Epigraph:

And they ask you concerning the soul. Say, ‘The soul (human consciousness and free will) is by the command of my Lord; and of the knowledge thereof you have been given but a little.’ (Al Quran 17:85)

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

If you read this short article in light of the above-quoted verse, I promise new vistas of knowledge will open for you as if you have uttered or chanted a magical wand:

The question of whether human beings possess free will—the ability to make undetermined choices—has long been central to philosophy, theology, and science. While many defend some version of libertarian or compatibilist free will, a growing contingent of thinkers argue that free will is an illusion, shaped by neurobiology, determinism, and illusionary introspection.

This article surveys leading philosophers and scientists who assert that free will is illusory, presents direct quotations, and outlines the implications of their views.

I. Philosophers Denying Free Will

1. Galen Strawson (b. 1952)

Position: Hard determinist / pessimistic incompatibilist

Strawson argues that moral responsibility is incoherent because it requires one to be the ultimate cause of oneself—something he deems logically impossible.

“The truth is plain: you can’t be ultimately morally responsible for your actions. You can’t be ultimately morally responsible for anything.”

— Galen Strawson, “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (1994)

Key Argument: The “basic argument” holds that you would have to be responsible for your character to be responsible for your actions. But you can’t be responsible for your character unless you created yourself, which is impossible.

2. Derk Pereboom (b. 1957)

Position: Hard incompatibilist

Pereboom defends the view that even if determinism is false, free will is still an illusion because indeterminism gives no more control.

“We do not have the kind of free will required for moral responsibility.”

— Derk Pereboom, “Living Without Free Will” (2001)

Key Argument: Pereboom argues that neither determinism nor indeterminism grants us the control over actions that would justify moral blame or praise.

3. Ted Honderich (1933–2021)

Position: Determinist, denier of traditional free will

“Determinism is true, compatibilism is false, and the traditional notion of free will is incoherent.”

— Ted Honderich, “How Free Are You?” (1993)

Key Argument: Honderich calls for replacing free will with a “life-hope determinism,” a view that accepts determinism but seeks a meaningful life without moral responsibility.

II. Scientists Denying Free Will

1. Sam Harris (b. 1967)

Position: Neuroscientific determinist

Harris is perhaps the most prominent public intellectual today who denies free will, grounded in neuroscience and cognitive psychology.

“Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making.”

— Sam Harris, “Free Will” (2012)

“Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do?”

Nevertheless, he insists on all his atheistic views and enters into debates with theists. He used to be one of the four horsemen of neo-atheism. Since the death of Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, we are left with only two Richard Dawkins and him.

Key Argument: For Harris, introspection deceives us into thinking we are the authors of our thoughts. But neuroscience shows that decisions can be detected in the brain before conscious awareness, indicating that consciousness is not initiating will.

2. Benjamin Libet (1916–2007)

Position: Neuroscientist who challenged free will empirically

Libet’s famous experiments in the 1980s showed brain activity (readiness potential) occurring before the conscious intention to act.

“The brain ‘decides’ to initiate or, at the least, prepare to initiate the act before there is any reportable subjective awareness that such a decision has taken place.”

— Benjamin Libet, “Do We Have Free Will?” (1999)

Key Argument: Though Libet allowed for a “veto” power (what he called “free won’t”), his experiments undermined the idea that conscious intention causes action.

3. Robert Sapolsky (b. 1957)

Position: Neurobiologist and determinist

In “Determined” (2023), Sapolsky presents a comprehensive biological case against free will, arguing that all behavior is the product of genetics, hormones, environment, and neurodevelopment.

“We are nothing more or less than the sum of our biology and environment. Free will is a myth we tell ourselves.”

— Robert Sapolsky, “Determined” (2023)

Key Argument: He draws from decades of behavioral science to conclude that human decision-making is entirely mechanistic, embedded in causal chains beyond our control.

4. Steven Pinker (b. 1954)

Position: Compatibilist, but skeptical of libertarian free will

Though Pinker is a compatibilist, he acknowledges the illusionary nature of metaphysical free will.

“There is no ghost in the machine. Our brains are causal engines.”

— Steven Pinker, “The Blank Slate” (2002)

Key Argument: Pinker argues that our brains function according to physical laws, and while we can speak meaningfully of responsibility in a societal context, the inner sense of libertarian free will is a byproduct of evolution and self-modeling.

5. Jerry Coyne (b. 1949)

Position: Evolutionary biologist and determinist

“You can’t will yourself to want what you want or choose what you choose. Free will is a non-starter.”

— Jerry Coyne, “Faith vs. Fact” (2015)

Key Argument: Coyne sees belief in free will as a cognitive illusion that science must overcome to understand human behavior and reform criminal justice systems accordingly.

III. Common Themes Across Disciplines

IV. Implications and Criticisms

Critics argue that denying free will leads to moral nihilism, fatalism, or loss of meaning. Others attempt to reconstruct responsibility in compatibilist frameworks (e.g., Daniel Dennett, Frankfurt).

Yet, the free-will skeptics hold that our societal systems—from criminal justice to ethics—must evolve to reflect the truth of determinism and abandon outdated intuitions about moral deserts and just punishment.

Conclusion

From philosophical argument to neuroscientific evidence, the claim that free will is an illusion has become a serious intellectual position. Whether or not it is ultimately correct, it forces us to ask deeper questions about autonomy, consciousness, and the foundations of morality and justice.

It is in defense of free will that we live every moment of our life, with the help of some compatibilists and free libertarian philosophers, that theists can bring atheist scientists and philosophers back to coherence.

This is a sphere where the Quran outshines other scriptures with an unambiguous claim about the limitation of human knowledge, and all of the philosophical and scientific debates in recent times about consciousness and free will have become an exhibit for the Quranic claim.

Scientific research on consciousness and free will in the last four centuries since the Scientific Revolution can be seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy in the verse quoted as the epigraph above.