Articles
Is Free Will an Illusion? - 1
The following exchange is an excerpt of an interview between Konstantin Kisin, a Russian-born British podcaster, and Richard Dawkins, the most famous contemporary apologist of naturalism and evolution:
Kisin: Do you believe in free will?
Dawkins: I hate that question. I think I am persuaded by people that I have read that free will is an illusion. But it is a very, very powerful illusion. We all feel as if we’ve got free will.
Kisin: So, you believe that the question I’m asking you now, and the answer you are giving me now, is predetermined?
Dawkins: I’m afraid I do, and I find that very hard to stomach. But, yes.
Kisin: Well, it is the logical conclusion of your beliefs. Do you believe that for people to have free will is unscientific?
Dawkins: These are profound, deep waters I am not qualified to wade in.
Kisin: If we don’t have free will … when I go home today to my two year old toddler, why would I reward or not reward certain behavior if she has no choice?
Dawkins: I think you’d have to talk to a philosopher about that. I share your puzzlement about this whole matter.
I find several things interesting about this conversation. First, I find it puzzling that a man of Richard Dawkins’ stature is completely unable to elaborate on the implications of his naturalist philosophy. When Konstantin Kisin pushes back, Dawkins retreats behind a façade of humility and deference. And in the video Kisin mildly chided him for not answering his question.
Secondly, as Kisin notes, this idea flies in the face of common sense and everyday behavior. Indeed, if human beings are merely the biological machines that nature and nurture have made us, if we do not have a “mind” (spirit) but merely respond chemically and neurologically to environmental and biological stimuli, why should we punish criminals, fire employees, flunk students, sue for damages, complain when the neighbor’s dog fouls our lawn, pass legislation against drug abuse or child trafficking, etc.?
Third, Dawkins is obviously uncomfortable about the moral implications of his naturalistic philosophy. He knows that Kisin is formulating questions from his mind, that he can choose to ask one question instead of another. And Dawkins himself deliberates over his own answers, choosing his words carefully and omitting others he feels are unwise.
On this issue, as with many others, a Ph.D is not needed in order to arrive at an answer. Philosophical academics can drone on in obscure jargon to explain how humans mindlessly respond to physical stimuli but still need to be held accountable for their actions. But those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture understand that more than mere biology is in play. Man does have a spiritual inner essence; we can understand cause and effect; we do have real volition; we understand that evil exists; we believe that God has expressed His will; and we accept that we are responsible for the choices we make. To believe otherwise is nonsense. Consider these brief points:
1. The free will of the first humans. It is obvious from Gn 1:26-28 that the creation of man gave him elevated status above the animals. He was made in God’s image; he was given dominion over the earth; he was given instruction and purpose. Further, God issued a clear and direct prohibition in addition to the positive statement of purpose and privilege: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’” (Gn 2:16-17). And we know how Adam and Eve fumbled that free will.
2. The free will of the Israelites. When God issued the ten commandments and other statutes and ordinances, the Israelites understood their obligation and voiced their acceptance of the covenant requirements: “‘All the words which the Lord has said we will do.’ And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord … Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has said we will do and be obedient’” (Ex 24:3-4, 7).
Later, as Moses delivers his final words to them before ascending Mt. Nebo to die, he appeals to their free will: “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them … you shall surely perish … I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live …” (Dt 30:15-16, 19).
3. The free will of Jesus. Even considering His redemptive role in the eternal scheme of God, Jesus affirms that He chose to offer Himself as a sacrifice: “I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again … Put your sword in its place … Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? … Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men … He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Jn 10:17-18; Mt 26:52-53; Ph 2:5-8).
We’ll continue this topic next week, but note for now that on almost every page of Scripture men are seen making choices, for good or bad, that are not predetermined by fate, or inherited depravity or by divine fiat. And God declares that He will hold us accountable for our choices. Free will is not an illusion; it is real and we are responsible for how we wield it. This is not merely a philosophical discussion, for “choosing” to believe in determinism has destructive social, moral and spiritual ramifications.
