The Challenge to Free Will: Determinism and Atheism

Atheism, in its various forms, often relies on a scientific worldview that assumes the universe operates according to deterministic laws. However, this raises a fundamental question: Can the concept of free will exist in a universe governed by such laws? In this critique, we’ll examine why atheism’s commitment to determinism undermines the notion of free will, leading to an inherently flawed understanding of human agency and moral responsibility.

The Deterministic Universe

Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens often argue that the universe is governed by natural laws, which are discoverable through scientific inquiry. These laws, in turn, determine the course of events, from the motion of particles to the evolution of life. In this view, everything that occurs is the result of prior causes, leaving no room for chance or randomness.

The Problem of Free Will

However, if the universe operates according to deterministic laws, it’s difficult to see how free will can exist. If every event, including human decisions and actions, is the inevitable outcome of prior causes, then our choices are predetermined. As philosopher Baruch Spinoza famously argued:

“Men believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their volitions and appetites, but are ignorant of the causes by which they are led.” ([1])

In a deterministic universe, human decisions are merely the result of brain chemistry, genetics, environment, and other factors outside our control. This raises several issues:

Lack of Moral Responsibility

If our choices are predetermined, can we be held morally responsible for them? If not, then concepts like praise, blame, reward, and punishment become meaningless.

Illusion of Choice

If every decision is the inevitable outcome of prior causes, do we really have a choice in the matter? Or is it just an illusion created by our ignorance of the underlying deterministic processes?

Atheist Attempts to Salvage Free Will

Some atheists attempt to reconcile free will with determinism by proposing various solutions:

Compatibilism

Philosophers like Daniel Dennett argue that free will is compatible with determinism. They claim that even if our choices are influenced by prior causes, we still make decisions based on our own desires and values. However, this approach fails to address the fundamental issue: If our desires and values are themselves determined by prior causes, do we truly have control over them?

Libertarian Free Will

Others, like Robert Kane, propose a libertarian view of free will, which posits that human decisions are not entirely determined by prior causes. Instead, they involve an element of indeterminacy or randomness. However, this approach raises questions about the role of chance in decision-making and whether such randomness can truly be considered “free” will.

The Incoherence of Atheist Accounts

Atheist attempts to salvage free will within a deterministic framework ultimately fail because they:

Conflate Causal Determinism with Moral Responsibility

Atheists often confuse the causal chain of events with moral responsibility. They argue that because we make decisions based on our own desires and values, we are morally responsible for them. However, this ignores the fact that those desires and values may themselves be determined by prior causes.

Rely on Unproven Assumptions

Atheist accounts of free will often rely on unproven assumptions about the nature of consciousness, the human brain, or the role of chance in decision-making.

Conclusion: The Inherent Flaw in Atheism

The concept of free will is fundamental to our understanding of human agency and moral responsibility. However, atheism’s commitment to determinism undermines this concept, leading to an inherently flawed worldview. By neglecting the implications of determinism on free will, atheists fail to provide a coherent explanation for human decision-making and moral accountability.

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga notes:

“If naturalism is true, then it is unlikely that our cognitive faculties are reliable; but if our cognitive faculties are unreliable, then we have no reason to think that naturalism is true.” ([2])

In conclusion, the challenge to free will posed by determinism reveals a deeper issue with atheism: its inability to provide a logically consistent and coherent explanation of reality.

References

[1] Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethics. Part I, Proposition 32.

[2] Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.