What If Science Proves Determinism?

Question:

Dear Dr. Stratton,

John Martin Fischer  has stated that one of the primary reasons that he is a compatibilist is because of what Kevin Timpe calls the “Held Hostage Objection” (HHO). The HHO states that if determinism were to be scientifically proven in some fashion then the compatibilist wouldn’t have to alter their views of moral responsibility or human freedom whereas the incompatibilist would have to make major revisions to their worldview (lest they be inconsistent in their beliefs). In other words, since the incompatibilist holds that freedom and/or responsibility (in a desert sense) is not compatible with determinism, if determinism were scientifically proven then incompatibilists would have to either,

1. Affirm human freedom / moral responsibility granting compatibilism

2. Deny human freedom / moral responsibility granting incompatibilism

3. Be inconsistent

Fischer explains “One of my main motivations for being a compatibilist is that I don’t want our personhood and our moral responsibility, as it were, to hang on a thread, or to be held hostage to the possible scientific discovery that determinism is in fact true.”

What do you think about the HHO and does it play a significant role in this debate?

- Tyler Fowler

Dr. Tim’s Response

Thank you for the question, Tyler! Here is the short answer: No, the Held Hostage Objection does not play a significant role in the debate. In fact, in my opinion, it's an absurd "reason" to be a compatibilist. 

For the longer answer, I have three points in response.

Point #1: The Wrong Tool

This is a false trilemma. There’s another option at our disposal: Reject the so-called “science” that says determinism is true!

The primary reason to reject this supposed scientific discovery is because science is the wrong tool for a metaphysical job. This is like asking the following questions (there are such things as unintelligent questions):

“What if science someday proves that abstract objects do not exist?"

“What if science someday proves that angelic beings do not exist?"

“What if science someday proves that God doesn’t exist?"

Why are these unintelligent questions? Because these are metaphysical questions that are outside the purview of scientists scientists. You might as well ask a plumber what he thinks about these metaphysical issues (nothing against plumbers). Science is the study of nature (the physical universe), and thus, a scientist is one who studies nature and the physical universe. Abstracta, angelic beings, and God are not natural or physical kinds of things. We need metaphysics to discover the truth of these important questions. Just as a plumber cannot discover the answer to these questions while working on the pipes under your sink, a scientist is utterly impotent to tell us anything about these metaphysical questions while in the lab. One will not find abstract objects (if they exist or not) in a Petri Dish or find demons (if they exist or not) in the flames of a Bunsen burner.

Similarly, a scientist is impotent to prove determinism is true! Science is the wrong tool for the job. Think of it this way: science is not a prover; it's a pointer. That is to say, science might point one way or another (and it does), but it cannot prove anything regarding this important topic.

William Lane Craig often explains the role of science in the following manner: “scientific data can strengthen premises in philosophical arguments leading to logical conclusions with supernatural significance or theistic implications.” Add metaphysical magnitude to that list. So, if we were to read the headline, “Scientists Prove Determinism” in the New York Times tomorrow morning, we would be justified in treating this as substance-less sensationalism or “fake news.”

Metaphysics is the proper tool for this job -- and metaphysics provides evidence supporting logically deductive conclusions that exhaustive determinism is false. This brings us to my next point.

Point #2: The Right Tool

Consider an extremely powerful metaphysical argument I have advanced in the literature with the help of JP Moreland.

The Free-Thinking Argument Against Naturalism:

1- If robust naturalism is true, God or things like God do not exist.

2- If God or things like God do not exist, humanity does not freely think in the libertarian sense.

3- If humanity does not freely think in the libertarian sense, then humanity is never epistemically responsible.

4- Humanity is occasionally epistemically responsible.

5- Therefore, humanity freely thinks in the libertarian sense.

6- Therefore, God or things like God exist.

7- Therefore, robust naturalism is false.

8- The best explanation of God, things like God, and the libertarian freedom of humanity is the biblical account of reality.

With metaphysics in mind, this version of the Free-Thinking Argument (FTA) provides metaphysical and deductive evidence that a scientist who claims all things about humanity are determined would not know what he is talking about. In fact, the FTA exposes the fact that if determinism is true, then metaphysical beliefs are fully explained by way of non-rational or untrustworthy antecedent conditions. That would include the belief that “libertarian freedom does not exist,” or the belief that “determinism is true.”

Well, if that’s the case, then the beliefs that “libertarian freedom does not exist” and “determinism is true” are non-justified beliefs. Thus, claiming that determinism is true and that humanity does not possess the libertarian freedom to think is ultimately a self-defeating assertion. John Polkinghorn was a theoretical physicist and theologian who realized this metaphysical truth:

“I do believe that, in the end, the denial of human freedom is incoherent, because it destroys rationality. On its own terms, its very utterance, though purporting to be reasoned, is no more than the mouthing of an automaton. Like all extreme critiques born of the hermeneutics of suspicion, it ultimately proves to be suicidal” (Reason and Reality, p. 43).

We can also add the following argument (based upon Victor Reppert's work) to our cumulative metaphysical case:

1- No metaphysical belief is justified if it can be fully explained as the result of non-rational or untrustworthy antecedent conditions.

2- If determinism is true, then all metaphysical beliefs can be fully explained as the result of non-rational or untrustworthy antecedent conditions.

3- Therefore, if determinism is true, then no metaphysical belief is justified.

4- Determinism is a metaphysical belief.

5- Therefore, the belief that determinism is true is not justified.

