds. To be quite frank here, I have never been particularly interested in following these arguments too closely. I cannot claim to have invested significant periods of time to comparing different sides (though I did purchase and read Sam Harris’s book/article on the topic). Rather, my thoughts here are my gut feelings, my natural leanings you could say on the subject.
I am writing this today as a friend online recently raised the subject in relation to my article on Ravi Zacharias that I shared[ii]. Obviously it is very difficult to avoid interspersing different elements of ones overall worldview into a conversation on a specific topic (everyone does it in ordinary conversation). In this example I obviously do it deliberately, as this is my personal blog and I am openly giving out my thoughts on many topics.
For me personally, belief in the experience of free will is part of the foundation for a coherent perspective on life. Many people disagree however, hence when discussing any number of other subjects it often occurs that someone will take issue with some of your underlying beliefs about reality, as these have some affect on the direct topic at hand. Hence, I thought I would publish this here to make my own thoughts on the subject open to all.
Materialistic/scientific reasons for rejecting Free Will:
I have thus far encountered three main arguments for the total rejection of free will. The first is based on the interpretation of some findings from neuroscience. Please note I have very deliberately stated the interpretation of here, as I will argue that we need to be very clear on the difference between philosophy and science.
Firstly though, it is relevant here to give a brief summary of some relevant information to understand the complexity of this subject. I published an article back in July 2015 as an introduction to my views on the subject[iii], and I will again explain a few snippets here.
It is quite clear that there is some sort of causal relationship between the physiological processes within the brain and our subjective experience of mind. Certain chemical and electrical reactions correspond with psychological experiences. The question then is what is the nature of this relationship?
We can quickly summarise by explaining two different types of brain/mind causality: Downward/mental causation and upward/physical causation. Downward causation here implies consciousness or mind having its own ability to cause changes in the biological processes of the body. An example would be deliberately choosing a sexual thought, which then sets forth physical reactions in the brain and body. Upward causation is changes in the biological processes of the body, which then create a change in the subjective experience of mind. An example would be after drinking several glasses of wine, the alcohol that has been introduced to the bloodstream creates obvious changes in the subjective experience of mind.
I would personally argue that we experience causation to go both ways[iv]. There are countless examples of both upward and downward causation, so it only makes sense to accept both as being experientially real. In Western philosophy this is known as “interactionism”[v]. I would point out though that my own personal views on the topic are not derived from Western philosophy, so my thoughts here do not owe anything to Descartes or other well-known Western philosophers.
It could be said that human beings generally hold an unspoken assumption that mind and matter are two distinctly different things, and this view is known as dualism in the philosophy of mind. There are however many different views on this matter, and I will briefly discuss two diametrically opposed views, each of which is essentially monistic.
A leading philosophical worldview today is known as metaphysical naturalism, which we can simply call naturalism, materialism or atheism for short (though atheism can be a misleading title[vi]). Naturalism states that there is only matter (and perhaps the laws that govern it), and that no such thing as mind or consciousness exists aside from matter. Naturalism thus perceives intelligence as being an example of emergence, that being something that emerges from the biological processes in the body and brain. Ultimately, naturalism defines consciousness as an epiphenomena, a secondary effect of matter that only appears to exist as a distinct substance in its own right.
Through the confusion and conflation of methodological naturalism (part of the method of modern science) and metaphysical naturalism (materialism), many people believe that this perspective is the Scientific worldview (as I wrote in my previously cited article on Science and Spirituality). That is, many scientists, philosophers and lay people believe that materialism is established by Science, similar to Heliocentrism, Plate tectonics and Biological evolution.
A diametrically opposite view (which I personally ascribe to) is known by Western philosophers as monistic idealism (though the view isn’t necessarily Western in origin, having ancient roots in the East). In this view there is only one substance in reality, and that is Consciousness. By its nature it is unlimited and infinite (without dimension – beyond space) and eternal (timeless – beyond time), it naturally creates life and is unchanging love and peace. This perspective views all creation as God’s cosmic dream, comparable in some ways to the personal dreams that exist within individual minds during sleep. When I sleep at night I perceive myself as a character within my dream, interacting with other characters in a timeline and landscape. In truth, all of this occurs only within my mind. My character, the other characters, the landscape, all objects are only consciousness. Within my mind time and space may bend and warp, and are relative to the space in which they are created (my mind).
Neuroscience and the “readiness potential”:
In 1964 two German scientists discovered that brain activity could be recorded prior to voluntary muscle movement (see the “readiness potential”[vii]). This experiment was later expanded upon and repeated over many decades by researchers across the globe. In the 1980’s an American Neuroscientist by the name of Benjamin Libet did a series of experiments that appeared to show readiness potential before a subject was consciously aware of making a decision. As a result, some thinkers have argued that the brain makes decisions as a purely physical apparatus, and our experience of a psychological self only thinks (or believes) it does so. According to this view, the brain makes a decision and then a moment later we believe that we consciously choose what to do so. Hence, it has been argued that we do not truly make our own decisions, and that our sense of free will is an illusion.
This is an interesting experiment, and if the methodology is sound then we must consider its implications. My initial exposure with this evidence was presented in a way that made it seem that there was no contrary evidence or arguments. Hence, there are many scientists and/or philosophers that seem to consider this an open and shut case. However, there are in fact other scientists and philosophers that dispute the findings of these experiments and the conclusions that are commonly drawn from them.
