Download Does Modern Science debunk Free Will?

Does Modern Science debunk Free Will?
Modern science and particularly neuroimaging are uncovering many of the mysteries of the centuries
old mind-body problem. Not only is science now attempting to bridge the gap between the mind
and body some scientists are going so far as arguing that the mind is a mere illusion created by the
brain. In order to demolish the mind (and therefore by extension the self) their primary target is free
will. Because it is precisely during the exercise of free will and resulting action that the mind and
body interact.
Free will essential for Islam.
Several recent studies are cited as evidence for their assertion.
In 1992 Benjamin Libet of the University of California conducted a famous experiment regarding
the brain and free will. He demonstrated that certain sections of the brain are activated even before
an individual is aware of a particular decision to move a body part. He measured activation of the
cerebral cortex (the peripharal part of the brain involoved in higher level decision making) utilizing
electroencephalography (EEG). The subjects were requested to move a limb and then Libet
measured the sequence of events within the brain as this happened. He noted that certain parts of
the cerebral cortex necessary for the movement of a particular limb were activated 300 milliseconds
prior to the individual's consious decision to move that limb.
Recent studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have confirmed this findings.
fMRI measures activation of brain regions based upon the imaging characteristics of oxygen uptake
within brain cells. Oxford researchers have shown, similar to Libet, that there is gap of about 200 ms
between cerebral activity and the consious awareness of that decision. These studies conclude that
what we think of as a free voluntary act often begins as an unconsious decision. However, the
individual does have a few milliseconds to veto this decision and chose another course of action.
More recently scientists have moved from predicting actions to predicting brain states using fMRI.
Scientists in Berlin, Germany instructed subjects that two numbers will be flashed before them and
they are to decide weather to add or subtract them. While in the decision making process their
brains were scanned and particular patterns of activation were detected by which scientists could
successfully predict weather the subject would add or subtract.
A recent study by researchers at Duke University demonstrated that scientists could predict the
altruistic nature of individuals based upon fMRI studies. While being scanned subjects played or
watched a computer game in which they could either win money for themselves or a charity. The
subjects later took a written survey regarding their tendency towards altruistic behavior. Scientists
found that increased activity in the posterior superior temporal cortex strongly predicted a person's
likelihood for altruistic behavior.
Prior to fMRI many imaging studies had been performed utilizing positron emission tomography
(PET) to identify various parts of the brain involved in different emotions and activities. Patients
undergoing PET exams recieve a dose of a radiotracer linked to the glucose molecule. Scanners can
then detect the parts of the brain more metabolically active by their degree of glucose uptake. Hence
scientists now know the function of several parts of the brain.
Certain scientists and thinkers are using studies like the ones mentioned above as evidence that there
is really nothing more to us than the material that makes up our brain. Free choice does not really
exist. Decisions are predetermined by the brain and furthermore we may well be able to predict
those decisions based upon advanced brain imaging. Hence, these scientists are attempting to rob us
of our sense of ourselves and our individuality.
Does the Attack on Free Will really work?
It is interesting to note that these conclusions are not drawn by the authors of any one of the above
mentioned studies, rather by other individuals attemptng to use these studies for their own agenda.
The reason is that none of these studies in reality refute free will at all. The fact that the brain is
prepared to act in a certain way before one consiously approves that decision as demonstrated Libet
is not surprising. These unconsious decisions are based upon previous consious behavior as
demonstrated by other animal experiments. A seasoned tennis player may not need to consiously
plan out his next stroke, it may come naturally, without him or her having to meticulasly plan each
hand and body movement. This does not take away his or her free will only reflects the training of
the brain over time.
This similar principle can be applied to the decisions to add or subtract and the prediction of
altruism. These brain states may infact be due to years of prior training. The evidence is simply
inconclusive to make any serious arguments refuting free will strictly based upon these studies. In
fact, Islam encourages the individual to train oneself via internal discipline so that good actions flow
naturally. Years of spiritual training may in fact result in altruistic brain states, which cannot be
adequately quantified on a single static examination.
Furthermore, the fact that brain state may differ from person to person should not be surprising.
