A while back I finished reading “God’s Crime Scene”, the new book by J. Warner Wallace. I wanted to post something about some studies he mentioned in Chapter 6, on free will. This is one of the places where he found evidence in a surprising area.
Wallace says that free will makes more sense if theism is true, because we have non-material souls that interact with our bodies, but are not causally determined by them. On atheism, only matter exists, and you can’t get free will (or consciousness) from matter. So atheists like Sam Harris and Alex Rosenberg, for example, deny free will, because they are materialists and atheists.
Anyway, here’s what he writes on p. 256:
In 2008, researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of British Columbia conducted experiments highlighting the relationship between a belief in determinism and immoral behavior. They found students who were exposed to deterministic literature prior to taking a test were more likely to cheat on the test than students who were not exposed to literature advocating determinism. The researchers concluded those who deny free will are more inclined to believe their efforts to act morally are futile and are, therefore, less likely to do so.
In addition, a study conducted by researchers from Florida State University and the University of Kentucky found participants who were exposed to deterministic literature were more likely to act aggressively and less likely to be helpful toward others.” Even determinist Michael Gazzaniga conceded: “It seems that not only do we believe we control our actions, but it is good for everyone to believe it.”” The existence of free will is a common characteristic of our experience, and when we deny we have this sort of free agency, there are detrimental consequences.
I decided to look up these studies.
Here’s the abstract for first study: (2008)
Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.
And the abstract for the second study: (2009)
Laypersons’ belief in free will may foster a sense of thoughtful reflection and willingness to exert energy, thereby promoting helpfulness and reducing aggression, and so disbelief in free will may make behavior more reliant on selfish, automatic impulses and therefore less socially desirable. Three studies tested the hypothesis that disbelief in free will would be linked with decreased helping and increased aggression. In Experiment 1, induced disbelief in free will reduced willingness to help others. Experiment 2 showed that chronic disbelief in free will was associated with reduced helping behavior. In Experiment 3, participants induced disbelief in free will caused participants to act more aggressively than others. Although the findings do not speak to the existence of free will, the current results suggest that disbelief in free will reduces helping and increases aggression.
So what to make of this?
If you’re an atheist, then you are a physical object. And like every other physical object in the universe, your behavior is determined by genetic programming (if you’re alive) and external inputs. Material objects do not have the ability to make free choices, including moral choices.
Here’s prominent atheist Jerry Coyne’s editorial in USA Today to explain why atheists can’t ground free will.
And that’s what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.
Atheist William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.
If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible. No free will means no morality. Can you imagine trying to get into any sort of enterprise with someone who has this view of moral choices? A marriage, or a business arrangement, etc? It would be crazy to expect them to behave morally, when they don’t even think that moral choices is possible. It just excuses all sorts of bad behavior, because no one is responsible for choosing to do the right thing.
Believers in materialism are going to struggle with prescriptive morality, including self-sacrificial care and concern for others. Their worldview undermines the rationality of the moral point of view. You might find atheists acting morally for their own purposes, but their worldview doesn’t rationally ground it. This is a big problem for people who can see objective morality woven into the universe – and themselves – because they have the awareness of objective right and wrong.
Choosing to do the right thing
I think what atheists like to say is “I can be moral, too”. That’s not interesting. What is interesting is whether it is rational for you to be moral when doing the right thing sets you back. When I look at the adultery of Dawkins, the polyamory of Carrier, the divorces of Shermer and Atkins, etc. I am not seeing anything that really wows me about their ability to do the right thing when it was hard for them to do it. They all deny free will of course, and think that trying to resist temptation is a waste of time.
Wallace explains how the awareness of free will and moral choices caused him to turn away from atheism, in this blog post.
As an atheist, I chose to cling to naturalism, in spite of the fact that I lived each day as though I was capable of using my mind to make moral choices based on more than my own opinion. In addition, I sought meaning and purpose beyond my own hedonistic preferences, as though meaning was to be discovered, rather than created. I called myself a naturalist while embracing three characteristics of reality that simply cannot be explained by naturalism. As a Christian, I’m now able to acknowledge the “grounding” for these features of reality. My philosophical worldview is consistent with my practical experience of the world.
I think atheists who want to be honest about their own experience of first-person consciousness, free will, moral realism, etc. will do well to just accept that theism rationally grounds all of these things, and so you should accept theism. Theism is real. If you like morality, and want to be a virtuous person, then you should accept theism.
5 thoughts on “Study: belief in free will linked to ability to behave morally and to help others”
I wasn’t going to read this one. I figured the headline was enough, but I gave it a look anyway. I am glad I did. WK’s method of grabbing quotes and sources, and putting things in context, is rewarding. Gave me some thoughts and materials for a thing I’m working on!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for reading, glad you liked it!
I often use the meat machine idea or I will just refer to it as saying an atheist must beleive we are some kind of organic robot that is capable of reproduction with highly advanced programming.
So then all arguements boil down to personal preference like tea VS coffee, even an arguement against murder as found by a serial killer is only changing the state or an organized object. It is little different than whether milk is in a cup or spilled on the floor. Some substance different way or being organized.
And it is why all their moral ideas fail because if anyone rejects that their idea of what is better, they have no creator to or designer to appeal to
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I’ve heard of that study Jerry Coyne was talking about. If I remember right, it was a different study than the Libet experiments, but I’m not sure about that. Anyway, there are a couple of issues with it.
First, from what I remember, it didn’t predict decisions with 100% accuracy. I don’t remember what the success rate is. But that is consistent with libertarian free will since having LFW means you CAN do otherwise, but you can also be influenced by antecedent conditions. So, for example, if you love chocolate cake, and you have LFW, you’ll probably choose it most of the time, but you may not choose it 100% of the time.
Second, we ought to be immediately suspicious because we all know it’s possible to make decisions based on information we receive within seven seconds. For example, if somebody shoved a cookie in front of you, you could decide to take or refuse the cookie in less than seven seconds. That means whatever was happening in your brain prior to the cookie appearing could not have been sufficient to determine your choice.
Third (and this is the biggest problem as I see it), if we take where Jerry Coyne said at face value, and our decisions are determined by non-mental causes up to seven seconds before our action, then that leads to epiphenomenalism. If the “choice” is already made before we’re even consciously aware of it, then our conscious states aren’t really affecting our behavior at all. Rather, the brain gives rise to the conscious states and cause the behavior we think is connected to the conscious states. If epiphenomalism is true, then not even compatibilist free will is possible. And worse than that, if epiphenomenalism is true, it destroys reason and rationality because then the EAAN kicks in.
If you think about it, if epiphenomenalism is true, then we are kind of like philosophical zombies except that we are passively “watching.” We’re like philosophical zombies in the sense that no conscious states have anything to do with our behavior. It’s all just blind mechanistic cause and effect. Everybody else might as well be a philosophical zombie sense their desires, motives, preferences, beliefs, perceptions, etc., have nothing to do with what they are saying and doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
People might be interested in an essay I wrote concerning free will.
LikeLiked by 1 person