As I am quite new to this subject myself and I haven’t invested significant time in comparing arguments and counter-arguments back-and-forth, I am going to simply link two articles below in the endnotes[viii] and give a very quick summary here of their content before moving on.
The first article by Steve Taylor is very short and concise, and mentions a number of criticisms that have been presented against Libet’s original experiment, along with some modified versions of the experiment which have presented potentially contrary findings (such as finding readiness potential when there is no movement, or even before images are presented for the subject to make a decision upon). Also, he also briefly mentions the possibility that decision making originates beyond the conscious level of the mind, and argues that this doesn’t imply that we haven’t made a decision, as the unconscious is still part of ones self[ix].
The second article by Bahar Gholipour explains an argument that what has been interpreted as readiness potential is simply rising and falling brain activity (or waves of neural activity), and that human beings naturally tend to make decisions at the peaks of these waves. If this is true then readiness potential would simply be the rising of the neural activity before it peaks, rather than the brain making a decision before becoming consciously aware of it. In support of this conclusion he cites an experiment on monkeys, which showed correlations between monkeys brain activity prior to data being presented and their later choice.
Furthermore, he cites a new study that included a control condition where the subjects didn’t move and used AI to exclude “brain noise”. The study apparently only showed evidence of a decision 150 milliseconds before the movement, corresponding with the subjective experience of making a conscious decision, and appearing to refute Libet’s findings.
So, clearly there are scientists that dispute the claim that neuroscience has proven that human beings do not possess free will. As with any subject being debated, it would be necessary to compare arguments and counterargument from multiple sides to really come to a proper understanding. For today I am going to leave this here and move on to looking at free will from a more general, philosophical perspective.
As stated before, it is quite obvious that there is a correspondence between the physiology of the body/brain and our “internal” experience. In all experiences that we have there are corresponding patterns in the brain and body. Various meditation practices produce consistent changes in the brain, nervous and endocrine systems. When people pray, scientists can register corresponding changes in electrical activity in the brain.
The same is also true outside of spiritual experiences. When someone experiences fear or anger there are corresponding changes in the brain and body. When a person feels love there are reliable responses in the brain that release “feel good” chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine.
Again though, internal experiences can also be stimulated by “hot-wiring” the body’s chemistry, through consummation of medicine/drugs. To take some examples from the realms of banned substances, consumption of MDMA (Ecstasy) floods the brain with serotonin, creating the subjective experience of euphoria (ecstasy – hence the name) and deep love. Likewise, consumption of DMT creates radical changes in brain chemistry that creates internal experiences that have some correspondences or overlap with advanced meditative states (ego death, transcendence of time and space, expanded/trans-dimensional sensory perception)[x].
I don’t feel that one can ultimately answer the question as to whether in reality causality only goes in one direction (upwards from matter, or downwards from spirit) or both directions (as we experience), without turning to a large-scale case for an overall worldview. It is often the case that the same evidence can be interpreted from multiple perspectives, dependent upon various presumptions and relationship with myriad other fields of study.
It is very difficult to separate individual topics from ones overall worldview. In theory at least, an overall worldview should be cohesive and able to elegantly explain all the myriad different subjects contained within it. Ideally, there should not be any circular reasoning involved, in which various parts of a worldview cannot stand on their own, but rely upon mutually related presumptions or assumptions. In practice however, it is very difficult to have the level of understanding and self-awareness required to be fully aware of how much and how little one truly knows about the things we consider to be true (as I recently wrote[xi]).
This may sound like a bit of a cop out, but it seems to me that to go beyond our immediate experience and perception of bi-directional causality in the mind-body and try and gain a more reliable perspective, it is therefore necessary to undertake a large-scale conversation about science, spirituality and philosophy as a whole. To restate, there seems to be equal evidence for upward and downward causation, and overwhelming evidence for the experiential reality of both. I’m not sure if this topic can be resolved simply on it’s own merits.
Certainly though, the trend in current scientific and medical circles is to look to brain chemistry as the cause of internal experiences. As noted before, it seems to me that metaphysical naturalism came in the back door with methodological naturalism, and it is thus being taken as a philosophical presumption that underlies much interpretation of modern science and medicine.
Different levels of consciousness in the Self:
I have argued that we shouldn’t necessarily presuppose materialism as a philosophical lens that underlies interpretation of scientific data. Having noted above that there may be reason to reject the findings of Libet’s experiments, let us consider a philosophical response to the standard interpretation of his studies. So, let us assume we do indeed have repeated experiments that show biological processes apparently preceding the internal experience of making a choice. Given the materialistic lens of many modern scientists and philosophers, the standard interpretation is that the experience of making a choice is an illusion, and that it is in fact the brain that makes decisions before we are aware of it.
I would like to suggest that there is a plausible alternative that maintains the primacy of consciousness, and it is surprising to me that I haven’t seen more mention of it when reading on this subject (I don’t recall Sam Harris mentioning it at all in his book). This will essentially be the main part of my response on the subject. It appears self-evident to many of us (myself included) that experientially, there are various layers (or dimensions) to consciousness. That is, whilst I personally espouse a monistic worldview (as an absolute viewpoint), it is clear that in our experience (the relative viewpoint) there are multiple levels to reality. There may not be strict defining lines between them (so they may be part of a continuum), but certainly the point stands. If this is the case, then some of our decision making will come from beyond the surface level of consciousness (as argued by Steve Taylor), but the deeper levels of us is still us.