Each human being is born with certain innate physical and mental qualities and these may well differ
from person to person. Excluding extreme disease states, this difference does not imply that
shortcomings in certain areas cannot be over come via presicly this internal struggle. It is precisly
this internal struggle against the nafs that forms the basis of the Islamic discipline of tasawuf.
Therefore to imply somehow that mental states like altruism are hardwired (i.e. some have it, others
dont) would be a gross over simplification.
Attack not New
This idea of using reason and science to undermine the self and free will is not new. Scientific
history has numerous examples of attempts to use science to disprove the self and free will. In the
world of physics the Newtonian world view of one event causing another event combined with the
big bang theory gave rise to the idea that all events are predetermined by prior events therefore there
cannot really be any free will. Even Einstien rejected the idea of free will, although it seems for
mostly social reasons. The subsequent discovery of quantum indeterminancy reduced the
effectiveness of this argument. In biology the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution essentially
undermines free will as understood by Darwin himself and argued by the philosopher David
Dennett. More recently the discovery of genes and genetics predicting human behavior had a similar
effect. Francis Crick, discoverer of the DNA, argues against free will in his book.
The Problem
There is a fundamental problem with these supposed scientific endaveours to disprove free will. The
attack on free will, is really an attack on the individual, "the self." Free will is an attribute of that self.
Our notion of ourselves is based upon the famous thought experiment of Descartes, and AlGhazzali, before him that "I think therefore I am." By stating this, Descartes and Ghazzali affirmed
the existence of the individual person (self, nafs, soul or mind) which is independent of the physical
world. Our mental existence is metaphysical. Our thoughts and emotions cannot be physically
located or measured. This separation of the mental from the physical is known as Cartesian Dualism.
The problem is that science which is based upon empirical evidence cannot study those things which
do not have a physical existence. If something cannot be subject to reproducible experiments then it
must not exist. As Malaysian Scholar Naquib Al-Attas writes, "A gist of their basic assumptions is
that science is the sole authentic knowledge; that this knowledge pertains only to phenomena."
Therefore, despite the fact that we have the very real sense of our self and free will, this must be an
illusion. In fact, science has no access to metaphysical knowledge, since it has no method to study it.
The tremendous success of science and technology in the recent past has resulted in the popular
false perception that not only is modern science is the pathway to truth it is the only such path.
However, science itself makes no such claims. Science only models the universe, and this model
changes over time as paradigm shifts occur in the way scientists view the universe. Syed Hossain
Nasr writes,
The historians and philosophers of science in the last twenty [or] thirty years have shown beyond the
scepter of doubt that modern science has its own world view. It is not at all value free; nor is it a
purely objective science of reality irrespective of the subject you study.
Therefore, we should be very careful to extrapolate conclusions from modern science which do not
necessarily follow from the actual data.
Islamic Thought and Free Will
This kind of extreme rationalism is not new to Islam. Within Islamic history the rationalistic
methods of the neoplatonic philosophers led them to similar conclusions. They rationalized the
existence of God, as the first cause, on the basis of reason. This led some of them, like Ibn Rushd,
to reject free will. He writes,
Our actions occur according to a definite pattern… The determinate order of the internal and
external causes is the decree and foreordination that God has prescribed for His creatures; that is the
Preserved Tablet.
The reason the neoplatonic philosophers were led to this conclusion is that, if everything has a
cause, and God is the first cause, then everything else must necessarily flow from that first cause
resulting in a determined universe. In response to the Neoplatonic philosophers, Al-Ghazzali,
demonstrated that necessary causation was a flawed doctrine, as Hume did many centuries later. He
argued that cause and affect relationship cannot be proved, only a temporal succession of events is
seen. In Hume’s words there is no "causal glue" linking cause to affect.
Ghazali gives us an example. When a piece of cotton is brought near a flame, the cotton burns. In
fact, whenever any similar piece of cotton is brought sufficiently close to a similar flame, it also
burns. So there appears to be a causal link between the flame and the burning of the cotton. That is,
we would be inclined to say, the flame caused the cotton to burn. Furthermore, we think that this
link is necessary, i.e. it must always happens. However, we really have reason to think so. All we
observed was a quick succession of events.
