Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Free will is a very important and ubiquitous debate in modern philosophy, which ultimately has a great relevance to theology. A recent survey of academic philosophers in USA and Canada revealed demographic information about their positions on Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarian free will 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

To appreciate this article one needs to Google and understand the terms, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism.

Only a small proportion of philosophers, which is 13.7% believe in real free will, which is absolutely necessary for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There cannot be accountability or Afterlife without free will. Majority of the philosophers almost 86% deny libertarian free will to somehow hold their central tenet of determinism, which is their fundamental belief to reject God and affirm their hyperbolic belief in science and the scientific method.

Peter van Inwagen, a prominent philosopher, has significantly contributed to the discourse on free will, particularly through his defense of incompatibilism—the view that free will and determinism cannot coexist. Central to his argument is the Consequence Argument, which asserts that if determinism is true, individuals lack control over their actions, thereby negating free will.

It is narrated that someone asked Hazrat Ali, the fourth Caliph of early Islam, “O Imam which of my actions are freewill and which are predestined?” To which Imam replied, “Lift your right leg” the man did it and then he was told “that is freewill.” Then the Imam said to “lift the other as well.” which obviously the man could not.

The modern rendering of this we get from van Inwagen. He says:

There are certain facts that no human can do anything about — and no human being in history could ever have done anything about. Among these are the fact that the earth is round, the fact that the magnets attract iron, the fact that there were once dinosaurs, and the fact that 317 is a prime number.

These he calls untouchable facts. The untouchable facts are part of predestination or determined in the modern lingo. If freewill exists then there are some touchable facts.

A recent survey of academic philosophers in USA and Canada revealed about their belief in freewill the following demographic information: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

Only a small proportion of philosophers, which is 13.7% believe in real freewill, which is absolutely necessary for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There cannot be an accountability or Afterlife without freewill.

The divergent positions of philosophers and their discussions and debates only help to sow doubt in the minds of young believers in colleges and universities. This only helps the cause of lack of belief.

The Consequence Argument of Peter van Inwagen

Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument can be summarized as follows:

1. No Control Over Past and Laws of Nature: Individuals have no power over past events and the laws governing nature.
2. Determinism’s Implication: If determinism holds, every action is a necessary outcome of these past events and natural laws.
3. Lack of Control Over Actions: Consequently, individuals have no control over their current actions, as they are predetermined by factors beyond their influence.

In his work An Essay on Free Will, van Inwagen articulates:

“If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequence of laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it’s not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us.”

This argument challenges compatibilism, which posits that free will can exist alongside determinism. By emphasizing the lack of control over antecedent conditions and natural laws, van Inwagen contends that true free will is incompatible with a deterministic framework.

Rule Beta and Its Role

A pivotal component of the Consequence Argument is Rule Beta, an inference principle stating:

• If a person has no control over proposition p, and no control over the fact that p implies q, then the person has no control over q.

This rule underpins the logical structure of the Consequence Argument, reinforcing the idea that lack of control over initial conditions and deterministic laws extends to lack of control over resultant actions.

Critiques and Responses

The Consequence Argument has faced various critiques, particularly concerning the validity of Rule Beta. Some philosophers argue that the rule may not hold in all contexts, potentially undermining the argument’s foundation. In response, van Inwagen and supporters have offered clarifications and defenses to uphold the argument’s integrity.

Conclusion

Peter van Inwagen’s defense of incompatibilism, epitomized by the Consequence Argument, presents a compelling case against the coexistence of free will and determinism. By highlighting the implications of determinism on human agency, van Inwagen’s work continues to be a central reference in philosophical debates on free will.

To actually have libertarian free will, incompatibilism is an important station, to snatch the reality from the jaws of determinism, which is strongly held by most agnostic and atheist philosophers.