Relevant experiences from dreaming:
It seems self-evident to me that there is much to consciousness that is beyond the normal waking state. Anybody that experiences vivid recollection of their night-time dreams and/or the experience of lucid dreaming should be able to attest to this. Likewise, anybody with personal experience of altered states of consciousness (whether attained through spiritual practices, consumption of entheogens or near death experiences) should be able to attest that they have experienced vastly expanded states of being that give access to far greater intelligence than available in the “normal” waking state.
I think some examples from my personal experience might be relevant here. I have always had a very vivid dream life, and I have experienced lucid dreaming throughout most of my life[xii]. It is common for me to be able to observe a part of my mind thinking the dream into experience. That is, I experience myself as a part of consciousness that it silently witnessing another part of my consciousness that is thinking, and the thoughts are taking shape as the dream. I can then choose to interfere and override the other part of my dreaming consciousness and change the course of the dream. Or, I can simply watch it, without being fully identified with it (as in a “normal” dream, when you experience yourself as a subject or character within a dreamscape and situation).
In a similar manner I have also experienced retaining full consciousness whilst falling asleep, both into dreaming and dreamless sleep. In the former case it involves having full waking consciousness and being completely aware of the shift in my reality. In the latter case it has been more like an out of body experience where part of me is watching the other part of me in deep, dreamless sleep.
The main difference between lucid and “regular” dreaming is that in lucid dreaming you have a degree of self-awareness where you realise/remember that you are generally associated with a body/mind that is currently laying asleep on a bed, and that the experience you are currently having is an internal dream. By comparison, in “regular” dreaming you are completely identified with the character and circumstances within the dream, and you have little to no awareness of your life outside of it. During lucid dreams I can fly, make objects levitate and manipulate the “reality” of the dreamscape at will, just to name a few features that differentiate them from normal dreams and waking consciousness.
It is also common for me that once asleep I can remember a whole series of other dreams that I have had over many years. It is as if there is a parallel long-term memory that is activated, that connects my dreams over time. I have heard people that have experience with psychedelics/entheogens describing a similar phenomenon, whereby they can only remember certain features of the experience whilst in the altered state, and as soon as they revisit it they remember features of previous “trips”.
Another aspect of my personal experiences with dreaming that I think is relevant here is that of precognition. I’m not sure how old I was when I first became aware that my dreams often foreshadowed circumstances of my waking life. I seem to recall becoming aware of this in my teens (perhaps earlier), but certainly it became abundantly clear from my mid-20’s and onwards, once I started pursuing a spiritual path. I often dream of unique circumstances that generally come to pass within a week or so of the initial dream. Most often they come about the next day (after waking), but occasionally they take a week or two to come to fruition.
Obviously a great deal of critical thinking and self-awareness is required to make these sorts of claims. It is obviously all too easy to deceive oneself with delusions of grandeur, or to seek patterns in random events. Hence, I don’t present my own experiences of precognition with the intention of trying to convince anybody else that the phenomenon is real, or that there is anything special about me (there is not, these experiences are very common). These experiences are evidence for me of the objective reality of spirituality. Everyone has to have their own experiences to know this for themselves.
So, the reason I mention them here is that they have significant implications for the subject of free will. Firstly, they validate the view that human consciousness is not limited to the physical body, but rather “flows out” into a deeper intelligence. In the dream state (and other non-ordinary states of consciousness) many of us can access information that is beyond the scope of our waking mind.
Secondly, and perhaps more disturbingly, it implies that some events are becoming highly probable before they occur in the physical world. The full implications of this are quite shocking when truly thought through. About 12 months ago I had quite a vivid dream at the start of a week (Sunday night perhaps) which contained two distinct events. Both of these came to pass within 30 mins of each other the following Friday.
To accept this particular dream as precognition it required me to accept that many precise details of my day were extremely high in probability (or certain) a full week in advance. The timing of when I would leave work, exactly what would take place at home and precisely when I would leave to go to the shops were all essential for me to witness the fulfilment of a dream. Likewise, it also involved the coordination of a number of other people being in a precise location at a precise time. The full coordination of all these factors is beyond the scope of human intelligence.
To accept that precognition can be a real phenomena implies that the actions of countless individuals can be known well in advance by a cosmic intelligence. This implies that we aren’t all separate individual beings like we think we are. Rather, we could perhaps be like trees, joined through our roots in the ground that make up the Forest as a whole, intelligent entity in its own right. So, the phenomenon implies a higher order that is greater than the individual experience of personal will and choice.
These are just a number of examples from dreaming that I think are relevant here. There are many other examples that could be given from altered states of consciousness, particularly through meditation and the use of psychedelics that would be highly relevant. However, I am aware that what I am writing here is intended as a blog post, not a book. Hence, I will leave out much of what I would like to cover for the sake of readability.
Being the Witness to the Mind:
For most of humanity, our sense of identity is conflated with our body, our mind and our personal life circumstances. When we feel cold we don’t say, “I feel cold”; rather we tend to say, “I am cold”. When we experience pain we don’t say, “I am experiencing pain”; rather we say, “I am hurt”. There is no recognition of space between the phenomena that we are aware of, and ourself, that which is aware (the Self). Likewise, most of us do not differentiate between our thought processes and our awareness of them. Hence, we mostly believe that our thoughts are essential to our self.