He gives another an example of a blind man, who is unable to open his eyes. One day through a
miraculous event he is able to open his eyelids and see the world. In his joy he attributes his ability
to see to the opening of his eyelids. (He thinks opening of the eyelids causes him to see). But he fails
to realize that it is not the eyelids but rather the rays of light refracting into his eyes that give him the
ability to see. The blind man mistakes this association of events for causation. Therefore we should
be conzigent of hte fact that a close association of events does not imply necessary causation.
He furthermore showed that necessary causation resulted in denying God freedom of will. If
everything necessarily following from previous events, then God would not be able to interfere with
the workings of the Universe. For example, miracles would then be impossible. Therefore, for AlGhazzali, the laws of causation were not necessarily true and could be suspended by God at any
given time. The primary purpose of Ghazzali's argumentation during his time was to ensure God's
freedom of will. His position on human free will was perhaps intentionally ambigious secondary to
the theological debates of the time. Professor Druart writes, "Wheather or not al-Ghazzali truly
grants some agency to human beings is dubious, but he certainly wishes to grant it fully to God." At
the time the Muslim world was embroiled in the Mutazelite-Asharite debate. The Mutazila argued
that humans created their own actions (thus had free will), whereas Ashari's took objection to this
terminology stating only God has the power of creation. The long term consequences of the
Asharite triumph over the Mutazila resulted in little emphasis being placed on free will in subsequent
Islamic thought. This is unfortunate because the real purpose of the Asharite objection was not to
deny human free will, rather it to reaffirm God's omnipotence. Additional political factors such as
the interests of ruling parties and political uncertainties may have further helped foster an
atmosphere of reliance on divine decree at the expense of human free will.
Iqbal, Khudi and Free Will
The combined affect, according to Iqbal, was a weakening of "the Self" (Khudi) in popular Muslim
culture. While emphasizing the Divine, Muslims lost track of their own God given free will.
The importance of the individual is reflected in the term used by Allah for its emergence. In Quranic
terms the emergence of ‘the self’ is an act of Allah’s Amr, which is distinct from the rest of creation
for which the word khalq is used. The bringing into being of the human person is a unique gift to
mankind. Iqbal boldly writes, "The ego shares in the life and freedom of the Ultimate Ego who, by
permitting the emergence of a finite ego, capable of private initiative, has limited this freedom of His
own free will."
Drawing inspiration from the higher sufism of Ibn Arabi and Jalalludin Rumi, for Iqbal, the ultimate
aim for a human is to become a vicegerent of God on Earth. This ideal was most beautifully
demonstrated by the holy Prophet (pbuh) of Islam. It is not achieved by abandoning the world but
rather it is via the exercise of free will in the physical world, that one can develop the "self." Exercise
of free will, according to Iqbal is an absolutely essential part of human existence and Islam. The ego
is responsible and completely free to act on its own as evidenced by the following verses:
And say: The truth is from your Lord: Let him, then, who will, believe: and let him who will, be an
unbeliever’ (Quran 18:29).
If ye do well to your own behalf will ye do well: and if ye do evil against yourselves will ye do it
(Quran 17:7).
Furthermore, Iqbal refuses to believe that "the pen has dried up" ‘which means that nothing once
decreed and written on the Well preserved Tablet can ever be changed.’ The possibility of change of
destiny is present in the Quran, "Verily God does not change the destiny of a people until they
change themselves." (Quran 13:12) Iqbal, in his poetical work Zarb-e-Kaleem writes,
Thou write thy own writing with thy own pen,
The Divine Pen has left blank thy forehead
This is the road map Iqbal lays out for an Islamic renaissance.
European Rennaisance and Humanism
Ironically the renaisance of europe was also based prisicely upon human free will. The realization
that individuals could pursue their interests, express their talents and via exercie of free will challege
authority. This is humanism. This power of the individual is symbolized by the oversized statue of
David in florence. It is this spirit that led to the great scientific, military and industrial achievements
of Europe. It fostered the great European philosophers, thinkers and scientists. This humanism has
played a large role in the success of the West in general. However, now the West's own thinkers are
attempting to undermine their success by aruing that the self and free will is just an illusion. We are
nothing but our bodies and furthermore we do not even possess the power to make decisions.
Decisions are also made by the body (or brain) which also creates for us the illusion that we exist.
Human creativity and ingenuity may fall victim to this sort of scientific fundamentalism being
propagated by certain thinkers.