{"id":2141,"date":"2011-06-22T08:38:23","date_gmt":"2011-06-22T15:38:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tgdarkly.com\/blog\/?p=2141"},"modified":"2011-06-22T08:38:23","modified_gmt":"2011-06-22T15:38:23","slug":"law-neurobiology-and-the-soul-part-vi-on-free-will","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2011\/06\/22\/law-neurobiology-and-the-soul-part-vi-on-free-will\/","title":{"rendered":"Law, Neurobiology, and the Soul, Part VI: On Free Will"},"content":{"rendered":"

Later this week I\u2019m heading to Poland for the \u201cWhat is Life:\u00a0 Theology, Science, Philosophy<\/a>\u201d conference.\u00a0 It will be a chance to connect with my dissertation adviser, meet some new people, and take in some interesting presentations (and, I hope, enjoy some good Polish food and drink!).\u00a0 I\u2019m presenting a version of my paper Towards a Critical Realist Theology of Law, Neurobiology and the Soul<\/a>.\u00a0 This paper in many ways serves as a sketch of my dissertation project, which I\u2019m sure will change and develop as I proceed.\u00a0 I\u2019ll post portions of it in this series of posts.\u00a0 Below is Part VI, and here are links to Part I<\/a>, Part II<\/a>, Part III<\/a>, Part IV<\/a>, and Part V<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Are Neurobiology and Theology Both Right About Free Will?<\/em><\/p>\n

If the theological category of \u201csin\u201d appears to resonate with neurobiology, only on reflection to exist in some tension with it, the category of \u201cresponsibility\u201d seems in conflict with neurobiological accounts of the will, only on reflection to find more commonality.<\/p>\n

The Christian Tradition\u2019s treatment of \u201cfreedom\u201d and \u201cresponsibility\u201d seems to conflict at a basic level with neurobiology.\u00a0 \u201cResponsibility\u201d in Christian theology is not merely a human construct.\u00a0 Rather, it flows out of our relationship to God as created beings.\u00a0 We are \u201cresponsible\u201d for our actions because we belong to God.\u00a0 God\u2019s law proceeds from God\u2019s transcendent character and will, which does not depend on human social constructs.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Christian moral theology thus emphasizes human responsibility.\u00a0 As Catholic moral theologian William Mattison notes, \u201cMoral theology is all about understanding and evaluating free actions, the things we do intentionally in our quest for happiness in life.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 For Mattison, responsibility and freedom go hand-in-hand: \u00a0\u201cwhen people act freely,\u201d he says, \u201cthey are responsible for their actions, and we may praise or blame them depending on the sorts of actions they perform or the purposes they hold.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 This connection between freely chosen intentionality and moral responsibility seems alien to neurobiology.\u00a0 At least for neurobiological reductionists, intentionality is illusory, a ghost in the machine, and responsibility is a social construct shaped by evolutionary history.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Yet, the Christian tradition\u2019s efforts to grapple with the relationship between \u201cfreedom\u201d and \u201cresponsibility\u201d resonates in many respects with the same dynamic in neurobiology.\u00a0\u00a0 When we dig deeper into the Christian Tradition, we notice that our \u201cfolk\u201d conceptions of \u201cfreedom\u201d and \u201cintention\u201d do not entirely cohere with theological categories.\u00a0 As political scientist Larry Arnhart notes, the notion of “‘free will’ as uncaused cause is a Gnostic idea that treats the human will as an unconditioned, self-determining, transcendental power beyond the natural world . . . .\u00a0 Such a notion contradicts biblical religion, because the only uncaused cause in the Bible is God.”[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

St. Augustine wrestled directly with how the relationship between God\u2019s sovereignty and human freedom impacts our understanding of the purposes of law.\u00a0 In the Book V of the City of God, he summarizes the stoics\u2019 argument against divine foreknowledge:<\/p>\n

If there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen.\u00a0 But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted.\u00a0 In vain are laws enacted.\u00a0 In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.[4]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0Augustine responded to this critique by referring in Aristotelian fashion to the order of causality:\u00a0<\/p>\n

it does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for human wills are also causes of human actions; and He who foreknew all the causes of things would certainly among those causes not have been ignorant of our wills.[5]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0Similarly, in characteristically stark terms, the Reformer Martin Luther stated in On the Bondage of the Will<\/em> that<\/p>\n

This, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know:\u00a0 that God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.\u00a0 By this thunderbolt, \u2018Free-will\u2019 is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces.[6]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0We might change Luther\u2019s first sentence to refer to the brain instead of to God and attribute it to a modern neurobiologist.<\/p>\n

Yet Luther also famously proclaimed that \u201c[a] Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 How did Luther reconcile these notions of predestination and freedom?\u00a0 He refers to spiritual freedom, in contrast to bodily slavery:<\/p>\n

Man is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily.\u00a0 As regards the spiritual nature, which the name the soul, he is called spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh, outward, old man. . . .\u00a0 The result of this diversity is, that in the Scriptures opposing statements are made concerning the same man; the fact being that in the same man these two men are opposed to one another; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.[8]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0True \u201cfreedom\u201d results only in the inward man when a person receives justification by faith in Christ.\u00a0 \u201cFreedom\u201d is not libertarian free will, but rather the uniting of the person\u2019s inward nature with God through faith, which produces the ability to do good works in accordance with God\u2019s will.\u00a0 As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe more one does what is good, the freer one becomes.\u00a0 There is no true freedom except in the service of what is true and just.\u00a0 The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom that leads to the \u2018slavery of sin.\u201d\u00a0 (cf. Romans 6:17 ) .\u00a0 . . . By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom.\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\u201cFreedom,\u201d then, is not libertarian freedom — the freedom to do anything at all — but the increasing flourishing of the human person who pursues the good.\u00a0 Once again, there is consistency here with neurobiology \u2013 we are not \u201cfree\u201d in terms of folk psychology \u2013 but there is divergence in that the Christian concept of \u201cfreedom\u201d seems to\u00a0 require a much richer metaphysic than materialism offers.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> William C. Mattison, III, Introducing Moral Theology:\u00a0 True Happiness and the Virtues (Baker 2008).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> Larry Arnhart, “The Darwinian Moral Sense and Biblical Religion,”<\/em> in Evolution and Ethics, supra <\/em>Note 69.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> City of God, Book V.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> Id.<\/em>\u00a0 He concludes:\u00a0 \u201c[w]herefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed and foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, they are most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge is infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it, and would do it.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, available in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at http:\/\/www.ccel.org\/ccel\/luther\/bondage.titlepage.html?highlight=luther,bondage,of,the,will#highlight.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> Martin Luther, ON the Freedom of a Christian, available in the Modern History Sourcebook at http:\/\/www.fordham.edu\/halsall\/mod\/luther-freedomchristian.html.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/a> Catechism of the Catholic Church, \u00b6\u00b6 1733, 1740, available at http:\/\/www.vatican.va\/archive\/catechism\/ccc_toc.htm (last visited March 12, 2010).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Later this week I\u2019m heading to Poland for the \u201cWhat is Life:\u00a0 Theology, Science, Philosophy\u201d conference.\u00a0 It will be a chance to connect with my dissertation adviser, meet some new people, and take in some interesting presentations (and, I hope, enjoy some good Polish food and drink!).\u00a0 I\u2019m presenting a version of my paper Towards […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[38,50,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religious-legal-theory","category-science-and-religion","category-theology"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p824rZ-yx","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2141\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}