Through meditation and other spiritual practices (such as self-inquiry), one learns that true identity cannot be found in the content of the mind. Rather, the true Self is that which perceives the mind, along with all else. In this way one distinguishes between unconscious and repetitive thinking, and the deeper sense of I that initially perceives it without itself moving. Over time, after becoming rooted in the deeper Self the mind becomes still by itself, without effort.
Likewise, one can differentiate between instinctive and conditioned mental processes (and their emotional counterparts), and a sense of individual will that possesses higher intelligence and moral integrity. Psychological and spiritual evolution thus involves cultivating and developing the higher mind, and gradually allowing the lower mind to dissolve into it.
There are many different models of the makeup of the human being in Western and Eastern philosophy (amongst others), that describe different components of our being. Some very basic models would be body/mind or body/mind/soul. More complex models split mind into many different components and/or propose many different levels or dimensions to our spiritual nature.
There are many such models in Indian philosophy. One model that I will mention here is the “’Kosha theory” as found in the Taittiriya Upanishad[xiii]. This model proposes that human beings are manifest in five “bodies”, the first being our physical body, the second made up of life force energy (prana), the third mind, the fourth a higher intelligence and the fifth a pure spiritual force. Beyond this it states that the true reality of the human being is the Atman (indwelling Spirit), and that the Atman is ultimately Brahman (the Supreme and ultimate reality).
This model explains that human beings have the potential to function based on automatic conditioning and unconscious instincts, if our higher nature is underdeveloped. Alternatively however, we also have the potential to develop the higher levels of our being and operate with a clearer sense of purpose and will, using discernment to supersede our conditioning and primal instincts.
Awareness beyond the mind:
Through my spiritual path I have been blessed to experience pure awareness beyond the personal mind. This is a very different experience to simply quietening the mind, as that requires significant effort and energy. When you experience pure awareness there is no effort required to be silent. Rather, silence is simply your nature, and no energy is required to rest in the Self.
This experience isn’t an out of body experience and it isn’t dissociative in any way (as defined by Western psychology). Rather, it involves a natural and effortless clarity and focus, accompanied by a deep and fulfilling peace (ananda) and heightened intuitive and creative capacity. From this experience it is clear that mental processes do not constitute your true nature, for they come and go, and yet you remain untouched. As awareness you witness them arise and then fall, yet you do not come and go with them. In fact, you may simply choose as awareness not to think at all, unless thought is required for some practical purpose.
It is clear that even what one considers to be their personality is also something that can be witnessed or observed from awareness. Again, this isn’t a dissociative experience, but it involves absolute clarity and sanity. The personality has very definite characteristics and it changes over time. Yet the awareness is pure and without boundary or definitions, and it remains ever the same.
Human consciousness as merely the tip of an iceberg:
There are a number of models of consciousness that present the normal human waking state as merely the tip of the iceberg, in a vast ocean. In this metaphor, only a small amount of the iceberg is above the surface, whilst the majority is below the surface. Going further, even the ice is ultimately just water that is frozen, so it is of the same substance as the ocean itself. Here we can see that the iceberg is ultimately tiny in comparison to the ocean as a whole.
This is certainly the view of Indian spiritual philosophy. We are largely only aware of a tiny fraction of our total being, with the majority of ourselves being outside of our awareness and perceptual range. Going further, even the deeper levels of our being are ultimately only a tiny fraction of life as a whole, and we are ultimately made of the same substance as the great ocean of Being.
From my (limited) knowledge of the work of Carl Jung, this was a primary foundation of his theories, particularly relating to the collective unconscious and universal archetypes. However, It seems that this thinking has fallen out of favour in Western psychology in modern times, as materialism is now a presumption underlying most (if not all) accepted theories.
For those with openness to this way of viewing life, there is much evidence for this. It is obviously far beyond the scope of this article to really go properly into such evidence though (and this article is already getting quite long). I have given some examples from my own experience already, and I feel it’s time to move on now.
Galen’s “Basic Argument” – The Soul and its nature:
Another argument that I have seen presented against free will is Galen Strawson’s “Basic Argument”[xiv]. This argument claims that we do what we do because of our nature, and we cannot help our nature. Whilst Galen was a strict materialist, it has been argued that this argument would still hold even in the case of a non-physical Soul or Spirit. Before offering a very brief response to this argument, I should make it clear that I have not studied Strawson’s work at all, and really haven’t gone into this field. Hence, I can only offer a response to the basic summary that has been presented to me.
I should also note that as a whole, I have never really felt the desire to read Western philosophy. I have always felt (and still do) that the Western mind has been conditioned to be fantastic at many things (science, medicine, art and music etc.), but that the East is where true philosophy has flourished. I feel that much of (but not all) Western philosophy is essentially mind games, intellectual speculation, or if you can excuse the crude metaphor “mental masturbation”. By contrast I feel that much of Eastern philosophy is built upon personal experience from a sincere attempt to probe the depth of reality.
