Is human free will better explained by physical determinism or non-physical soulism?

Materialist and religious views of human nature differ in their interpretation of human nature, and this leads to different views on whether or not free will exists. While the anti-free will argument supports the materialist view of human nature and denies human free will, its critique and philosophical discussion is still an important contribution to exploring the existence and meaning of free will.

 

There are two different views of human nature. According to the religious view of humanity, humans have a non-physical entity, the soul, in addition to a physical entity, the body. The soul is completely distinct from the physical body and is the source of human decisions. The religious view of human beings is a long-standing view held through religious scriptures and philosophical traditions that emphasizes human moral agency and responsibility. It believes that the soul exists after death, and that human moral behavior affects the state of the soul and its subsequent destiny.
On the other hand, according to the materialistic view of humanity, humans are nothing more than physical bodies. There is no soul outside of the physical body; therefore, human decisions are merely neural events in the brain. The materialist view of human beings emerged with the development of modern science, especially neuroscience and psychology. According to this view, all human behavior and decisions can be explained as the result of physical and biological processes. Of these two perspectives, the materialistic view of human beings poses the question: Are humans free to choose, i.e., do they have free will? For example, suppose Guy opens the refrigerator door and sees only strawberry milk and chocolate milk. Can he freely choose between them?
In response to this question, the anti-free will argument concludes that Gu has no free will. First of all, a random choice is either predetermined by previous events or it happens randomly. In this case, randomly means not predetermined. With this premise, the anti-free will argument considers both the predetermination and randomness assumptions. First, let’s assume that a random choice is predetermined by the events that precede it. The anti-free will argument concludes that we don’t have free will in this case. For example, if Guy’s choice of strawberry milk was predetermined before he was even born, it would be hard to believe that he chose it out of free will.
Second, suppose the choice was made at random. The anti-free will argument concludes that we don’t have free will in this case either. For example, if Kwak’s choice of strawberry milk was just a random neural event in his brain, it would be hard to see it as a product of free will. This argument reinforces the materialist view of humanity, which holds that all of our choices and actions are the result of physical processes.
However, there are various criticisms of this argument. One criticism of the anti-free will argument argues that while we should accept the conclusion of the anti-free will argument given its predetermination assumption, we should not accept its conclusion given the randomization assumption. Therefore, we should not accept the conclusion of the anti-free will argument either. The reasons are as follows
For a random choice to be a product of my free will, it must fulfill both of the following conditions. First, I must be the agent of the choice. Second, my choice must not be predetermined by prior events. However, if a choice is pre-determined by prior events, it conflicts with the second condition for free will. So we have to accept the conclusion of the anti-free will argument’s predetermination assumption: we don’t have free will. Of course, it is possible to have free will in a different sense than this. If by “I freely chose” we mean merely desire-fulfilling free will, where I did what I wanted to do, then my choice can be the product of my free will, whether or not it is predetermined by prior events. But this kind of free will is different from the kind of free will that satisfies both of the conditions we have in mind here.
Next, even if a choice is random, I can still be the subject of that choice. According to the materialist view of human beings, “Guy chose strawberry milk” means that “a neural event occurred in Guy’s brain at the time of the choice”. Suppose that these neural events were not predetermined by previous events. Even under this assumption, Guy can be the agent of the choice. This assumption does not change the fact that “he chose strawberry milk” as a neural event in his brain that occurred at the time of choice. In the end, given the random assumptions of the anti-free will argument, the conclusion is untenable.
Furthermore, the question of free will has long been an important topic of philosophical discussion. Various philosophers have explored the relationship between human free will and determinism. Some philosophers have defended free will while trying to explain how it is compatible with physical processes. For example, compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with determinism, meaning that even if human choices are determined by physical laws, they can still be free. Incompatibilists, on the other hand, argue that determinism and free will are incompatible, and that true free will is only possible by denying determinism. These debates play an important role in deepening our understanding of free will and human nature.
These philosophical debates are also relevant to human moral responsibility. If humans have true free will, then they can be morally responsible for their actions. However, from a deterministic point of view, all human actions are determined by previous events, so it may be difficult to hold them morally responsible. In this sense, the discussion of free will is more than just a philosophical curiosity; it is also deeply connected to social and ethical issues.
In conclusion, the two views of human nature – religious and materialistic – have different philosophical presuppositions and, as a result, different understandings of free will. The religious view emphasizes the human soul and moral responsibility, while the materialistic view explains all human behavior in terms of physical processes. Anti-free will arguments support the materialist view of humanity and try to deny human free will, but the various criticisms and philosophical discussions still make important contributions to exploring the existence and meaning of free will.