J.B.S. Haldane, an esteemed British-Indian scientist, wrote the following, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

One would also have no reason to suppose that his mental processes are determined or that science has proven determinism or discovered that no person ever has the libertarian freedom to think. Haldane's point is forceful: If one claims that science has "proven" determinism, then they have also proven that no one does science. This is ultimately a self-defeating move.

On a related note, with Haldane’s words in mind, consider the same line of reasoning but applied to exhaustive divine determinism (EDD):

If my mental processes which form my theological beliefs are determined wholly by a deity of deception (even if the deity has morally sufficient reasons to deceive all humanity), I have no reason to suppose my theological beliefs are true . . . and hence, I have no reason for supposing my mental processes are determined by such a deity.If my mental processes which form my theological beliefs are determined wholly by a deity of deception (even if the deity has morally sufficient reasons to deceive all humanity), I have no reason to suppose my theological beliefs are true . . . and hence, I have no reason for supposing my mental processes are determined by such a deity.

Reppert has noted that “If the truth of one’s belief makes it unjustified, this surely would make the belief a prime candidate for rejection.” As these arguments demonstrate, if determinism is true, then the belief that antecedent conditions determine all things is not justified. Thus, a rational and reasonable person ought to reject it -- even if determinism is affirmed on the front page of the New York Times! 

Point #3: Science Opposes Determinism

If Fischer and other compatibilists are so concerned with what scientists think about this topic, then they should reject determinism. A seeming majority of scientists today affirm the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. If the quantum realm is not deterministic, then exhaustive determinism – including EDD – is false.

If these actual scientists are not enough to persuade the determinist to give up his exhaustive divine determinism, then why should a possible New York Times headline be enough to convince anyone else otherwise?

Now, many have appealed to Libet’s Experiments to suggest that humanity does not possess libertarian freedom (even if the quantum realm is indeterministic), but this flies in the face of further discoveries. Libet experiments are focused upon quick reactive choices, but they do not touch important choices. This is especially when it comes to thinking things through over the course of a long period of time -- rational deliberation -- to eventually infer the best metaphysical or theological inference after examining all the data. That, I have argued, requires libertarian free-thinking.  

Conclusion

So, in summary, my response to the hostage crisis is threefold:

• Science is the wrong tool for the job.

• The Free-Thinking Argument and the Arguments from Reason provide reasons to reject potential ignorant claims of scientists.

• If one is still committed to using the “wrong tool,” science still stands against exhaustive determinism.

Bottom line: I’m not worried about the possibility of scientists proclaiming that they have proven determinism is true. If this unlikely event happens in the future, we can offer the Free-Thinking Argument (and other metaphysical arguments) in response demonstrating that "the science" is wrong. But, with that said, the truth of the matter is that scientists seem to be demonstrating that determinism is false – especially when it comes to quantum mechanics and human deliberation over periods of time regarding important topics. So much for determinism, EDD-Calvinism, and this so-called “reason” to be a compatibilist.

Speaking of reason . . .

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

Tyler Fowler is one of the hosts of a great up-and-coming theological YouTube channel called Faith Unaltered. I highly suggest subscribing and ringing that bell! 

J.P. Moreland and I believe this is one of the most powerful metaphysical arguments in the arsenal of the Christian apologist because it not only deductively concludes that humanity possesses the libertarian freedom to think, but also concludes that robust naturalism is false by showing that God or things like God (or both) exist. Moreover, we take it a step further and provide an abductive conclusion stating that the best explanation of God, things like God (such as souls), and human libertarian freedom is the biblical account of reality. Not many arguments can unlock so many metaphysical doors to ultimate reality.

C.S. Lewis, Miracles, p.15. Lewis quoted from J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (1927, reprint, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001).

Reppert, C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, pg. 55

Physicist David Newquist (in a personal conversation) admitted that “Physicists are still arguing about what quantum mechanics means. Indeterminacy is such a basic part of it, I don’t think it can be referred to as just a possibility. It is so basic that it would be a challenge to point to any one reference on the subject.” Polkinghorne (Quantum Physics, 94) seems to agree and put it this way: “For two centuries, Isaac Newton’s mathematization of physical thinking, expressed in equations whose solutions are uniquely determined by the specification of appropriate initial conditions, had suggested to many people the picture of a clockwork universe of tightly determined process. However, twentieth century physics saw the death of this kind of merely mechanical view of the world, a consequence brought about by the discovery of intrinsic unpredictabilities present in nature, first at the level of atomic phenomenon (quantum theory).”

Additionally, Johanan Raatz (who has degrees in both physics and philosophy) recently said the following: "Molinism is an automatic consequence of the reality of quantum computation and the limitations imposed on how theism can be true by the universal wave function's (UWF) eternality (literal time independence). Meaning if Calvinism is to be true, then it must somehow also be compatible with Molinism. If a quantum computing UWF is not God or God's mind, then atheism is the only other option the physics allows for." Bottom line: based upon the scientific data, if Christianity is true (which it is), then Molinism is true, determinism is false, and humans possess libertarian freedom.

 Denyse O'Leary, Finding From Recent Brain Research Supports Free Will, https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/finding-from-recent-brain-research-supports-free-will/?fbclid=IwAR1Qh9IlceIgNstqxvozJrWxLru9eTbEURxB2pluOSrks5ioryW-_FAIDLgchoices.

Follow-up question: "Okay, so, science is the wrong tool for the job, but what if a deity told you determinism is true?" This question is answered in a video entitled:

Free At Last: Choosing to Leave Calvinism

. (It's cued up.)