Having noted this, I can see no real substance to Strawson’s argument, but rather only circular reasoning and baseless presuppositions. For me, the response is really quite simple. The way we are right now (our nature) is a result of a myriad of choices we have made over time. Whilst we may not be able to help who we are right now, we are certainly at least partially responsible for who we are, as it is a result of the choices we have made throughout our life. Every small decision we make adds up to the overall trajectory of our life. Every miniscule choice has an affect on our character.
To give an example that most people can understand, let us imagine that there is a person called Stephen who is unhealthy and out of shape, and wants to do something about it. Stephen gets home from work at 6pm, and is very tired after a hard day in the office. Stephen has to make dinner, and feels it would be much easier to sit down in front of the TV then to try and go out for a run or go to the gym.
Stephen gives in and lounges around at home instead of exercising. The next morning Stephen wakes up and regrets his decision the previous night. However, he makes excuses for himself and feels that he couldn’t help his nature. Whilst he has the desire to get fit, his lack of fitness accentuates the tiredness he feels after a long day at work. There is momentum in his lethargy and lack of self-discipline, and it is hard to beat the current of this momentum.
However, it all starts with one small decision one night to go for that run, regardless of the tiredness. The first night Stephen may get half way round the block and then be exhausted. However, if he persists he quickly discovers that as soon as he begins he feels energised and enjoys the run. He then sleeps much better and wakes up with more energy in the morning. He then comes home feeling better, and then over time can clearly see the results of his effort.
At the very beginning Stephen did not have the freedom to completely change his nature from someone that did not take care of his health and lacked healthy self-discipline, to the opposite. However, the small choices he makes every day create momentum that, over time, create significant changes in his life. Two years later someone could meet Stephen and say he was athletic and highly driven.
We can make the same case for literarily anything. It could be an addiction to drugs or alcohol, a desire to stand up for oneself, to be kinder to others, to educate oneself and increase ones intelligence, to improve ones financial position or to find a romantic partner etc. All of these are affected by the nature of a person at a particular time. Everyone has a degree of freedom to affect the kind of person they are and the kind of life they live. You cannot change everything about yourself or your life instantly, but you can make one choice after another that directs your personality and life in a very different direction from where it has been.
Obviously all living beings are conditioned by environment, family, biology, and culture etc. I have written on this many times before[xv]. Likewise, not everyone experiences the same opportunities from their personal circumstances. If someone is born into a small village in a poor country with a corrupt government, it is going to be much, much harder for them to develop financial abundance then for someone born into a stable family in a relatively wealthy country, with good education and employment easily available. However, it is simply not the case that as a whole we cannot help our nature. We all have the capacity to mould our own nature to meet our ideals.
In terms of Galen Strawson’s argument still applying where there is belief in a non-physical Soul or Spirit, I would state that I often find that materialists often imagine all sorts of made up rules about how spirituality should work. For example, I have seen materialists argue that if mind is in fact non-physical, it would have no means of interacting with matter.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time investigating spirituality it seems hard for me to understand how someone could actually argue this, as it seems to imply a complete unfamiliarity with the subject. Many of us that believe that consciousness is non-physical believe that it is primary over matter, and that in-fact, matter is an experiential reality within consciousness. It seems pretty simple therefore to imagine how consciousness interacts with matter. In fact, one could argue that evidence of downward causation is difficult (or even impossible) for materialism to explain under their model. Obviously I don’t have the time here to deal with this little sub-topic. I raised it merely as it was relevant to Strawson’s argument as it has been presented to me. The Western mind is certainly brilliant at many things, but it is of course still subject to bias.
It is a valid question for those of us that believe in spirituality, whether human beings possess a non-physical Soul that pre-existed before the birth of the body. The Abrahamic faiths generally believe that the Soul comes into existence with the conception of the foetus, and then exists after the death of the body[xvi]. Eastern religions and modern New Age spirituality generally accept the belief in reincarnation, and with it the belief that human beings possess an immortal Soul or Spirit that pre-existed before the current life. Many variations of this involve the belief that a human may have lived hundreds or even thousands of times before, perhaps in a variety of forms.
Obviously, if a Soul is created at conception of the current life then this would suggest that all beings are somewhat at the mercy of the hand of God, in terms of the starting point of their nature. That is, under such a model all beings still have the freedom to choose the trajectory of their life, but with vastly different starting positions. In many ways, this corresponds with our observations about the vast differences in the physical circumstances of people’s lives. One can certainly see how the Abrahamic model could be used in support of Stawson’s argument. However, even under such a model one would still have room to choose the best of their own nature, and steer themselves from their starting point.
Alternatively, if we consider the belief in reincarnation, then we could see how the personality (and potentially life circumstances[xvii]) of an individual could be built upon many lifetimes of choices. Under this model the nature of a Soul is simply the result of thousands upon thousands of choices, not only in the current life but also over large spans of time. One can therefore see that in this case Galen Strawson’s argument would be false, as indeed every being is indeed at least significantly responsible for their own nature.
Free Will as empowerment:
It is the nature of ego to defend the way one is and has been, and to resist true spiritual growth. Whilst ego has an insatiable need for more, true spiritual growth involves the dissolution of the egoic mind. Hence, from a spiritual perspective we can state that by definition the ego maintains itself through self-limitation, with defensiveness simply part of its nature.
