Robert Sapolsky is a hard determinist. He believes that free will does not exist; it is only an illusion. He is not alone. There are a lot of hard determinists.
Hard determinists believe in pure determinism (which is just a repackaging of the old predestination belief), that is, all events are determined by prior states of reality: brain chemistry, genetics, history, environment.
And it is very hard to argue with. Hard determinists tend to win debates about free will, as their arguments are steeped in neuroscience — as long as denial of the existence of a loving God is maintained.
They will argue that all events result from a causal chain and that all I am doing by offering the concept of the upstream moment is pushing the point of predetermination further up the chain.
I would not win a debate with Robert Sapolsky. The problem is, as the point of determination gets pushed up the chain, it can only be pushed so far before you have to accept that we don’t know the exact mechanism of free will and that it is a miracle from God that defies explanation, the same as the hard problem of consciousness itself.
At that point we no longer are on the same planet and it is impossible to scientifically prove the existence of a miracle.
To clarify, Sapolsky believes as follows: There is no free will whatsoever. Every thought, emotion, decision, and action is the inevitable product of an unbroken causal chain stretching back through genetics, prenatal conditions, early childhood experiences, cultural influences, hormones, brain chemistry, and immediate environmental factors. In his view, the powerful feeling that “I” am choosing is simply an illusion generated by a brain that evolved to experience itself as the author of its actions. Because no one could ever have done otherwise, genuine moral agency does not exist. Praise and blame, guilt and pride, credit and punishment are all based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human behavior. We are, at bottom, extraordinarily complex biological machines whose every move is determined by forces outside our control.
In other words, if I murder someone our of jealousy, I am not morally responsible for that because I had no other choice. My neurons fired in a predetermined way and there was nothing I could do about it.
I think that reasoning is wrong and dangerous.
Here is the existential cost:
- No real moral responsibility → praise and blame become illusions.
- Love becomes sophisticated chemistry.
- Meaning, purpose, and human dignity are reduced to comforting fictions.
- Even Sapolsky himself struggles to live consistently with his own view.
Let’s compare that to what happens when you allow the possibility of a loving God creating mankind.
One of the gifts, the miracles that God has given us, is agency or free will. We have control, by conscious thought, over what action we will take. We are morally responsible for our decisions.
Now, when we say, “I love you,” it means something.
Now we have a purpose, and our lives have meaning.
And, as discussed in a previous essay, if we are created by a loving God, he absolutely would have given us purpose and meaning, thus free will.
Which worldview better matches the depth of human experience?
Just because we can’t pinpoint the exact scientific, material mechanism that allows free will to work does not mean it doesn’t exist.