It is an unfortunate truth that most people are their own worst enemy (again, I have written on this before[xviii]). That is, our ego creates suffering for ourselves and others around us, and creates resistance that prevents us from living the life our heart truly desires. Ego will thus naturally gravitate itself towards beliefs that sustain itself. For this aim, ego can either be attracted to beliefs that are by their nature self-limiting, or can appropriate beliefs from various sources and twist them to its own desire.
As an example, someone recently told me that they cannot forgive other people because of their star sign. That is, they believe that the month (and hence star sign) in which they were born fixes their personality in such a way that they are unable to forgive people that they perceive have done them wrong[xix]. Likewise, I recall many years ago hearing someone explain their belief that a Soul will go through a cycle of incarnating into different star signs in a particular order, as if the progression directly related to their level of spiritual growth. This person believed that you can only be enlightened at the end of the cycle, after incarnating during a specific month/star sign.
I must confess to not know a great deal about astrology. It seems to me however that whether or not astrology has any degree of truth to it, one could still evolve spiritually and become free, regardless of what month/star sign you were born in. Even if we assume astrology is indeed correct to state that your personality is partially shaped by your star sign, one could still evolve from your starting point and bring out the best in your potential.
I presume the above examples are misappropriations of astrology, rather than accurate expressions of its doctrines. There are however certainly no shortages of examples from world history where a belief system was based around disempowerment. I will give some examples in a moment.
I would therefore argue that belief in free will is empowering, both for ourselves and for others. To believe that you have the capacity to change and move towards the fulfilment of your dreams is clearly a healthy approach to life. Likewise, to inspire others to do the same is in their best interests.
Alternatively, when you do not believe you have the capacity to change, you are not even going to try. When you believe you are at the mercy of forces beyond your control, you perceive the world in a very dismal way, and your experience will appear to validate your belief in lack and limitation.
Just to be clear though, I have written many times before that whilst we should aspire towards high ideals, this should not involve being harsh and judgmental with ourselves or others. Of course human beings need to learn to be kinder to both ourselves and others. However, aspiring towards personal growth and inspiring others to do the same doesn’t have to imply that we project negative judgments upon our current states of being. The two do not necessarily have to go together.
John Calvin and the absurd and abhorrent implication of complete absence of free will:
The Christian theologian John Calvin was one of the main leaders of the Protestant reformation (along with Martin Luther). Many modern Protestant Christians denominations have built their faith upon the foundation which he (and others) laid. Whilst Calvin covered many different features of Christian theology in his writings, I wish to quickly mention here one of the main foundations of his theology: Predestination. Whilst belief in the absolute sovereignty of God and predestination in Christianity didn’t originate with Calvin (Calvin himself acknowledged the influence of Augustine of Hippo), it found in Calvin a new emphasis and was perhaps taken to a new level.
I have been quite clear throughout my writings that I consider the belief in eternal damnation to be the most vile, irrational aberration of human thought in known history. The very reason why I write is to attempt to separate truth from falsehoods, and in particular separate true spirituality from religious and/or cultural superstitions. The very idea that the Supreme Being would condemn and/or allow beings to be tortured for eternity is simply abhorrent and makes no sense.
I have also been clear in my writings that true compassion does not necessarily imply a failing a justice. There can be implications to misdeeds that can be allowed to play out whilst still giving grace and love to all. There are models of divine justice that accept the reality of the hellish lower astral worlds that some beings inhabit after death, but do not consider these states eternal or mandated by God[xx].
Obviously I have many points of contention with Christian theology as a whole. I personally view theological and apologetic works that deal with the doctrine of eternal damnation as a misuse of the human intellect. A useful analogy might be asking brilliant University students to each write a thesis defending the work of history’s worst tyrants.
Anyways, the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal damnation is already awful enough, even when there is belief in free will. Put predestination into it and you take it to a whole new level of vileness. Calvin’s doctrine of double-predestination actually implies that God creates beings with a predetermined destiny to be tortured eternally in hell! With such a belief in God, one might wonder why they also believe in Satan, as how could one imagine a being more evil than their conception of God? Prior to Calvin, Augustine of Hippo himself had already argued in defense of the belief that babies that died without being baptised would suffer eternal damnation. Truly monstrous ideas indeed! If blasphemy exists, then surely this is it: Ascribing the most heinous ideas to divinity.
Anyways, my point here was to give some extreme examples of the implications of a complete lack of free will[xxi]. However, even without these extremes it still seems absurd to me. I cannot fathom meaning in a world where one doesn’t have the capacity to choose right from wrong. For me, I cannot see meaning in existence without at least some experiential degree of free will and relational cause and affect.
Plurality of truth:
I have written many times before about the need to be able to balance out opposing ends of duality[xxii], and the need to use both relative and absolute conceptions of truth[xxiii]. As I briefly mentioned in the introduction, I believe that to understand free will you must be able to look at it from both relative and absolute perspectives.
It must be acknowledged that experientially, free will exists, at least to a degree. We all have the experience of being individuated conscious beings that make decisions and experience the consequences of them. Certainly, we also have the experience of struggling against our nature and instincts. A major part of being human seems to be the search for balance between expressing the needs of our body, emotions and mind in healthy ways, and transcending them in favour of the higher potentials of the Spirit.
Also though, there is much evidence from science, philosophy and spirituality that our sense of personhood is largely an illusion, and that there is a grand order to the Cosmos. In this sense each human being is more like a molecule in a cell, in an organ, in a body, than a separate, finite unit with sole will over its existence. Many people have had personal spiritual experiences through meditation, ritual, psychedelics or Near Death experiences in which they perceived a grand unity to existence, with their own body, mind and soul as being like a wave in a great ocean. From this perspective our normal sense of free will starts to break down.
However, for me it is not so much that these experiences of unity completely dissolve free will and moral responsibility. Rather, they give a greater context to it, and expand its meaning. To understand free will you need to see both the immediate, immanent reality, and the greater, transcendent reality. To try and understand the subject with only one end of the stick is to be incomplete, and this creates issues when an incomplete understanding is applied in real life.
I keep coming back to the example/analogy of the relativity of time and space. We know that time and space are only experienced as being real, and are thus only relatively, not absolutely real. And yet they are still essential elements of our experience here as human beings on earth. We simply cannot fathom our existence here in a three (or four with time) dimensional reality without time and space. When people have experiences that appear to be beyond time and space they have trouble translating them through language, as they are outside our common vocabulary.
For me, the same is true of free will. It may be that our experience of free will is largely (or even entirely) illusory. And yet it is an essential element of the experience of being human, and life on earth in a human body makes no sense without it.
I would like to offer a speculation on the spiritual perspective of free will. It is often argued that if our experience of being finite minds is an illusion and there is only infinite consciousness, then this would naturally imply that our free will was also an illusion. I would respond by arguing that in this spiritual perspective, the apparent will of the individual is actually the will of God, under disguise and suffering amnesia. Due to its forgetfulness of its true nature as Spirit, it experiences human will rather than Divine will. Nevertheless, it is still will. One could therefore argue that to deny human free will would be to deny Divine will, and therefore to limit the Divine and consider it finite.
Ultimately though, these are merely intellectual speculations. Mind games. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that we experience ourselves largely as individuated beings. Hence, unless you are experiencing the full, classical conception of enlightenment continuously (permanent union with the Divine, complete non-duality), then you are experiencing reality as bound by time and space, and also experiencing yourself as an individuated being possessing free will. How many people on the planet can truthfully claim that they are fully enlightened in the classical sense[xxiv]?
I believe we should live as if we have free will, until or unless we reach a permanent state in which we know ourselves to be extensions of the Divine, at which point such conversations are irrelevant. The evidence of one who is living without ego should be that they live a life of wisdom and compassion. Likewise, we should encourage others to live as if they have free will, until they too know themselves to be extensions of the Divine. We should treat others and ourselves as if we are morally responsible for our actions. Again, the evidence of one living without ego is that they do not do harm to others (though some may still take offence at them or may fail to recognise them due to their cynicism, ignorance and arrogance).
Mooji has repeatedly stated that no free will is not a good teaching, only a good discovery. I feel that is a sensible approach to spiritual nullifications of free will. I have attended satsang with a modern Advaita teacher that was reputed to be enlightened (along with a number of his students), where no free will was emphasised as a main teaching. Whilst I felt some Presence in the meetings and felt that those present (including the teacher himself) were lovely people, I didn’t feel that they were enlightened. I personally felt the teaching of no free will to be counterproductive, and I didn’t feel that anyone present was able to understand the implications of what they were teaching.
Moral responsibility:
I would hope that it goes without saying that this is a very troubling idea. Certainly I have long been arguing that we should show compassion to absolutely everyone, including those that mistreat others and even those that commit crimes against others. However, I have also always argued that compassion should not necessarily override justice. That is, we can forgive someone in our hearts and show them kindness as human beings, and yet still demand that justice be served. Grace should not necessarily cancel out the consequences of misdeeds.
To believe that others have no power to change their behaviour is to do them a great disservice. How many people have reformed their behaviour and credited a large part of it to the insistence of someone who simply wouldn’t give up on them? It is common that when you try and help someone with major behavioural problems they will lash out at you in their defensiveness. However, if you finally get through to them they sometimes finally realise what a great service you did for them. It is unfortunately par for the course that if you have a heart to help others you have to be able to not take it personally when they react defensively against you. However, it is all worthwhile when you see someone turn their life around.
I truly believe that quite literally everyone has the capacity to change any and all of their behaviours, though very few realise a fraction of that potential within the current earthly life. Whilst it certainly seems likely to me that our human conception of free will and individuality are only relatively true, I can see no reason or purpose in rejecting them completely. I can see nothing positive coming out of the total rejection of free will and moral responsibility.
Human beings need to be inspired to believe in our own capacity to change. We need to be reminded of our own potential. Consciousness is by its very nature unlimited. Anyone that takes the time to explore themselves through a genuine spiritual practice can experience this for themselves. Knowing this, we can step back from the conditioned patterns of behaviour that keep us stuck in repetitive cycles. In stepping back we pull the plug out and remove the power source from our ego, taking back our true power. In doing so we realise that we can become anything we truly desire in our heart, as long as that desire doesn’t come from the conditioning itself.
In this process there is a certain experience of surrender to a greater power and intelligence, and a letting go of the sense of individual will. And yet we continue to have the experience of individuation and experience the consequences of our choices.
In summary:
It is clear that reality is far vaster and weirder than what we human beings can currently comprehend. Many of our attempts to define ourselves and life as a whole massively oversimplify the complexities that are inherent in the cosmos. There is room for us to approach some areas of life with simplicity, and in other ways recognise the incomprehensible complexity of creation.
Human beings should live as if we have free will, as if we are empowered and inspired to create positive change and growth, and as if we are morally responsible for our actions. However, we should also recognise that our sense of personal doership is only a relative truth, something that appears to be so, and is useful (or even essential), even if it is not absolutely true. There is much evidence of a deeper order to reality that defies human conceptions of time, space and individuality.
In playing our part and accepting personal responsibility and empowerment with humility, we can align ourselves with a greater power, a greater intelligence and a greater love. In this way we have the potential to rise above both the unconscious unity with nature of the animals and the conscious division with nature of current human consciousness, and evolve into conscious unity with life as a whole.
If you feel that what is written here is of value in any way, please consider liking, subscribing, commenting and/or sharing.
May all beings be empowered and live in peace.
[i] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/to-see-the-big-picture-you-have-to-be-able-to-consider-the-validity-of-many-different-perspectives/
[ii] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/28/my-thoughts-regarding-the-scandalous-revelations-about-ravi-zacharias/
[iii] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/science-philosophy-and-the-supernatural-101/
[iv] There are many people that argue simply for physical, upward causation only. I have heard people argue that as (they believe that) consciousness is epiphenomena of matter, all perceived activity of consciousness is in truth actually the activity of matter. That is, if you believe that physical processes are the cause of the mental experience of making decisions, then ultimately there is no difference between upward and downward causation, as they are all then upward (from matter).
I obviously don’t have the time and space here to do this topic justice, but obviously we should not allow presumptions to pass as facts. Otherwise this would simply be circular reasoning. You can’t assume materialism in order to make an argument for materialism. You can however suggest natural explanations for evidence that may go against materialism (though one would have to accept the speculative nature of such a line of reasoning).
The opposite however can also be reasoned. That is, one can also argue that as there is only consciousness, all causation is downward. There is no physical activity in which consciousness isn’t present, otherwise it wouldn’t be known in any way, and thus could not be discussed. Assuming that matter is an appearance, experience or epiphenomena within consciousness, thus all material causation is only ever truly downward causation. Again though, the same rules apply. We should not use circular reasoning, regardless of where we sit on these issues.
[v] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#Int
[vi] Many people believe in spiritual and/or paranormal phenomena and do not subscribe to the belief in a Supreme Being. Likewise, many simply do not like their belief in the nature of Reality being confused with personal conceptions of God as found in theistic religions such as orthodox Christianity.
[vii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential
[viii] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-a-flawed-experiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/ and:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/.
[ix] My initial response to my first encounter of this case against free will was to argue along the same grounds, well before I had read Steve Taylor’s article. I will cover this shortly.
[x] I will point out here that there are different opinions as to whether drug induced states are equal or inferior to altered states of consciousness achieved through other spiritual practices. I will give my own thoughts on this subject in an upcoming article.
[xi] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/how-do-we-really-know-what-is-true/
[xii] The only exception was during the 5-6 years (’99-‘05) in which I was smoking marijuana every day. When I stopped, my (recollection of) dreaming returned. It was actually quite surprising to me when I first heard in adult life that some people do not remember their dreams. I actually have a friend who has absolutely zero recollection of his dreams, to the point that he doesn’t have any familiarity with the experience at all. This was quite shocking to me that my own personal night-time experiences were absolutely foreign to him.
[xiii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taittiriya_Upanishad#Ananda_Valli. Also, see the excellent explanation of the five koshas at the following link: https://yogainternational.com/article/view/the-koshas-5-layers-of-being.
[xiv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson#Free_will
[xv] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/trauma-suffering-conditioning-and-the-ego/ for one example.
[xvi] Though there are some that believe that without salvation there is no afterlife in any form (hence extinguishment).
[xvii] Just to be clear, there are other alternatives other than the simple (and potentially disturbing) belief that those born into difficult circumstances in this life are suffering the consequences of past mistakes, and that those that are blessed in this life are reaping the rewards of past good deeds.
[xviii] Again, see the following article (which I have now referenced twice here): https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/trauma-suffering-conditioning-and-the-ego/
[xix] Please note that I have deliberately written, “they perceive have done them wrong”, rather than just “have done them wrong”. There is obviously no question there are many people that cause harm to others. However, there are also some people who are so caught up in their heads that they cannot see that they are the one creating suffering for everyone (including themselves).
[xx] I obviously do not have the time here to cover this in detail. I have hinted on this before in some previous articles and written on it in length in my upcoming book (which has been now overdue for a good 5-10 years). I will publish an article on death in the coming month/s, which will cover this topic in some depth.
[xxi] I should mention that some Christians who believe in full predestination also ascribe to a belief in free will. How on earth they manage to live with this cognitive dissonance is fortunately beyond me.
[xxii] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/faith-and-reason-devotion-and-skepticism-in-spiritual-life/
[xxiii] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/to-see-the-big-picture-you-have-to-be-able-to-consider-the-validity-of-many-different-perspectives/
[xxiv] Please note my deliberate emphasis on the classical definition of enlightenment versus modern conceptions of it. Many people today consider simply being free of uncontrolled mental activity and the turbulent emotions it creates to be enlightenment. This however is simply a significant but early step in the classical conception. I will write on this at some point.
jameshiscoxblogs 